1979-11-05

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Rene Cousineau (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Considering that some municipalities in western Quebec held elections on November 4, 1979; considering that those municipalities are situated within the national capital area, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle):
That the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of other parties send their congratulations to those who were elected and in addition encourage all those municipal councils to continue to co-operate closely with the federal government and its organizations in the best interests of the people.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Charles Lapointe (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion relating to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the unduly long time the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Epp) is taking to give a favourable answer to the request for technical and financial help made by the Attikamek Montagnais council to have successful territorial negotiations with Quebec, and given the fact that the Government of Canada is traditionally the protector of the rights and interests of the native people of Canada, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Hull (Mr. Isabelle):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development immediately inform the House about the new Tory policy on territorial claims.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, the presentation of this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett), I move:
That this House, noting that already in this session fine speeches have been made about the rights of women, but that these speeches have not been followed by the taking of positive steps to establish and protect those rights, calls on the government to take affirmative action to establish equality for women in all phases of our economy, particularly in employment opportunities, access to adequate training and upgrading, equal pay for work of equal value, and equality between men and women in all pension plans.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Monique Begin (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Following the irresponsible statements made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens), who is absent from the House today, and by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) whose priorities are completely mistaken, since we are heading towards the end of the International Year of the Child and since our seven million children who benefit from univer-

November 5, 1979
sal child allowances are our most precious natural resources; given the fact that Canadian mothers whom the Conservatives say they want to support lost 2,000 places in daycare centres last year, and that universal family allowances are the tool of a unique family policy by the federal government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen):
That the House request a vote of confidence against the government for the concerns it has created among Canadian mothers.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the Elouse. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity, under Standing Order 43.
In view of the vital importance of radio operators to air and marine safety in Canada, particularly in the remote parts of the country, and in view of the fact that the transport department has warned pilots that they can no longer rely on navigational aids, and that search and rescue services are reduced, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey):
That the Minister of Transport personally intervene in the negotiations in order to bring this dispute to an immediate and satisfactory conclusion before we arc all party to an accident that is out there looking for a place to happen.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA WORKS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the large number of representations that have been made by rural municipalities and Indian bands protesting the cancellation by the Minister of Employment and Immigra-

tion of the Canada Works program in high unemployment areas of Ontario, and considering the revelations by the minister last week that the funds for this cancelled program will be used for Indo-Chinese refugees, which could result in a backlash against these refugees in the slow-growth areas which have lost this assistance, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid):
That the Minister of Employment and Immigration immediately move to prevent this backlash and meet the needs of the high unemployment areas of Ontario by reinstating the Canada Works program which he cancelled last summer.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the delay of the Unemployment Insurance Commission in ruling on the eligibility for unemployment benefits of the many ex-employees of Bell Canada who have been waiting for more than four months for a decision on their case, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Gourd):
That the House direct the Minister of Employment and Immigration to intervene immediately in this matter in order that a decision be taken in all cases and that the rights of these persons to unemployment benefits be recognized.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the
November 5, 1979

fact that one, Wendy King, last week pleaded guilty in a Vancouver courtroom to the charge of keeping a common bawdy house; that the former chief justice of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia resigned when his name was linked with the case; that there has never been a proper investigation behind this incident involving, as it does, on the one hand the highest levels of the judiciary in British Columbia and, on the other hand the sordid underworld of prostitution and heroin in Vancouver, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):
That a special commissioner be appointed to investigate this matter, with power to look into the sealed records of the King case.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of the motion at this time can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the anticipated increase in the price of gasoline will cause budget-conscious consumers to use self-serves instead of full service stations, and that in such cases the oil companies use the excuse of lower sales to refuse to supply service stations, so the effect is that the oil companies will be able to increase their direct control over prices, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans):
That this House instruct the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to institute immediate inquiries into the effects of this concentration, and report to the House within two weeks.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that a new financing formula for provision of urban rapid transit is to be negotiated in the province of British Columbia; that the right hon. Prime Minis-
Oral Questions
ter (Mr. Clark) has indicated the importance of rapid transit in lowering energy costs in Canada; that Conservatives during the election promised assistance to urban rapid transit, I move, seconded by the hon member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell):
That this House call upon the Minister of Transport to provide both capital assistance and operating assistance to urban areas for the provision of rapid transit systems.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
In light of the publication of the white paper by the separatist government in Quebec, it is now more obvious than ever that should the referendum result in a Yes vote, Premier Levesque will immediately initiate the retreat of Quebec from the Canadian federation.

Will the Prime Minister assure this House that he will tell Premier Levesque, if his question does not state clearly his intention of breaking up Canada, that early next year this House will proceed with a bill to offer a clear, honest and straightforward question to the citizens of Quebec?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, it is absolutely not our intention to introduce a bill providing for a federal referendum.


QUEBEC REFERENDUM-REQUEST FOR CORRECTION OF CERTAIN FIGURES IN QUEBEC WHITE PAPER
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary. As the white paper on sovereignty-association gives a distorted interpretation of the history of Canada and the situation of Quebeckers, of which this is an example taken out of the white paper, namely that Quebec has only 12 per cent of the Canadian railway lines, while no mention is made of the fact that 37 per cent of the CN and CP payrolls are paid

November 5, 1979
Oral Questions
out to Quebec citizens, what does the Prime Minister intend to do to remedy that situation?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I shall make sure that all Canadian citizens understand exactly what the federal government has contributed to the development of the province of Quebec.


QUEBEC REFERENDUM-PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: One last supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
In light of a statement made Friday to a reporter, to the effect that he does not want to be the Abraham Lincoln of Canada, and since the Conservative party is not planning to join the "No" group in the referendum, and as the Prime Minister is continuing his offhand policy of appeasement, is it the intention of the Prime Minister to become the Neville Chamberlain of Canada?
[ Translation]


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as Prime Minister of Canada, 1 intend to prove to Quebeckers that we now have here in Ottawa a government that is determined to have a type of federalism that is open enough to make it comfortable for Quebeckers who want to build their future and achieve their personal fulfilment within a large country.


QUEBEC REFERENDUM-GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION UNDER PRO-FEDERALIST UMBRELLA
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Each time we have asked the Prime Minister whether he and his Quebec ministers and the Conservative party intend to join the pro-federalist umbrella committee under Quebec referendum Bill 92, he has failed to give us an answer but has merely repeated the same kind of answer he made to the last question, that he is interested in renewing federalism and he is going to change the status quo of federalism, mentioning lotteries and offshore mineral rights, the validity of which we question. In any case, he has failed to answer the question.
I want to know clearly from him whether he-along with his Quebec ministers-is, or is not, going to participate in the pro-federalist umbrella committee that will campaign for the "No" option in the referendum? Will he answer that question?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 am delighted to repeat the assurance that members of the Progressive Conservative Party will participate in the umbrella committee opposing the option against federalism in the province of Quebec. I am pleased to repeat that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He said the contrary last week.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question. Last week, prior to the white paper, and repeated in this House, his Minister of Supply and Services said he may want to vote "Yes" or "No" on the referendum question.


An hon. Member:: Another flip-flop.


William Warren Allmand: This was repeated by the senator-minister in charge of CIDA. He said the same thing and, as a matter of fact, the Prime Minister said in the House that he wanted to reserve his answer to that question until he had seen the question.
Since the white paper has been published, and in view of what he has just said, has he spoken to the Minister of Supply and Services and to the minister responsible for CIDA and told them that they are to vote and campaign for the "No" answer in this referendum campaign? Has he spoken to them?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken to them. There was no need to tell them that. That was their intention, as I made clear in the House the other day.


OIL PRICE AGREEMENT WITH ALBERTA-STATE OF NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have just learned that the Prime Minister is about to give Canadians a horrendous Christmas present, and I would like to put the following question to him. Can the minister confirm that an energy agreement with Alberta has been arrived at as outlined in a document entitled "An Outline of the Initial Stage of National Energy Strategy," in which it is agreed that Canada will be paying near the world price for oil by 1983, namely, $29.75 a barrel, an increase of 120 per cent over the current domestic price; and does he not acknowledge that such a staggering price increase will deal a massive blow to Canadian consumers, workers and the economy in general?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm that an agreement with the province of Alberta has not been arrived at. 1 can confirm that my expectation is that it will be possible for us-within, I would hope, the next several days-to get agreement involving all of the provinces of Canada and the federal government in respect of a general energy package.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Considering that a source in the Prime Minister's office has said that the agreement is 99 per cent certain, I do not think the Prime Minister is reflecting accurately the current stage of the pricing situation.
November 5, 1979

Will the Prime Minister also confirm that these oil prices, which will cost Canadian consumers some $14 billion, will be shared under the existing oil pricing formula, thereby giving the multinational oil companies-which already have record profit increases-an extra $7 billion? How does the Prime Minister reconcile that kind of rip-off to Canadians, who in 1983 will be paying an extra $700 a year just to heat their homes and drive their cars?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member will want to review Hansard to determine whether or not he intended to say he did not believe that I was reflecting the situation exactly as it stands, and perhaps change his statement later in the day or tomorrow.
To come to the question and not its tone, one of the matters that we are looking at, as we prepare an energy package, is a means by which we can establish procedures and mechanisms which will encourage a substantial increase in investment by Canadians in Canada's energy potential so that we can accomplish two goals together: the first goal would be to substantially improve the supply situation in Canada, thus protecting us against uncertainty in the future; and the second goal would be to substantially increase the degree of Canadian participation in and ownership of the energy industry.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, in response to the Prime Minister, if he were to table the documents which I have cited, we could take a look at the situation for ourselves. By way of a final supplementary, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that in a document entitled "Memorandum of Understanding: Alberta's Contribution to a National Energy Strategy", Alberta will agree to lend money from its Heritage Fund at commercial rates for future energy development, and that, in effet, Edmonton-not Ottawa-now becomes the capital of Canada as far as national energy planning is concerned? How does he reconcile this abdication of federal responsibility with the national interest?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member is looking for a document which outlines the removal, in practice or in principle, of the capital of Canada, then no such document exists. There have been active discussions with some of the provinces, including the governments of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, which have put forth a number of options which might be the basis of agreement between the federal and provincial governments. None of those options have yet been decided upon, and none of them will be decided upon until there has been an opportunity for further discussion involving all the provinces and all the governments concerned.
I can assure the hon. member that the ultimate decision will be very much in the national interests of Canada and will have regard for the fundamental importance in this country of taking steps today which will guarantee against Canada being
Oral Questions
exposed to uncertain supplies of energy offshore that we need for this nation to grow.

[ Translations ]


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT WILL PREPARE PAPER ON PROPOSALS RESPECTING RENEWED FEDERALISM
Mr. Fabien Roy (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the right hon. Prime Minister. Last Friday, following the release of the Quebec white paper, opposition members asked questions of the Prime Minister, who answered:
These proposals show that since the last election on May 22 the federal government in our country is not prisoner of the status quo, that it is determined to set out various approaches to the issue of federalism in Canada, and that it can, in co-operation with all provinces which it considers as partners and certainly not as enemies, demonstrate the possibility of a renewed federalism.
Since reference is made to a renewed federalism, it is then obvious that changes are being considered. If changes are considered there will be a need for negotiations. Today, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he can indicate to the House what are the areas or fields of jurisdiction that his government is prepared to discuss with the provinces, and I would also like to ask him if a document has been, or is being, drafted; and, if so, whether that document could be tabled before the end of the year.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there have been several discussions in particular between the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations and his provincial counterparts concerning specific changes in the constitution or in the arrangements between the different levels of government. There is no plan as such for changing our constitution. There is no grand design for a constitutional reform but conversations have been held and I hope there will be others during the next federal-provincial conference in December.


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT READY TO RETURN CERTAIN TAX FIELDS TO QUEBEC
Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question. Since the issues raised at the constitutional conferences were only minor ones, and since there is nonetheless a problem which has been pending for many years and has been the subject of many representations, especially from the Quebec government and from many premiers, I would like to ask the government if, in its present openmindedness, it would be ready to return to Quebec all the taxation

November 5, 1979
Oral Questions
powers the federal government has appropriated during the war in 1942 and has always kept since?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Mr. Speaker.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Hon. Francis Fox (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations, but in his absence 1 will direct it to the right hon. Prime Minister. Following the publication of the white paper on sovereignty-association by the government of the Parti Quebecois, and also following the dismantling by the right hon. Prime Minister of a unit within the Federal-Provincial Relations Office known as the Tellier group, could the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House if he now intends to restore that unit and publish a refutation of the white paper which gives out more propaganda than information, which treats confederation as a failure, which gives many misinterpretations of Canadian history and which, surely, should not remain without answer?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is not my government's intention to publish an answer to the white paper. In the months to come the federal government will take steps and make proposals which will continue to show Quebeckers that there is now in Ottawa a government ready to consider changes.
As for misinterpretations of Canadian history in the Quebec white paper, I do not feel it is essential for the federal government to stress them by its own publication.


Francis Fox: Since the Prime Minister indicated to the House on Friday, and once again today in his answer to me, that attitudes and concrete steps are more important than rhetoric, and that these are to be the hallmark of his government in constitutional reform, and since the Prime Minister has rejected the approach of holding a federal-provincial conference of first ministers to discuss the immediate, anyhow, proposals for constitutional reform, could the Prime Minister indicate to the House what these concrete steps are that they have in mind, and how they are to be brought to the attention of provincial first ministers, to the House of Commons and to the Canadian public in general?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are in the process, now, of discussing important changes with various provincial governments. In many cases they are changes in administrative arrangements which would have, nonetheless, an impact on the way the federal and provincial levels of government work together. In some cases they are changes that would affect

relations between the central government and all of the provinces; in other cases they are changes which would affect relations between the central government and some of the provinces.
I do not think we are at a stage of agreement yet where any of those could usefully be brought before the House of Commons. I would hope that it might be possible for us to reach agreement on some of those matters at the first ministers' meeting. Certainly, I can give the hon. member and the House the undertaking that when we are at a stage where we think we have changes that can significantly advance co-operation between the federal government and provincial governments, we will make them known in this House and elsewhere.

[ Translation]


NATIONAL UNITY
Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, as we question the government, their position gets clearer. We now know that this government has no intention of conducting an intensive campaign for the "No" option in the Quebec referendum. I would now put my question to the Prime Minister. If he feels missionary work is not useful in the province of Quebec, will he encourage his ministers to travel across the rest of Canada to inform other Canadians of the constitutional crisis implied by the proposal for separating Quebec from Canada, since the white paper urges other provinces to ask for direct participation in new Quebec-Canada bodies?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is this government's intention to go on travelling across Canada, and this includes Quebec of course, to point out the advantages of federalism and the disadvantages in the proposal put forward by the Quebec government.


REQUEST GOVERNMENT EXPLAIN CLEARLY POSITION ON QUEBEC PROPOSALS
Jeanne Sauvé: Since Quebec is not isolated in this constitutional crisis, since it is not isolated either in its requests to the Canadian government for changes in the relationships between the federal government and the provinces, does the right hon. Prime Minister not think, despite all his suggestions and the confirmation he only wants to change the attitudes, to show his government will be flexible-on this we agree, because we also are for flexibility-
November 5, 1979

but what the right hon. Prime Minister does not understand now, as the crisis deepens, is that it is important for the federal government to put their position forward publicly, very clearly and very precisely in order the counteract the PQ proposal and their progapanda so that Quebeckers realize a No vote will only plunge them into the status quo?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr, Speaker, clearly, of course, it is essential for the Canadian government to demonstrate to Canadians, including Quebeckers, in a public and concrete way, that there has been a change of attitude here in Ottawa at the federal level. I agree that there is now, with the publication of the white paper, another development in the debate on Canada's future. I agree it is essential that the Canadian government continue its efforts and demonstrate to Quebeckers there has been a change here, that it is quite possible to have not only talk of flexibility but concrete actions to show flexibility. This we have been doing since the May 22 election, and this is the course we intend to go on following.


CONSTITUTIONAL REFORM-INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO PURSUE POLICY OF PRECEDING GOVERNMENT
Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Ottawa-Carleton):: I am trying to understand the innermost thought of the right hon. Prime Minister with respect to the constitution and the referendum. Last Friday, he told the House, "Our government will continue to make concrete proposals." Then, later, "What Quebeckers have with this national government is a national government committed to constitutional reform." The second quotation is clearly much broader than the first one and presupposes the discussion of a certain number of interdependent constitutional matters which would resemble, of course, the efforts made by the previous government in this area. To make concrete proposals, it is still necessary to comprehend the interdependence of every one of the proposals to be made. In that context, could the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House whether he intends to continue the efforts made by the previous government at the more recent federal-provincial conferences?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it is worth while for us to have in the House of Commons someone who can participate in the context of the Pepin-Robarts commission. 1 hope he intends to suggest positive and concrete proposals during the coming months, as he has in the past, and that he can persuade his colleagues to change the position they have taken in the past.
As to the position of this government, 1 say to the hon. member that we intend to continue to analyse the status of possible agreements on constitutional changes with the provinces. There have already been talks between the Government of Canada and some of the provinces on the possibility of
Oral Questions
making amendments, and similar matters. We do not want to start anew the consultations that have already taken place with the provinces. We want to continue the work done by -the former government, but we do not have at this moment a magic formula to present to the House or the people of Canada. We intend to continue the work already started, and 1 hope we can have the positive contribution of the hon. member and his colleagues.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
The newspaper Le Devoir recently reported that the Prime Minister, on the occasion of a visit he made to Montreal, met Mr. Jacques Desmarais, the Pequjste candidate in the by-election of Montreal-Maisonneuve. Will the Prime minister tell us whether it is true that he met tfiat individual who wants to destroy Canada; and, if so, just what was he doing there?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that man was probably a member of a group which submitted a brief to me about the strike in the port of Montreal, but it was only as such that he was there.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Prime Minister feels embarrassed because of those meetings and because of the friends he has in Quebec.

It is obvious that the government is very embarassed by what is taking place-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


André Ouellet: -and does not want us to indicate clearly to Canadians that, in fact, the Prime Minister is making a sweet deal with the Parti Quebecois.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Order.


André Ouellet: Is the Prime Minister ready, today, to admit that when he talks about positive action and openness vis-a-vis the provinces and, more particularly, vis-a-vis Quebec, the only action that has taken place has been-


An hon. Member:: What is the question?


André Ouellet: -giving away to the Quebec government the things that they want.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: There must be a limit, Mr. Speaker.


André Ouellet: We have witnessed-
934

Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member started with an argumentative question and now seems to want to follow it with an argument. 1 think 1 have to stop it.


André Ouellet: My question is as follows: Does the Prime Minister know that the deal by his minister for sport, in doing away with Loto Canada, a very popular program and a success story in Quebec-


An hon. Member:: Order.


André Ouellet: -has been a deal that has pleased only the Parti Quebecois, because now there will still be a lottery in Quebec but the word "Canada" will no longer be front and centre; the word "Canada" has been abolished by his minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Shame on you.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think, in answer to what 1 guess was intended as a question, 1 can only say that I think it will be in the interests of federalism in Canada if the hon. member and his colleagues stop fighting the battles of the past and, instead, will join with us in building a federalism for the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: That is why you are in
opposition.


Mr. Crosbie:: And will stay there.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. The environment minister is quoted in yesterday's Sunday Star as saying Canada cannot negotiate an agreement with the United States to turn off or reduce acid rain fall-out until after the presidential election.
Is it the policy or the attitude of the Government of Canada that Mr. Carter is a lame-duck president and therefore, they cannot enter into any negotiations with the White House until after January, 1981?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the fact is that negotiations between Canada and the United States which are aimed at leading to an agreement are going on now and will continue. All I have said is that it is unrealistic to assume, with the complications of those negotiations from a technical, economic and scientific point of view, that we will be in a position to have the agreement in practically completed form and signed before the next presidential election.

November 5, 1979


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for bailing out the Prime Minister on that one. My supplementary question is to the Minister of the Environment. If Canada is going on its own anyway at the present time, can the minister tell the House what measures his department has taken to control, eliminate or at least reduce acid rain, and what timeframe he has in mind for completion? By way of a specific example, what directive or directives have been sent to the International Nickel Company.


John Allen Fraser: I thank the hon. member for his question. As the hon. member and the House know, the present regime of law to control the emission sources lies with the provinces. As I have said to the House, I do not intend at the moment to change that.
With regard to the company that the hon. member mentioned, the chief executive officer of Inco has been written to by myself, and I have asked for a meeting with him along with representatives of some other companies. That meeting will be arranged as soon as possible.


NATIONAL UNITY
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary and it is to the Prime Minister. It was reported recently that Mr. Lougheed stated that in the event of a Yes vote in the referendum, the negotiations in terms of sovereignty-association with Quebec would be up to the provincial governments to handle.
Does the Prime Minister accept that we really are a nation of ten provinces only and that the federal government would have no role in such negotiations as indicated or implied by the Premier of Alberta.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen that quotation attributed to the Premier of Alberta. If anyone did make that kind of assertion, I naturally would disagree with it.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, that is the second time in about ten days that the Premier Minister has indicated he is not aware of what the Premier of Alberta is saying. Last week, the Premier of Alberta made a very definite statement with regard to oil prices: world prices now, or the oil stays in the ground.
The Prime Minister surprised us for several days by saying he had not seen a transcript or spoken to Mr. Lougheed about it. Has he since called the Premier of Alberta and spoken to him about that statement? If so, what makes him so confident he will make an acceptable deal on oil prices for Canada, in the face of that statement? Was there some kind of arrangement beforehand, or what is all this rhetorical game about?
November 5, 1979


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in answer to what 1 gather was intended to be a supplementary question, I can assure the hon. member that I now have had an opportunity to see the transcript of the remarks the Premier of Alberta made in Vancouver. The press reports were very substantially exaggerated. The Premier of Alberta indicated that he was prepared to accept various aspects of the proposal we had been putting forward.


André Ouellet: Answer the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member for Papineau, who distinguished himself recently with a question on the floor of the House, has asked me to answer the question of his colleague, the other former minister. I have not, personally, been in touch with the Premier of Alberta, but my Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has been in touch with the minister responsible for energy policy in the province of Alberta. There have been very useful discussions between the two ministers. They encourage me, as they encourage my minister, that we have the very real prospect of moving toward agreement on the question of a national energy package.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Will he undertake that when he meets with U.S. President Jimmy Carter later this week, he will raise the matter of the operation of the Canada-U.S. auto pact as part of an effort to ensure that Canada gets its fair share of automotive jobs, production, research and development and investment.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will raise the matter.


LIMITATION OF EXPORTS TO U.S.-EFFECT ON EAST COAST REFINERIES
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. With the government's recent announcement that exports to the United States are to be limited to 50 barrels a day of light oil and condensates, can the minister assure the House that this will not adversely affect production with east coast refineries, where employment could be adversely affected.
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question, knowing his long-standing concern with regard to employment matters in his area and province. I want to assure
Oral Questions
him that, indeed, the reduction in terms of exports is directed toward the very interest the hon. member raises in his question; that is, to make sure we have sufficient supplies in Canada in order to meet this winter's requirements. 1 thank the hon. member for his continued interest and assure him that is the direction in which this particular decision has been made.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the minister of state responsible for multiculturalism. Is the minister aware that his colleague, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, has announced that he is cutting down the proportion of family admissions to Canada in relation to independent immigrants? Does he agree with this inhumane change in Canada's immigration policy?


Hon. Lincoln M. Alexander (Acting Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Speaking on behalf of the Minister of Employment and Immigration, Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the hon. member's question. What has occurred, as I understand it, is that there was some concern about the number of family classes being admitted, as opposed to independents. I can assure the hon. member that the reunification of families, in terms of admitting others to this great country of ours, is uppermost in the minister's mind.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I believe the document tabled by the minister speaks for itself on the question. I want to know whether the minister responsible for multiculturalism knew anything about this policy. I can see from the fact that he did not stand up that he did not, unless he would care to tell the House where he stands on the admission of family-sponsored immigrants in relation to independents.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: He doesn't know anything about it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is not a question of his knowing anything about it! If the hon. member is interested in an answer, I just gave him the answer. I indicated to the hon. member that the Minister of Employment and Immigration has high on his list, in terms of bringing immigrants to Canada, the policy of reunification of families; which is something that we in opposition made sure that the government implemented by way of a preamble to the present Immigration Act.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou on a supplementary question.

November 5, 1979
Oral Questions


SOCIAL SECURITY
Monique Bégin: I should like to put a supplementary question Mr. Speaker.
My supplementary question is, since it deals with social policies:

Now that the line of the Tory government on family allowance is, "My wife doesn't need it", can the minister of social development, the secretary of state or the Minister of National Health and Welfare inform the House whether they will table the proposed Tory proposal on family allowances before Christmas, in order that Canadian mothers will know whether they will get their full indexation and what will happen to that unique federal program for families?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the minister rises to answer, I should correct the record. It was not the hon. member who said to me that this was a supplementary question; I made that assumption quite incorrectly. The hon. member was entitled to the floor, nonetheless.


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: There is no proposal, Mr. Speaker, so therefore it will not be tabled. As I think I indicated in a previous answer to a question from the same hon. member, when I took over the department 1 carried on the work she had begun with regard to looking at all the social security programs that the Department of National Health and Welfare offers. That was both in terms of equity and to find ways in which we could provide money to those who most need it and, indeed, are most in need.
It is in the spirit of those reviews that the "proposal" came out in the newspaper. I think she well knows, and I can assure the House, that there is no proposal. That is an option which is under investigation by the department as, indeed, it was when she was the minister. I might add, now that he has raised the scare, that mothers can expect their family allowances to continue in the New Year.


INQUIRY WHETHER FAMILY ALLOWANCE BUDGET WILL BE CUT
Monique Bégin: I should like to put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.
1 find the minister's reply rather inconsistent, since during the weekend the President of the Treasury Board and the Prime Minister, whom I heard myself on television, spoke about the possibility of reducing family allowances, something which was never contemplated by the Liberal government. 1 would like to ask the minister if he can assure this House that the total budget for family allowances, which is over $2 billion and that for the child tax credit, which is over $600 million,

will be earmarked, whatever the plans are, for schemes covering Canadian children, and not to keep foolish election promises?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, from 1962 to 1977-


Monique Bégin: Get back to 1979.


David Edward Crombie: -the amount of money which was used for income redistribution in this country was such that it did not move the level of poverty or deal with the question of poverty in any significant way. In fact, the difficulty has been that as we put in more and more money for income redistribution, we did not target it for those most in need.
Half of the $15 billion which goes into income redistribution does not touch those who are below the poverty line. That is why it is essential that we look not only at the family allowance, but also at the child tax exemption to see ways in which we can increase the effectiveness of the child tax credit, because it is equitable and targets at those most in need, something which I wish the previous government had done ten years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FAMILY ALLOWANCE PROGRAM RETAIN PRINCIPLE OF UNIVERSALITY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank hon. members opposite for that ovation.
In view of previous questions, and in view of the report this weekend in the Toronto Star concerning the government's intentions with regard to the family allowance program, can the minister assure this House today that the Conservative government will not tamper with the principle of universality on which the family allowance program is based and which the minister himself said just last week has served this country well?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last week, indeed the family allowance program has served this country well. I cannot give the hon. member the assurance he seeks because, as I indicated, my department right now is studying ways by which we can make the family allowance program, the child tax credit and the tax exemption more equitable for those most in need. 1 might add that my department is also considering whether we can allocate funds to those on whom poverty rests most, that is, the young, the old, women-led families and the disabled and handicapped. That is the program of this government.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, if the minister cannot assure this House that the principle of universality, which we uphold, will be upheld, can he assure the House that the money saved on any detraction from universality which is embedded in the options the hon. minister is reviewing will be used for the benefit of low-income Canadians, and not handed over to the
November 5, 1979

President of the Treasury Board as another sacrifice on the altar of restraint by those who expected tax relief from this government but who are getting the opposite?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Eglinton-Lawrence.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the right hon. Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: No tie.


Roland de Corneille: We are told by recent public opinion polls that the population is losing confidence in our democratic processes, partly, I suppose, because of apparent or at least perceived reversals in government policy on such election promises as a stimulative deficit, keeping our interest rates down, and moving our embassy in Israel.
In view of our concern about such loss of confidence, particularly as it might influence our young people, I would like to ask what specific measures the government has in mind to rationalize the management of its decision-making processes to the Canadian people and thus to restore confidence in democratic institutions.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in very simple terms, what we intend to do is make this Parliament one which much more accurately reflects the views of individual Canadians. We intend to do this by providing more room to more private members to have more influence on what is done, and to end the domination that has existed for far too long not only by ministers but also by party leaders in the House.
Second, we intend to proceed as quickly as we can with the freedom of information legislation which was introduced and has generally been responded to positively by other members of the House. We hope, as my colleague the minister sponsoring this legislation said at the time, that if there are members of this House who have better and more effective language to propose, they will propose it.
Third, we intend to take a very strong and thorough look at Crown corporations, which some in this House argue belong to the people-although the people do not believe that-to see if we can find ways in which we can substitute state-ownership, which is not personal, by citizen-ownership which can be personal. Those are some of the steps and reforms that I hope, given the interest of the hon. member in ensuring that institutions serve the interests of individuals, he will support us in.
Oral Questions ENERGY


OWNERSHIP OF AND JURISDICTION OVER NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. I would like to know whether the recent resource-related threat of the Premier of Alberta has caused the Prime Minister to reconsider certain directions he is taking. I refer to the willingness of the Prime Minister to sell out the common heritage which all Canadians share in our offshore resources.
1 also refer to the haste of the Prime Minister to create provincehood in the Yukon, which implies the sell-out of the common heritage which all Canadians share in our northern resources onshore and offshore. Does the Prime Minister not believe that the first steps toward giving away the oil and gas resources of the north, recently estimated by the Geological Survey of Canada to contain a minimum of $375 billion worth of oil and $540 billion worth of gas-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Ian Watson: -are a question of importance to be considered by Parliament; and will he now reconsider his refusal to have a parliamentary committee review and consider the recent changes in the role of the commissioner in the Yukon which create, for all practical purposes, de facto provincehood in that territory?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has already used a rather long preamble, and followed his question with a subsequent suggestion. I think he has gone as far as he should be permitted.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will try to answer such questions as I could find. First, no, we do not intend to reverse our position on offshore resources. Second, no, we do not intend to reverse our determination to move the Yukon toward provincial status. Naturally, as I have indicated before, there will be recourse to a referendum and we will not move beyond the law as it now exists without the approval both of the people of the Yukon and of this Parliament. 1 am afraid that in the welter of it all, I lost the third, fourth or fifth questions.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the absence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, perhaps the Prime Minister can answer my question.
In light of the fact that the Sunday edition of the Toronto Star released details of a yet-to-be published report basically

November 5, 1979
Oral Questions
stating that essential services on many reserves do not exist, that welfare dependency on these reserves is nine times the Ontario average, and that three federal departments are the cause of this neglect, would the Prime Minister explain how further government cutbacks could do anything but further increase unemployment and further deteriorate health conditions on Ontario Indian reserves and, indeed, on all reserves in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report to which the hon. member refers. Because of my own interest in the matter, I do know something about the conditions of starvation and great social inequity which exists on Indian reserves across the country and among native people generally.
I have had the opportunity personally to discuss with representatives of Indian groups across the country practical steps we might take to resolve that situation. One of the views which the Indian leadership and 1 share is that an important step will be to place much more authority, responsibility and control over spending in the hands of local band councils. That is the direction in which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is taking this government, and as the hon. member knows, that is a reform and a change from past practices.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which has to do with the continuing inability of the government to manage Canada's relations with the Middle East with any intelligence and sensitivity.
All of Saturday I had quoted to me directly a statement made in Los Angeles by the Prime Minister's chief policy adviser who, in pointing out the potential for Canada to become a world oil supplier, went on to say:
-possibly enough to return the Middle East to the insignificance it so richly deserves-
These are statements that have been made several times and attributed to the chief policy adviser of the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that if these comments by his chief policy adviser were made, they do not represent the policy of the government, and that an apology ought to be made by the government for this provocative and inflammatory comment by the former member for Don Valley?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker. I saw that article and, naturally, was interested in it. Consequently, I spoke to Dr. Gillies and have received from him a clarification and the assurance that his comment was in relation to the influence of the Middle East in times when OPEC was at its

strength, in terms of a cartel operation which can increase the price of fuel that has to be paid here and in other countries.
The point that Dr. Gillies was making was that the capacity of a country in any part of the world to have such an impact on prices will damage Canadian interests, and that that capacity will be significantly reduced as this nation moves toward energy self-sufficiency.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Does the Prime Minister tell me that his chief policy adviser did not use the expression, "possibly enough to return the Middle East to the insignificance it so richly deserves"? I want to know if his chief policy adviser used those words and, if so, how they can possibly be used to defend the interpretation which the Prime Minister gives because, of course, the Middle East includes other important nations, including Israel, than the members of OPEC.


Charles Joseph Clark: My understanding is that Dr. Gillies used those words explicity and exclusively in relation to the capacity to form cartels.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Will the Prime Minister also clarify Dr. Gillies' comment when he spoke about the cheap dollar and said that maybe the cheap dollar has been a contributing factor to the country's 9 per cent inflation rate, and then said, "Maybe it hasn't fallen enough"? Dr. Gillies suggested that, "Maybe if it falls to 70 cents". Would the Prime Minister mind clarifying that comment?


Charles Joseph Clark: That comment also, naturally, was of some interest to me when I read it in the paper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I spoke to Dr. Gillies about that and he said that the statement, or a statement similar to the one quoted, was made in the course of a panel discussion in which the question was raised as to whether a further drop in the value of the Canadian dollar would significantly help our competitive position. Doctor Gillies expressed his view that a significant drop in the Canadian dollar would not significantly help our export position. He certainly did not suggest at any time that he or I or anyone in the government would recommend that that be the level at which the Canadian dollar should settle.
Indeed, as hon. members will know, the government is taking the decision now and facing the decisions which are designed in part to ensure that the value of the Canadian dollar does not slide further.


PRIVILEGE
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which you might think has to do with the attire of the hon. member Eglinton-Lawrence
November 5, 1979

(Mr. de Corneille), but it does not. I will return to that matter on another day.
My question of privilege relates to the answers given in the House today by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) to certain questions I had asked him. 1 maintain that the Prime Minister misled the House of Commons and the Canadian people in the answers he gave to my questions. If I recall it correctly, he said that he and his Quebec ministers would campaign for the "No" option in the Quebec referendum and would participate in the pro-federalist committee, and he said that this had always been their position.
I should like to read into the record what was said last week from his seat in the House by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. La Salle). I had put the following question to the Prime Minister:
Does this mean that the Conservative party has no position on sovereignty association, and do I understand the Prime Minister to say that the militants of his party are free to support whatever side they want on this question?
Next came an interjection from the Minister of Supply and Services when he said from his seat:
Ask me the question and I will answer yes or no.
In a press conference in Montreal last week the Minister of Supply and Services, in announcing a policy conference of the Conservative party in Quebec, said-and these are the quotes:
The Progressive Conservative Party should stay outside the (pro-federalist) umbrella committee because we have different objectives-
He also said:
Our position is not the same as Mr. Ryan's-
He was referring to the provincial leader. But even the Prime Minister, in answer to my question last week-as reported at page 804 of Hansard of that day said:-
it is my expectation that the question will be phrased in such a way that members of the Progressive Conservative Party will want to vote against that question. That is my expectation of what will happen-but I have not seen the question proposed by Mr. Levesque; perhaps the hon. member has.
I am not opposed to the Prime Minister's party doing another flip-flop on this question, as they have done on many others, but I am opposed to the Prime Minister trying to mislead the House and the country when he said today that they are for the "No" option and that they have always been for the "No" option, since the Minister of Supply and Services said in the House that he could have voted yes or no, since he was supported by the minister in charge of CIDA who sits in the other place, and since the Prime Minister himself said that he did not know what he was going to do until he saw the final question put in the referendum.
If the question period is to have any significance, then we must be able to expect from the Prime Minister and his ministers the truth in answering questions from members of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.
Privilege-Mr. Allmand Mr. Allmand: Read the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand), in concluding his intervention, made the suggestion that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) did not tell the truth, that should be clarified.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I was only able to take notes today and I do not have the "blues" as yet, but the Prime Minister today tried to give the impression in the House that he and his ministers had been supporting the "No" position in the referendum today, yesterday and last week. I pointed out that it is on the record in Hansard that the Minister of Supply and Services, as reported at page 804 of Hansard of October 31 last week, said:
Ask me the question and I will answer yes or no.
And in a press conference in Montreal he said the same thing. 1 am saying that today the Prime Minister, deliberately or not, was misleading the House in saying that that had been the position of the Progressive Conservative Party last week. We should not have to accept that loose, sloppy answers in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Before we go further, I want to keep this matter on a plane of proper procedure. The hon. member knows that he is raising what might appear to be a disagreement. That has happened many times and often members have raised the point, in response to an answer given by a minister, that if there has been the appearance of a contradictory response on two occasions, that the minister be given an opportunity, through the raising of a question of privilege, to comment on it and thus give the Chair an opportunity to determine whether it is a simple disagreement or whether there is a procedural matter.
Also, it is not necessarily a matter of the substance of what the hon. member is raising-because in substance he is raising something of a nature similar to that which had been raised many times before, as I have indicated-but it is solely a matter of form. As I think the House knows, it is one thing entirely as to what we are talking about when we get into matters of this sort. These are not restrictions on what the hon. member wishes to say but simply restrictions on the manner in which an hon. member says something in the House. The hon. member is entitled to say what he said today. He is not entitled to suggest that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) did not tell the truth. I noticed he departed from that which was getting very dangerously close to being unparliamentary in his language; that has not been done. Now it rests with me to determine whether this is simply a matter of disagreement or whether in fact there is a matter of privilege.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. I think the old pugilist across the floor would probably serve himself and the House well if he would read the

November 5, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Ethier
record of Hansard, both my reply to his colleague, the hon. member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mrs. Sauve), the other day when I indicated that the quotation he cited was an incorrect one, and also the answer I gave earlier today when I indicated that members of this party would be encouraged to campaign under the umbrella of the group opposing the position put forward in the white paper by the government of Quebec. If he reads the record, his subsequent contributions will be both more informed and more temperate.


Mr. Speaker:: The House will know that we are in the area of a disagreement, not a matter of privilege.


MR, ETHIER-ALLEGED ALLOCATION OF FUNDS TO POLITICAL GROUP-PUBLISHING REPORT IN ENGLISH ONLY
Mr. Denis Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, it is with some reluctance that 1 rise on a question of privilege today because it involves a good friend of every member of the House, the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) whom I believe to be sincere and conscientious.
My question of privilege concerns a press release published by the minister on October 19, 1979. Of course, Mr. Speaker, you will wonder why I did not raise the matter earlier. I will explain, but first of all 1 would like to quote from this press release:
For immediate release: Report of the Beef Import Consultative Committee, Ottawa, October 19, 1979. Agriculture Minister John Wise today announced that he has received the report of the Beef Import Consultative Committee and is studying it carefully.
The committee, made up of five members of Parliament under the chairmanship of Bert Hargrave (PC-
-I presume that this means Progressive Conservative-
-Medicine Hat), solicited briefs and held hearings to obtain the views of the private sector on beef import legislation.
More than 25 briefs were submitted by representatives of beef producers, packers, importers, consumers and foreign exporters.
Mr. Wise noted that the report would be of considerable help in developing beef import legislation.
The report includes a summary of the briefs received, a copy of the briefs in full, and the transcript of the public hearings.
"It provides an invaluable insight into the views of a good cross section of the groups and individuals who would be affected by beef import legislation," Mr. Wise said.
"I would like to commend the committee on carrying out its mandate in such a thorough manner."
Mr. Speaker, my office received that press release Wednesday, October 24 and realizing that it was about a committee report on a sector of farming industry which is rather important in my county, 1 asked my Liberal colleagues which member of my party had been invited to sit on that committee.
I was amazed to learn that no member of the official opposition had been invited so I took the first opportunity to question the minister, which was on October 30 in the Standing Committee on Agriculture. According to the information 1 got in that committee I think I have no other solution but to present
[Mr. Clark.)
this case under the form of a question of privilege of which I gave you notice.
First, Mr. Speaker, the heading of that press release mentions a consultative committee and in the second paragraph it is said and I quote:
The committee, made up of five members of Parliament under the chairmanship of Bert Hargrave-
-as I said earlier-
-(PC-Medicine Hat)-
This release seems to give much importance to two specific words, the words "committee" and "report" as they are mentioned no fewer than nine times. I find them very important too, particularly the word committee as I think that according to the regular parliamentary terminology a committee is bipartite or made up of the group of persons representing different political parties. Except of course, if it is referred to as the caucus committee.
The word committee has been used in this release in a way that raises doubt in my mind and seems to imply to the reader that this committee was formed or made of members of various political parties.
This doubt disappeared when I questioned the minister in the Standing Committee on Agriculture. He advised me as well as the committee that the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave), the hon. member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Fraleigh), the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway), the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald), and the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer), Progressive Conservative members all, were in fact the only five hon. members on this committee. Moreover, the minister recognized that he had authorized the spending of public funds for the preparation and publication of a caucus committee report, as well as made use of government facilities such as telephones, news releases, contacts and what have you, not to mention the services of public service employee Mike Gifford as secretary to this group of five people. And it is rightfully, indeed, that 1 am referring to a group of five people, because judging from the statement made by the chairman of this group, Mr. Bert Hargrave, the Progressive Conservative member for Medicine Hat, this is not at all the committee referred to in the news release.
As proof of what I am saying, 1 shall quote from the report part of what Mr. Hargrave stated, when the representatives of the Consumer Association of Canada appeared before this group of five people on September 21, 1979 in reply to a question from Mrs. Ruth Jackson, as reported on page 3:

And it is true we are a government caucus committee.

Properly defined, Mr. Speaker, that means a committee representing only one political party, namely the party of the
November 5, 1979

government. In specific terms, that group of five, that caucus committee is really a political committee, a partisan committee. When we look up the word "caucus" in Harraps' Dictionary, we find the definition "political clique". That is precisely what I mean when I say it may not and must not be financed by taxpayers' money.
Mr. Speaker, the mere fact of having authorized public expenditures for a political group such as the five-member committee proves that my question of privilege is well-founded and that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) could be called upon to appear before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to explain the propriety or legality, if you would rather, of those expenditures. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not the only reason for my question of privilege, because it could happen that a less than scrupulous government, such as the one we now have, would support groups with political affiliations. Instead, I shall refer you to the last three lines of that press release which read as follows:
Copies of the report are available in English from Information Services, Agriculture Canada, Ottawa, Ont. K1A 0C7.
The document is in the process of translation and will be available shortly in French.
That means the media can obtain this information. Those three lines, Mr. Speaker, add insult to injury. As I said earlier, a government without scruples can commit public funds in politically-oriented ventures. It can also show its arrogance, as the present government has done, by neglecting members of Parliament and inviting only the media to ask for copies of this report which was prepared and written by civil servants paid by public funds. That is a clear indication of this government's arrogant attitude.
I have just shown how injury was caused by offering copies of the report only to the media. I would now like to demonstrate the insult aspect. The press release finishes by stating:
The document is in the process of translation and will be available shortly in French.
I noted in the report that no French-speaking group was invited to submit a brief. Does that mean that the report was to be unilingual and that the new Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and his department no longer comply with the Official Languages Act? Mr. Speaker, since passage of the Official Languages Act, which recognizes that French and English are the two official languages of this country, yourself and your predecessor have always complied and ensured compliance with this act with utmost respect. I congratulate you in that regard and it is with no assurance that I rise today on this question of privilege. In his press release, the minister emphasizes the importance of this report and even notes that the report will be of considerable help in developing beef import legislation.
Mr. Speaker, given the importance of this report as underlined by the minister, is it not fair to admit that it is equally important to me in my mother tongue, in French? Is it not of equal importance to the people who read only one of the
Privilege-Mr. Ethier
official languages, that is French? After all, their tax money also contributed to pay for the publication of this report. Is it not of equal importance to this meat producer who reads only French? Is it not of equal importance to the Canadian consumer who reads only French? Is it not equally important to all hon. members of this House who, like millions of proud Canadians, read only French?
Mr. Speaker, among the rights and privileges of elected members, one of the first is to be treated as equal. That is why I say, in conclusion, that the hon. Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has ignored the Official Languages Act and has ignored the rights and privileges of members. He prevented me from discharging my responsibilities as I had committed myself to do in front of my constituents. Once again, I repeat that he has denied me the opportunity to read this document in my mother tongue, which is indeed one of the official languages in this country, while all members who read the other official language will be able to discharge themselves of their responsibilities. Is this a demonstration of equal rights and privileges of all members in this new government?
According to information supplied by officials from the Department of Agriculture, this document is not going to be translated into French for another five or six months. Therefore, I feel that my rights and privileges as a member have been violated by the hon. minister's action. Mr. Speaker, in light of the facts I have just presented, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Gourd):
That the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) be asked to appear before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that it be ordered that the said report be withdrawn and not made available to anyone until all hon. members can get it in either of the two official languages.


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I regret 1 did not have notice of the hon. member's intention to raise this point of privilege, but in response let me say that I think part of it is utter nonsense. The latter part did, indeed, make a great deal of common sense. In the first part I think he is trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
With reference to the latter charge, I certainly want to take that very seriously. I provided a full explanation to the members of the standing committee last week, and I would be happy to appear before that committee again, or any other committee of the House as far as that is concerned.
In the first part of his charge he indicated that he would not want us to consult with the beef industry. Of course, we want to consult with industry prior to bringing forth pieces of legislation. That is the position we have taken. It is a commitment we have given and a commitment that we intend, indeed, to fulfil.
With reference to releasing the report, I should make it very clear to the House that if this was referred to in the press release as a report, quite openly that is not a correct reference.


An hon. Member:: It was referred to as a report.

November 5, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Ethier


John Wise: If that is the reference in the press release, I am suggesting it is not a proper reference. The committee is still active. Indeed, a meeting was held last week and I think it is intended that it hold further meetings before a report will be issued to me.
What the hon. member refers to is a very lengthy document which is nothing more than a transcript of the meetings held by the consultative committee. There was a great deal of interest and inquiry as to whether this information would be made available. We do not want to keep it from reaching the public or, indeed, members of the House. I indicated that the information should be made public. The difficulty arose after we had made the decision to make it public, when we found a great deal of time would be required before it could be translated. I regret that very much, but I can assure the hon. member and the House that when the committee has completed its meetings and issues a report to me on its findings that report will be made public. But it will not be made public until such time as it can be presented in both official languages.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. By way of a question of privilege the hon. member has raised a rather important matter. The minister has made an intervention. I would certainly want to examine the facts in some detail and to weigh the arguments rather heavily. The hon. member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Ethier) has made a very reasoned and well prepared intervention. I would want to examine it to see whether there is any area of privilege.
The minister has made a response, as he said, extemporaneously and without any warning. If there is a matter of continuing concern the minister has indicated he is prepared to appear before a committee. He has explained the nature of the document and the way it has come about. However, only after examining all of the presentation of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and giving it some thought can I determine whether there are any other outstanding matters which would cause me to consider this a matter of privilege. If there are, I would want to give the minister an opportunity to answer after he has had the opportunity for the same kind of preparation.
I will reserve the matter until I have had an opportunity to consider it. If there is an argument in respect of the question of privilege to be answered by the minister, I will certainly give the minister and members an indication of some time that might be taken by parties to argue the matter further.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, on this very point, it was not too clear to me from your remarks whether you will be looking at the propriety of spending federal funds for caucus research activities. What is at stake here, and I think it is important that you give some guidance on this question, is whether a caucus of the government should carry out some research on its own with public funds. It is totally appropriate that a caucus should carry out such research, but whether it should use public funds for that purpose is the question.
[Mr. Wise.)
That is a matter that is very new. I do not think it has been done in the past. Surely we would like to have your guidance on the activities of the government because it seems this is not an isolated case. Other ministers have asked other members on the government side to embark on all kinds of research. We feel that while the Conservative party can do all kinds of research on its own with the help of backbenchers if they are not competent enough to be ministers and the government wants to use them or sweeten their non-promotion by involving them in some activities, but surely this ought not to be done with public funds.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my friend raises a very good point and I can understand his concern as a minister of the former government which really did not do very much consulting with members in its own backbenches with regard to various matters. It is a fact that in former times members of the government used public funds outside the public service, and I think quite appropriately. They retained task forces outside the public sector, and engaged consultants and experts and paid them by the day, on a per diem basis. I think it is quite appropriate for governments to do that.
What worries me about the point being made by the hon. member, and alluded to by the hon. member who raised the question of privilege in the first place, is the suggestion that somehow or other it is improper for public purposes to engage professional consultants outside the public service. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has indicated he is going to release the report. It is quite proper to engage others outside the public service, but it is suggested that for some reason or other it is improper for the Government of Canada to consult members of Parliament.
If that is the proposition which the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) is asking to have examined, then I think that is astounding-that it would be proper to, for example, utilize the telephones or the printing facility of the Department of Agriculture to even print the press release, or a person versed within the public service to help the group stay on its path. According to the hon. member, that would be appropriate if the persons being utilized for this service were consultants from outside the public service, but if they are members of Parliament, then it somehow becomes improper.
I think that it is a question which should be looked at, because it should be settled once and for all, particularly in the context in which it was raised by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), who indicated when asked by the hon. member that he intended to make the report public. What the minister has said is that rather than choose someone from outside Parliament, he would rather choose someone from inside Parliament. I believe that is quite appropriate. I can understand why the hon. member is upset about that, because that has never happened in his party.
One of the changes the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the new government have wanted to make is to engage as much as
November 5, 1979

possible the attention of members of Parliament. I know that as time goes on the attention of members of Parliament on the other side of the House will be engaged as well, if they have anything to contribute. As for the right of hon. members to speak in the House or in standing committee with regard to agricultural matters, it has not been curtailed. What has happened is that for the first time those rights, which are traditional, have now been augmented and expanded. Members of Parliament for the first time are able to advise the government in a way that will become public with respect to policy and the formation of public policy. 1 think it is a very healthy, new approach toward the openness of government.


Mr. Rae:: You have to be a Tory, Walter.


Walter David Baker: 1 look forward to the publication of the report, and I am sure that my agricultural friend, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), does so as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. My point a moment ago was that the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Ethier) has raised two or three points. He raised one point about language to which the minister made the preliminary answer that this was an internal document, that it was used in the English language for English-speaking members, and that, therefore, only when they attempted to make it public did they become aware of the need for translating it.
The hon. member raised a number of other matters which may not have been met by the minister in what he said today. The minister opened his intervention by indicating that he did not have notice and therefore was not prepared to respond fully to the points raised by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. I indicated to the House that perhaps it might benefit from an opportunity to examine what the hon. member has said to determine whether or not there are arguments. If I find that there are arguments which need to be met, 1 shall give the House an opportunity to meet those arguments. In fact, one of the points of arguments was referred to by the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) whether there is a question, which 1 noted, about the use of the stationery or facilities of the Department of Agriculture for the release of this document.
I will examine these arguments and see if on the face of them there is a point to be met. If there is a point to be met, I think that it would be better met after some preparation on both sides of the House, and I will certainly undertake to give the House an opportunity to do so. But 1 do not think that we will benefit very much if we do it once without preparation and then come back a second time to the arguments when we are prepared.


MR. KNOWLES-INQUIRY WHEN LAZAR REPORT WILL BE TABLED
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a different point of privilege. On Wednesday, October 24, it is noted in Hansard at page 545 that 1 made a
Appointment of Special Committee motion under Standing Order 43, which was subsequently passed. It called for the publication of the Lazar report. 1 have been told along the way that the report had to be translated. Since it is almost two weeks since that motion was passed, 1 wonder if I may be told how soon that report might be tabled?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member an answer to that question at the moment, but I will find out and report to him directly.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First Report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Halliday.

[Stage Direction]
First Report of Standing Committee on Agriculture-Mr. McKnight.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Walter David Baker: for leave to introduce Bill C-21, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
November 2, 1979-The President of the Treasury Board:
That a Special Committee of the House of Commons be appointed to inquire fully into the measures necessary to prevent recurring cost overruns on major government projects (defined as those involving expenditures in excess of $1 million) and in particular.
(1)	to carry out a review and an analysis of the measures already taken by the Treasury Board to prevent cost overruns on major government projects, and assess their impact;
[Stage Direction]
November 5, 1979
Appointment of Special Committee
(2)	to examine measures in place or planned in departments in respect to present or future major government projects, with a view of assessing their compliance with Treasury Board guidelines and directives; and
(3)	to examine major government projects that will be referred to the Committee by the President of the Treasury Board, where the Treasury Board has identified a cost overrun;
That the Special Committee be composed of seven members of the House of Commons to be designated at a later date;
That the committee have power to appoint from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have power to report from time to time, to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within Canada; and
That the committee be empowered to retain the services of advisers to assist in its work and that it also be empowered to retain the professional, clerical and stenographic help as may be required.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW ACT
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
November 2, 1979-The Minister of State for International Trade:
That a Special Committee of the House of Commons be appointed
(1)	to inquire into and report upon the extent to which the Foreign Investment Review Act has achieved and is achieving its purpose as described by Parliament in section 2 of the act, taking into account, among other things, significant relevant domestic and international economic developments in the period the Act has been in force;
(2)	to make recommendations for changes in the act or its implementation with a view;
(a)	to increase the effectiveness of the act in the achievement of its purpose.
(b)	to minimize costs, delays and uncertainties of the process for investors, and costs to governments, and
(c)	to make the review and decision-making processes as open as possible to parliamentary and public scrutiny consistent with the protection of commercial or other information of a private nature;
(3)	without limiting the generality of the foregoing, to examine and make recommendations with respect,
(a)	to the appropriateness of the review and decision-making processes having regard to the range of investments reviewable under the act,
(b)	to the assessment criteria specified in subsection 2(2) of the act, with particular reference to the application of Canadian industrial and economic development policies,
(c)	to the role of the provinces in the implementation of the act, and
(d)	to the extent and manner in which the views of interested third parties should be taken into account;
(4)	to report in time for the next session of Parliament and, in any event, by not later than September, 1980;
That the Special Committee be composed of seven members of the House of Commons to be designated at a later date;
That the committee have power to appoint from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to

such subcommittees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly to the House or the power to retain staff or commission studies;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within Canada; and
That the committee be empowered to retain the services of advisers and to commission studies or research to assist in its work and that it also be empowered to retain the professional, technical, clerical and stenographic help as may be required.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
November 2, 1979-The Secretary of State and Minister of Communications:
That a Special Committee of the House of Commons be appointed to inquire into and report upon means to strengthen the role of the voluntary sector in Canadian society;
That the committee, taking into account the scope of activities now being carried out by the voluntary sector, the problems being faced by voluntary groups and the extent, nature and impact of current government support, report its conclusions and recommendations with respect to the measures that could be taken by the federal government to strengthen the role of the voluntary sector
(1)	as an objective that is desirable in its own right,
(2)	as an alternative to public dependence on government services, and
(3)	in ways that would enhance the ability of such groups to operate
independently of government together with such other matters as the committee considers relevant;
That the committee submit reports from time to time, as appropriate, and in any case a final report not later than May 31,1980;
That the special committee be composed of seven members of the House of Commons to be designated at a later date;
That the committee have the power to appoint from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the committee have power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee have power to send for persons, papers and records, and to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee have the power to adjourn from place to place within Canada; and
That the committee be empowered to retain the services of expert advisers and to commission studies or research to assist in its work and that it also be empowered to retain such professional, technical, clerical and stenographic help as may be required.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consider-
November 5, 1979

Order Paper Questions
ation under Government Orders later this day or at the next Mr. Speaker: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, sitting of the House.	this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day or at the next
sitting of the House.


DISABLED AND HANDICAPPED
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
November 2, 1979-The Minister of National Health and Welfare:
That a Special Committee of the House of Commons be appointed to inquire into and report upon the special needs of the handicapped and disabled in Canada and the extent to which those needs are being met;
That the committee, taking into account the nature and scope of current federal policies, programs and services directed to the general public or established specifically to assist physically and mentally handicapped and disabled persons, report its conclusions and recommendations with respect
(1)	to their impact in providing opportunities for handicapped and disabled persons to lead independent and fully integrated lives,
(2)	to their relationship to the programs, services and activities now being carried out by the voluntary sector and the provinces; and
(3)	to measures which may be required to meet more fully the special needs of the handicapped and disabled
together with such other matters as the committee considers relevant;
That, without limiting the generality of the foregoing, the committee may examine the special needs of the handicapped and disabled in the following areas: fundamental and civil rights; employment opportunities; vocational training and work preparation; business incentives including loans and grants; provision for special income tax deductions and income supplement programs; health services and medical rehabilitation; social rehabilitation; community support services; transportation; housing; access to public buildings and services; information and communication; travel, sports and leisure activities; services for handicapped and disabled Native peoples; quality of life of severely disabled and institutionalized persons; role of handicapped and disabled persons and voluntary organizations in policy and program development; co-ordination within and between jurisdictions; and data base development;
That the committee take into account the work of other standing and special committees dealing with subjects which affect the handicapped and disabled, in particular the provision of pensions and disability benefits to disabled and handicapped persons and measures to strengthen the role of voluntary organizations representing handicapped and disabled persons;
That the committee be composed of seven members of the House of Commons to be designated at a later date;
That the committee have the power to appoint from among its members such subcommittees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate to such subcommittees all or any of its powers except the power to report directly to the House;
That the committee have the power to sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
That the committee submit reports from time to time, as appropriate, with a first report to be submitted as early as possible in 1980 and a final report by December 31,1980;
That the committee have the power to invite the views of interested parties and the public, to send for persons, papers and records, to examine witnesses and to print such papers and evidence from day to day as may be ordered by the committee;
That the committee have the power to adjourn from place to place within Canada and such other places to be determined at a later date; and
That the committee have the power to retain the services of expert advisers and to commission studies or research to assist in its work and that it also have the power to retain such professional, technical, clerical and stenographic help as may be required.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 35, 39, 41, 61, 202, 204, 209, 218 and 406.
1 ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice presidents of the Farm Credit Corporation?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


John Wise: The Farm Credit Corporation advises: 1. (a) Rolland P. Poirier; (b) Paul Babey.
2. (a) Salary range: $42,700-$58,500; (b) Salary range: $38,300-$52,100.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice presidents of the Northern Canada Power Commission?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. (a) The chairman and chief executive officer is Mr. James Smith, (b) The general manager and chief operating officer is Mr. Joseph Long.
2. J. Smith: $42,700-$58,500; J. Long: $38,300-$52,100.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice presidents of the Agricultural Stabilization Board?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


John Wise: 1. (a) Dr. G. 1. Trant (senior assistant deputy minister, policy and planning. Agriculture Canada)

November 5, 1979
Order Paper Questions
(b) Mr. M. J. Heney (assistant deputy minister, food production and marketing, Agriculture Canada)
2. These officers hold full-time positions with Agriculture Canada and their salary is based solely on the position held with Agriculture Canada. No additional remuneration is received for their responsibilities with the Agricultural Stabilization Board.


Mrs. Diane Stratas (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: According to the records there were 82 permanent and 12 term employees on the fitness and amateur sport branch payroll on March 31, 1979.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice presidents of the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1. (a) Claudette Nadeau


Mr. Caouette: How many persons received old age pensions from the government in 1978-79, and what was the total amount paid to them?


David Edward Crombie: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned: The number of Old Age Security recipients and amounts paid on a monthly basis for the fiscal year 1978-79 are as follows:
tration,
Clair Adams, vice president, supply vacant, vice president, sales
2.
President
Vice president, finance and administration
Vice president, supply Vice president, sales


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Ministry of State for Science and Technology's payroll on March 31, 1979?
Month	Number of Recipients	Amount PaidApril	2,081,402	327,138,959Salary range	May	2,086,421	329,763,405June	2,092,465	326,649,538$35,600-53,400	July	2,099,381	337,365,840August	2,105,984	338,006,19326,980-40,460	September	2,113,418	339,489,78423,260-34,900	October	2,121,497	348,991,02828,410-42,610	November	2,127,041	351,977,298December	2,133,696	352,417,926January	2,137,266	359,605,369r EMPLOYEES	February	2,142,694	359,064,169March	2,145,383	360,143,401
Total amount paid in the fiscal year 1978-79: $4,130,612,910


Hon. Heward Grafftey (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the Ministry of State and Technology is concerned: (a) 139; (b) 10.



INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES


Mr. Evans: What is the salary paid to (a) Brian Derick, Executive Assistant (b) Chris Neal, Special Assistant (c) Denis Gauvin, Special Assistant, exempt staff in the office of the Minister of State for Science and Technology?

Question No. 204-Mr. Herbert:
How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development's payroll on March 31, 1979?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: (a) Permanent employees: 8,892; (b) Term employees: 2,097.



FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT-NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES

Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Ministry of State's (Fitness and Amateur Sport) payroll on March 31, 1979?


William Heward Grafftey: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned: (a) up to $31,650; (b) up to $26,700; (c) up to $26,700.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
November 5, 1979



MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   PUBLIC SERVICE RADIO OPERATORS' DISPUTE-BREAKDOWN OF NEGOTIATIONS

Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provision of Standing Order 26 and ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an important and specific matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the withdrawal of services by flight service and coastguard radio operators, caused by the inept efforts of this government which has failed to bargain in good faith with their employees. This accelerating confrontation has caused serious breakdown in safety by removing services to general aviation; by removing services to shipping, including storm warnings and hazards to navigation; by removing important resources which support search and rescue, medical evacuation and emergency response programs; and has caused disruptions in passenger services and the transportation of food and medical supplies and other necessities in remote areas in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) gave me notice this morning in accordance with the terms of Standing Order 26 of his intention to seek the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 26 at this time to debate the matter which he has now described, that being the interruption of services by coastguard and radio operators.
The hon. member is probably aware of the reasoning which has traditionally been followed in circumstances of this sort. Strikes, of course, do cause risks and hazards the like of which the hon. member has just described. On the other hand, it is most difficult for the Chair, particularly while negotiations remain active, to consider any such interruption of service or breakdown in discussions or negotiations as constituting a genuine emergency within the terms of Standing Order 26.
I note, for example, in answers to questions in the last few days that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) has, in one way or another, indicated that attempts are being made to carry on the talks and bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. In fact, some hearing was to take place I believe today which may require the employees to go back, and therefore negotiations would begin if that were to take place.
During these active stages it would seem to me to be very hazardous for the Chair to accept an application on the subject pursuant to Standing Order 26. Indeed, I think it is risky for the Chair to do so in almost any strike situation, but I do not rule that out forever. At these early stages, however, it would certainly be almost impossible.
Perhaps the hon. member might want to refer, for example, to the language of my very distinguished predecessor as quoted
Income Tax Act
at page 1540 of Hansard dated December 3, 1969, where he said;
There is no doubt in my mind that the relationship between the government and its employees is a matter of particular importance, but I cannot bring myself to feel that the continuing process of bargaining and negotiating is of such immediate urgency as to require the setting aside of the ordinary public business which the House will consider today. In the circumstances the motion proposed by the hon. member should not be put to the House.
That reasoning has been repeated time and time again in strike situations. Again, I say I do not rule it out forever, but certainly at this stage of active consideration, if not active negotiation, which I know is the opinion of the hon. member, but nevertheless active tactic and strategy between the two parties, I think it would be unfortunate for the House to accept his application at this time. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 2, consideration of the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) that Bill C-17, to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to amend the Canada Pension Plan, be read the third time and do pass.
John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not going to speak very long. I will be closing the debate. I presume hon. members know that.


Mr. Breau:: Not on third reading.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, this is third reading.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When we last concluded the debate we were resuming debate on the motion for third reading. The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie).


John Carnell Crosbie: Well, I do not know what I am doing, Mr. Speaker. I am just speaking for a few minutes on third reading.


Herb Breau: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. I take it that since you did not advise the House that he would be closing the debate, such is not the case, although he said he would be closing debate. Could you clarify to the House if the minister will be closing debate by speaking now?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) raises a point that has been raised many times before which concerns the second intervention in any debate by a minister. In this particular case the minister is seeking the floor at the present time. He has not, in fact, spoken before but he did move the third reading motion. It stands in his name, seconded by his colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
November 5, 1979
Income Tax Act
McGrath). Therefore, having moved the motion itself he is technically considered to have made an intervention in the debate. His speech at the present time, which is in fact actually his first speech, would really be considered technically to be his second intervention and would close the debate. 1 would therefore give that caution to the House-that if the minister were given the floor at the present time, he would be closing the debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the last thing I want to do is to argue with Your Honour on the floor, but I should like to ask you to check that. There is no issue today as we are prepared to let him close the debate, but the authorities say there is no such thing as closing the debate on third reading. He certainly has the right to speak at least with unanimous consent, and we give it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House is the master of its own procedures in this particular respect. If it wants to hear the minister now and hear him again, the House can do that if it wishes. The hon. member has brought to my attention the fact that technically the minister is speaking a second time. When a minister does speak a second time 1 have to warn the House that if the House lets him speak a second time, he is closing the debate, unless the House wishes otherwise.
All I am doing is simply complying with the request of the hon. member for Gloucester. If the House wants to permit the minister to speak more than once it can do so, if it wishes to extend that privilege to him. Is the House ready for the question? The hon. Minister of Finance.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I just want to speak for a minute or two at the conclusion-I think it is, I hope it is-of the third reading debate.


Herb Breau: That depends on what you say.


John Carnell Crosbie: Just listen now. I am a changed man. I want to thank hon. members opposite for their co-operation in having the bill proceed through second reading and committee stage and for the useful suggestions they have made. I will keep them in mind for the next time I have such a bill coming before the House.
I think I ought to explain to the House that it has come to our attention in the last day or two that there may be some technical changes needed in connection with several of the provisions dealing with term preferred shares. I may therefore have to come back to the House for changes to those provisions after the budget or even perhaps after the bill goes to the Senate.


Herb Breau: You can do it in the next Parliament.


John Carnell Crosbie: If the vote goes the wrong way tomorrow, it might be after the next Parliament.
1 want to say in conclusion that I realize the Income Tax Act is very long and extremely complicated. If 1 am in government long enough to start some process of trying to
[Mr. Speaker.)
improve the legislation, I would certainly like to do that and would keep in mind the points that have been made.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Before putting the question on Bill C-18, I may just add a comment to the hon. member for Gloucester. I think if he will check the precedents he will find that the practice to which he was referring has been consistently applied to motions for second reading of a bill and inconsistently applied otherwise. I said he would be on a little firmer ground if we were at second reading. He is not entirely without precedent in his favour in attempting to extend the application, but it has not always been done at third reading stage.


CUSTOMS TARIFF
John Carnell Crosbie: that Bill C-18, to amend the Customs tariff and to make certain amendments to the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act, 1932, the Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1960 and the Union of South Africa Trade Agreement Act, 1932, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving second reading of the bill, I should explain that the purpose of the bill is to give effect to certain amendments to the Customs tariff which was proposed in the notice of ways and means motion tabled in the House on October 23.
The proposed amendments provide for a revised tariff schedule covering fruits and vegetables. It is to provide for the continuation in force of numerous temporary tariff reductions which were supposed to expire originally on June 30, 1979, and to provide consequential amendments to the legislation which implemented our preferential trade agreements with New Zealand, Australia and South Africa. Those changes relate to fruit products covered by these trade agreements on which duties are being changed.
Most of this legislation was introduced in the last session by the previous administration but was not approved before Parliament dissolved last March. 1 believe it to be the case that these proposals received broad support early in 1979 when they were introduced, or last November as a result of the budget. I therefore hope we can deal with them reasonably quickly.
These fruit and vegetable tariff changes are extremely important, I understand, in the long term well-being of the Canadian horticultural industry. By and large they give effect to recommendations made by the tariff board. The tariff board, after a study in this area, recommended both tariff increases and tariff decreases for this sector of the horticultural industry.
Although domestic producers supply the bulk of our fruit and vegetable requirements, the tariff board, in its long and detailed study, found that imports are capturing an ever-
November 5, 1979

increasing share of the Canadian market for fruits and vegetables. They found there had been a decline in the competitive position of our domestic fruit and vegetable growers and processers and that this decline was aggravated by the fact that virtually all fresh fruits and vegetables and a large number of processed products were subject to specific rates of duty; that is, the duty imposed so many cents per pound. Of course, this meant that with increasing price levels, as we have unfortunately had in recent years for fruit and vegetables as well as other products, the real level of the tariff protection given our domestic fruit and vegetable growers was declining over a period of time.
The purpose of the bill which is now before the House as recommended by the tariff board is to restore some of the protection available in the past to fruit and vegetable growers. The bill provides for higher specific rates during the period when Canadian produce is being marketed. For each item the "floor" or minimum rate is expressed as a percentage of the value of the product to guard against further possible erosion from the effect of rising prices.
In connection with processed products, the old specific rates are being replaced by ad valorem rates. In most cases, these are higher than the percentage rates equivalent to the old rates. So there is a change in the system of valuation to give more protection. This change is to be made also on a seasonal basis when our Canadian fruits and vegetables are coming onto the market.
The legislation also provides for the removal of duties which apply to fresh produce at certain times of the year when Canadian produce is not available. At certain times in the year the duties would be removed when fruits and vegetables cannot be produced locally in Canada. This change also helps the consumer. The bill is to provide protection to fruit and vegetable growers as well as to consumers when Canadian fruits and vegetables are not available.


Herb Breau: That is good Liberal policy.


John Carnell Crosbie: I think it is good Canadian policy, Liberal or Conservative. I am giving it my enthusiastic support, in any event.
In addition, separate tariff items have been proposed for fresh fruits and vegetables that are imported for processing. We import fresh fruits and vegetables as well as processed. Those duties will be applied year round to discourage unduly large volumes of imports at either end of the marketing season for Canadian crops. The specific rates on these fresh fruits and vegetables to be processed here would generally be lower than on fresh produce for direct consumption, reflecting the generally lower value of processing grade crops. The minimum ad valorem rates which will apply are similar to those on fresh table produce.
Negotiations with our trading partners were necessary before tariff increases along the lines recommended by the tariff board could be implemented. Before their report could
Customs Tariff
be dealt with we had to negotiate with our trading partners under the agreements that were in effect. To reach agreement on those negotiations, to try to carry out what the tariff board was recommending, it was necessary for Canada to depart from some of the board's recommendations and offer compensation to our trading partners. In other words, if their rights were affected by these changes under international agreements they have the right to be compensated in other ways.
That explains why there are reductions in the duties proposed on a number of imports that are not covered by the board's report, for example, raisins, fruit juices and field peas. That accounts also for the fact that the rates on some products, such as canned fruit, are not as high as on those which the tariff board recommended because we had to give some compensation in these negotiations to our trading partners.
As I look along our ranks here I see there are some noted members representing the fruit and vegetable growing areas here today, particularly from the Okanagan Valley in British Columbia. 1 hope that this legislation will be of some benefit to them.
In closing, I might mention two provisions which differ from the legislation that was introduced by the previous government. The earlier legislation had proposed that tariff preferences on canned pears from Australia be eliminated over a three-year period. That proposal is included in the legislation that was introduced after the last budget. This legislation proposes that this elimination take place over four years with a rate schedule slightly more advantageous to Australia.
Hon. members might ask why this change. The answer is that in return for this the Australian government has agreed to continue to accord tariff preferences on Canadian exports of canned cherries for a similar period of time. In order to assist our canned cherries exporters we have given this slight concession to Australia. Therefore, the situation on canned pears will be eliminated over four years rather than three. That is one change.
The other change relates to clause 4 of this bill, which provides for the extension until June 30, 1980, of numerous tariff reductions scheduled to expire on June 30 this year. Most of these reductions will be overtaken by legislation to be brought before the House to implement the results of the multilateral trade negotiations at Geneva in the Tokyo Round, which I intend to introduce later this session. Sugar and related products were not included in the negotiations. In this bill we are proposing to continue the temporary rates on those products for an indefinite period.
When we come to clause by clause discussion of the bill, the parliamentary secretary and I will do our best to answer any detailed questions on these proposals. The bill is structured so that Part 1 deals with matters that came into force on March 13, 1979; that is the section that contains tariff reductions only. They will continue in effect by a remission order under the Financial Administration Act.
In Division II, clauses 7 to 10, schedules 4 and 5 contain tariff increases which came into force on October 24 of this

November 5, 1979
Customs Tariff
year. Parts II, III, IV, clauses 11 to 13, amend these multilateral trade agreement acts. They became effective October 24. Part V provides for implementation of these provisions above.
I might add that we will have to deal with a great deal of legislation which comes out of the MTN negotiations, the Tokyo Round so-called, which we will be introducing in this House later in the fall, I trust. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done in drafting the changes that come about from the MTN and other legislation associated with it that deal with non-tariff issues negotiated in the Tokyo Round.
I hope hon. members will be supportive of this legislation and we can get it through quickly so that we can go on with the other matters that will lie before us as the session progresses. Therefore, I move second reading.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) completed debate on third reading of the bill to implement the income tax changes from the last budget, he was good enough to admit he did not know what he was doing. This frankness is really most uncommon but is quite commendable on his part. On the other hand, one has to say that in speaking on behalf of, and giving his enthusiastic support to, the provisions of Bill C-18, to some extent, at least, he does know what he is doing because he is telling the House that he wishes it to adopt the changes in the customs tariff recommended to this House by the previous government before the last election.
Once again I have to note that the first answer of the new government to the request from the public, as expressed during the election, for some type of new direction and economic policy has been to bring again before the House the budget measures presented by the Liberals before the election. One can conclude, as we on this side have, that this demonstrates that the arguments of the Conservative party before and during the election, that they had some clear idea about the needs of the country and some new ideas to deal with it were not in fact correct. Here we have this new government, as its first major economic measure, asking this House to adopt the budget of the previous Liberal government.
As the minister pointed out, the major change proposed in this bill is to bring about the implementation of changes in the tariff on fruits and vegetables as recommended largely, although not entirely, by a report of the tariff board. This report was published after lengthy consideration by the tariff board. As I recall, that consideration included a number of public hearings and representations not only from the Canadian horticultural industry but from food processors and at least one consumer group as well.
The recommendations of the tariff board report, as adopted in large part by the previous government and presented to this House in the ways and means motion before the election, represented an attempt to find some fair balance between the requirements of both producers and consumers. While one can debate various aspects of the changes in the tariff as presented,

the objective of the previous government, as supported by the new government, to achieve a balance between the requirements of both producers and consumers has been carried out in large measure in the bill before us.
I am not going to take the time to review in any detail at this point the very technical provisions of the bill. I think Committee of the Whole is a more suitable forum for that type of debate. In any event, the important thing is that this new Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) is urging this House to adopt the bill having said, if I recall his words correctly, that the measures have his enthusiastic support.
We will not be prolonging unduly the consideration of this bill. We want the government to get on with the presentation to this House of its own budget. We want the government to present to this House its own ideas, if it has any, on what changes should be made in the income tax law of this country and what changes should be made in the customs and sales tax law in order better to reflect the needs of this country and its people.
We do not want to give even the appearance of an excuse for delaying the bringing into this House of a new budget by this new Conservative government. We want to see how this government is carrying out the responsibilities which it sought so actively from the Canadian people during the election. During that time they asked for the support of the Canadian people on the basis of a whole lot of very specific promises as to what they would do to help the Canadian economy.
So far we have seen only an abandonment of this government's promises and the carrying out-and this is something I do not quarrel with up to a point-of the policies of the preceding government. The new government has failed to recognize that while the measures of the preceding budget were very useful at the time they were presented and continue to be useful, changed circumstances, such as the OPEC oil price increase, the confirmation of the recession in the United States, the beginnings of the economic downturn in our own country, all require new measures to counteract, at least to some extent, the negative effects of these developments and to help the Canadian economy to be put on a new and necessary course based on the adoption of an industrial strategy. We need a program which, while it requires government leadership, also requires a high degree of co-operation between business and labour. It would have to be a program which tackles at long last the structural problems of our economy, including the high degree of foreign control over our economy, a situation which has good points but the bad points of which have been increasingly recognized in recent years.
The minister said that this bill will continue in force numerous temporary tariff items which would otherwise have expired in June of this year. He is asking the House to continue these temporary tariff items in force until such time as he presents to the House a bill to implement the results of the latest General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade negotiations which were made public a few months ago.
I hope in winding up this debate or in Committee of the Whole the minister will tell us exactly when he is going to
November 5, 1979

bring before this House the amendments to implement these GATT tariff changes. Will it be in his budget, will it be later, and if so, how much later? 1 think it is essential that these changes in our tariff to implement the GATT agreement be brought forward as soon as possible. It is clear some industries will have to make very substantial adjustments in order to cope with these changes. I recognize they are to be staged in over a period of up to eight years.
The process of parliamentary consideration of these changes should begin as soon as possible. As part of this process, it is absolutely essential that this government presents to the House, at the same time as it presents the measures to adopt the changes arising out of the GATT tariff negotiations, measures of adjustment assistance, measures to assist not just the industry affected by tariff changes but also the workers in that industry to cope with the effects of these changes.
It is essential that these measures of adjustment assistance not only provide for financial assistance to industries in order to help them retool, re-equip and perhaps even change their main line of endeavour to one degree or another, but also that there be to no lesser extent measures to help workers who may have to be laid off for a period of time and to help workers be retrained to meet new opportunities.
All too often when we consider measures of adjustment assistance in order to enable our industry to cope with changes in economic conditions arising out of tariff negotiations, we do not begin by giving attention to the obligation to take into account the burden of this adjustment on workers, as much as the burden that exists for industry. It is essential for the minister in winding up this debate or in Committee of the Whole to let us know when he is going to be introducing measures to implement the agreements arising out of the last GATT negotiations. Equally important is that there be adjustment assistance programs which will be available to no less extent to workers as to the industries affected by these tariff changes.
I also want to propose to the minister in this connection that the precedent set during the parliamentary consideration of the results of the last GATT tariff negotiations some ten years ago be followed on this occasion. At that time the House agreed to send the subject matter of the bill to adopt the results of the GATT negotiations to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs so that there could be public hearings. During those hearings members of the committee could question not only the minister and his officials, but could also hear from representatives of the industries and workers affected by these tariff changes.
Actually it would be a very good reform of the proceedings of this House if, when it comes to consideration of changes in our tax laws, whether they be changes in our income tax laws, customs or sales tax laws, detailed consideration be carried out, not in Committee of the Whole, but in the appropriate standing committee of the House. We could hear directly from the people affected by those proposed tax changes, we could hear the views of experts outside the government sector and we could question directly not just the minister but also the
Customs Tariff
officials who are advising him. We could do that to some extent at least. When just about every other bill is studied in a standing committee, the only exception being bills to implement a budget, one would think that this is really just a backwards way of going about the proper consideration of parliamentary business. If there was any bill which deserved attention in a standing committee rather than in Committee of the Whole-this House pretending to be a committee-it would be a bill to implement changes in our tax law.
In conclusion, I want again to say that it is not the intention of the official opposition to prolong unduly debate on this bill since it is to implement changes in the Customs tariff arising out of a ways and means motion presented before the last election. In Committee of the Whole we will be asking specific questions about the details of the bill.
In particular, we will be seeking further explanations not suitable to be given during second reading as to exactly how this bill differs from the ways and means motion presented before the election. However, our essential objective is to provide every opportunity for this government to present its own budget as soon as possible so that we can again demonstrate to the people of Canada that, despite what the Conservatives said during the past election campaign, they have no new or better ideas when it comes to dealing effectively with the problems of this country.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, it was with some reluctance that I agreed to lead off for my party on this measure since it is not a subject of which I have a great deal of personal knowledge but, having listened to the other two speeches, somehow my fears have dissolved in the face of experience.
There are a number of questions which we can raise concerning the Customs tariff. I am sorry the minister has decided to leave just as I have some questions to put to him.
Quite apart from these measures themselves, I think the general position of the government with respect to trade is unclear. I need only point out to the minister what I take to be two conflicting statements he has made over the past four or five months. The first statement with respect to trade and the objectives of the government was that the minister thought it would be a good idea if we had an active debate on free trade. The indication from the quotations which were widely publicized at the time is that the minister himself was personally leaning toward free trade with the United States as an alternative for Canada and as the direction in which we should be moving.
The second statement the minister made was in the House, and he indicated that quite to the contrary, he was now concerned about our pattern of trade with the United States and with the rest of the world. He was sufficiently concerned that he was looking at a range of policies which would give a greater amount of national independence to Canada, because he seemed to accept the argument which we had been making

Customs Tariff
that the underlying problems of the dollar and interest rates can only be solved once we address the question of our merchandise trade balance and our whole economic relationship with the United States as reflected in travel, in the current account deficit, in foreign investment, and in interest rates and dividends which are leaving the country at a great rate.
This debate is not an opportunity to raise those questions, but I think the minister should know that we are concerned about them and that we intend to be asking some very tough and particular questions about precisely what the intentions of the government are and how it intends to solve what is a structural problem in our economy. For example, 50 per cent of our merchandise trade takes place between parents and subsidiaries across the border between Canada and the United States. 1 think those patterns of trade are very unhealthy and very deep-seated in our economy. These are the kinds of questions we hope the minister will address himself to when it comes time to talk about multilateral trade negotiations and the agreements which have been signed.
1 want to express my agreement with what has just been said by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) about how we should deal with multilateral trade negotiations. We too look forward to a detailed discussion and briefing so that we will be able to question the minister and other experts and people in the field who will have some sense of what the effect of these measures will be.
For example, I think there is a very real point in our having discussions today concerning the processing industry in Canada and the rights and economic concerns of fruit growers and vegetable growers. I think we are entitled to ask two questions. Why was the situation allowed to deteriorate to the extent that some of these industries are in trouble? It is well known, for example, on the Niagara Peninsula that the fruit canning and processing industry has been in trouble. There has been a considerable amount of competition from the United States which has forced many concerns to go under and which has caused a great deal of difficulty. I think we are entitled to know how the situation was allowed to deteriorate to the extent that these measures have now become necessary, rather than seeing this chummy, chummy, love relationship which has now been established between the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) and the hon. member for Windsor West. There is the consensual or chummy view that everything is for the best. A measure which helps the consumer and also the horticultural industry at one and the same time is a stroke of magic! The hon. member for Windsor West says this bill must be right and that if it was put forward by the previous government, it must be good.
Mr. Bream Of course.


Bob Rae: The rest of us are a little more skeptical about measures put forward by the previous government. We do not share the view that everything which comes from that direction comes from on high, and I think we are entitled to

November 5, 1979
question how it is that the situation was allowed to deteriorate to the point where some of these measures became necessary.
1 hope some hon. members who are knowledgeable in this sphere will be able to tell us what exactly is the situation in these industries and how these measures will help them. Are these measures enough? Does the industry want more? Is more assistance necessary? What is the competition? These are all questions which lend themselves to detailed answers, and I am hoping that the minister or some of his officials will be able to give us those answers.
I know the minister does not have a lot of time, but I would like to advise him that the question of trade with South Africa is raised by this bill, and I think we are entitled to answers to questions. We know why we entered into an agreement with the so-called Union of South Africa in 1932, but that is a remnant of our historical and colonial past at which perhaps we are now entitled to look again and ask ourselves whether we want today to be entering into a preferential trade agreement, not with the Union of South Africa but with the Republic of South Africa, whose laws on apartheid we have expressed abhorrence toward in the United Nations for some 20 years.
The departure of South Africa from the Commonwealth was noted in 1960. The prime minister at that time, the late right hon. Mr. Diefenbaker, was particularly active in raising the question of institutionalized racial discrimination in South Africa. The second reading stage of this bill provides us with an opportunity to raise questions with respect to our trade with South Africa and our investment patterns in South Africa. We intend to do that under Part IV of the bill.
To sum up, we look forward to a detailed description by the minister of the state of the industry, an explanation of how these particular measures will help the industry and how it was that things were allowed to deteriorate to the point they have so that such intervention has been proved necessary. Second, we are not satisfied with the confusion which reigns over the trade policy of the government. Finally, we have some specific questions with respect to Canadian economic relations with the Republic of South Africa. I hope the minister will be in a position to answer some of those questions when it comes time to question him in Committee of the Whole.
Flon. George Hees (Northumberland): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) has said that he would like to see a nationwide debate take place on the subject of the possibility of free trade with the United States, so I intend to put forward my views on this important matter during this debate on the customs tariff bill.
To start with, we must realize that the United States has a home market ten times the size of the Canadian market. This has enabled their producers of manufactured goods, the ones that provide the lion's share of the jobs and profits, to concentrate their production in individual plants on fewer lines of production.
This has made it possible for them to achieve far greater economies of scale, and hence lower costs, than those we can
November 5, 1979

achieve in the great majority of our plants. There are a few notable exceptions, such as Massey-Ferguson, International Nickel, Domtar and a few other Canadian giants. However, it should be borne in mind that 75 per cent of manufacturing plants in Canada employ fewer than 100 people.
With these economies of scale available to them, and with wages in the United States generally lower than those now paid in Canada for similar work, American goods are, in most cases, priced considerably lower than their equivalents in Canada today. That is one of the things which is immediately apparent to Canadian visitors to the United States. It is what keeps their cost of living quite a bit lower than ours.
If tariffs on American goods entering Canada ceased to exist, American plants would simply increase their production by one tenth, thereby further increasing their economies of scale and enabling them to further lower their prices. This would make it possible for them to sell their goods at prices considerably lower than those available in Canada today.
Those who are in favour of free trade with the United States, our producers of primary products and our importers of finished goods made in the United States, argue that such a move would open up a far larger market for our goods and hence would greatly increase the sale of our products in that market. They confuse availability of an additional market with automatic success in that market.
Those who have competed with American producers, both in the United States and in the export market, know very well that they fight tooth and nail to retain any market which they now have and any additional market which they think they have a chance of acquiring. Their answer to any new challenge is to lower prices and increase service, and that is exactly the procedure they would follow in meeting any new attempts by Canadians to make serious inroads into the United States market with products which are also produced in the U.S.A.
A great deal of production in Canada is carried on in American branch plants which have brought with them technology not available in this country. The principal reason these plants have been established here is the Canadian tariff and the trading advantages made available by the British preference. If the tariff disappeared, there would be far less reason for operating branch plants in this country, and their Canadian production would simply be added to that of the United States parent and shipped across the border to the Canadian market.
So 1 think you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that the idea of free trade with the United States is not an economically viable one for this country for the reasons 1 have mentioned. It would be a very serious blow to the manufacturing industry in this country, which is of such great importance to our employment, our prosperity, and our standard of living.
In addition to the economic side of the issue, there is also the very important political side. History shows us that the establishment of a free trade zone is usually the first step in moving toward full economic integration. A recent example is
Customs Tariff
the European Economic Community, which started with limited free trade and has now elected a European parliament. There is no reason for believing that free trade with the United States would not move us in the same direction.
So it appears to me that an examination of the facts as they are today gives a clear indication that a move toward free trade with the United States would not be a good thing for this country, either from the economic or the political point of view. I believe that from both points of view it would be a disaster.
[ Translation]


Mr. Robert Gourd (Argenteuil):: Mr. Speaker, there is no denying that I too agree with this bill which was introduced by my government when it was in power. I am pleased to see that the minister is here. I should like to open a new bracket concerning this Customs Tariff Act. In the riding I represent, that of Argenteuil, we find the largest airport in North America, that of Mirabel. On rereading this bill, I decided to speak to this House of a problem that exists at Mirabel but that could easily be solved. It would be very easy to do if the minister decided to make of Mirabel a free port where primary products would be taken, processed then exported to the United States where we would have a market of over $200 million. It is most important to realize that such a project would be a first in North America; this type of thing does exist only in a few countries where what is commonly known as "duty-free zones" have been developed-

-where the manufacturing and assembly processes could be created in order to expand our market to our neighbours, the United States. We have in this country, especially in the riding of Argenteuil, the necessary manpower and technology. The only thing we would need is the facility through an amendment to the customs law.

It would be a cinch considering there already is on the Mirabel property the infrastructure of an industrial park, access to the specialized work force of the neighbouring automobile industry in the riding of my colleague from Blain-ville-Deux-Montagnes; and then I see the list of material to which these amendments will apply: typewriters, phonographs, record players, cameras. In short, all that is being amended by this bill could easily be assembled within a duty-free zone; and when 1 say that, Mr. Speaker, I merely mean an area in which primary goods could be imported duty free, assembled there and then exported to another country.
Argenteuil has numerous advantages and, of course, our friends the Tories have always called Mirabel "a white elephant" but nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, it exists. It is there and it will not disappear. We might as well stop politicking and make out of it something that will benefit all the population of my constituency. Close to Mirabel, you have the city of Lachute where many businesses had to close down for various

November 5, 1979
Customs Tariff
reasons. Here again, Mr. Speaker, we find a demographic concentration that could benefit from a duty-free zone for assembling and manufacturing factories, which could be easily established. I hope the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) will take this statement under consideration and remember that his Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) often says the time has come for action.
The Tory government can now use this tool to act, and I think that this amendment to the Customs tariff should include a provision to make Mirabel a duty-free zone in order to aid Quebec manufacturers and others who may want to settle in this region which is full of opportunities for industry and a population who would certainly welcome this move.
This bill includes provisions on vegetables. Market gardening is very important in the area surrounding the Argenteuil riding, and the eastern part of the riding as well as the Deux-Montagnes area are great apple producers. This could lead to a canning industry for export which would also benefit the area.
The object of this amendment would be to create jobs for the population of Argenteuil, the population of Quebec, in this year when we need a most comprehensive attitude from the government.
[ Translation]
Not only is it very important to deal with an issue such as this, but I suggest that the present government should give top priority to the industrial and commercial development of Mirabel. Enough with all these demands. We must live with an elephant, Mr. Speaker, and it is the taxpayers of the whole of Canada who must assume the costs of its maintenance.
To those who blame the previous government, 1 can reply that 1 had no part in it. But they will not be able to blame me for not doing my duty and failing to urge the House to create an industrial region which would include the Mirabel area, in order to create the many jobs which are required in the Argenteuil riding where the rate of unemployment can reach 33 per cent during certain periods of the year. That is the reason for my insistence, Mr. Speaker, and I hope that the minister and his parliamentary secretary will look into this problem which Quebec is now facing. This is of utmost importance, Mr. Speaker, since we all seem to agree to this legislation, so that the minister may introduce his budget in the House as soon as possible.
During the months preceding the election I have seen our Tory friends opposite criticizing the budget tabled by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) and saying how bad it was that such a budget be supported by a government. Maybe it is due to my naivete or my lack of experience, Mr. Speaker, but 1 do not understand why the Minister of Finance now sitting in this House cannot bring in a budget some six

months after having assumed that position. What is he waiting for? Or is it that the budget brought down by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice was so good, and 1 believe it was, that he is simply going to carry on with the budget presented by the former minister of finance.
I will now conclude my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by renewing my request for his department as well as the Department of National Revenue to study seriously the matter 1 have raised and I hope that during the coming sessions we will have opportunities to discuss it more thoroughly and that very soon the ministers concerned will be in a position to transform the expropriated area of Mirabel into a duty-free zone to help the manufacturers who want to export and assemble goods in Quebec and especially in Argenteuil.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: As Mr. Speaker is aware, second reading of a bill was devised to discuss the principle of a particular bill. 1 would suggest that discussions which range all over the atmosphere, all over right field and left field in second reading of a bill, are not only incorrect but accomplish really nothing.
There are two principles in which I am very interested in regard to this particular bill. Imports have a place, but when we are talking about tariffs and the farmers of this country, whether it is for fruits, vegetables or anything else, the major principle which must be considered is: How does it affect producers? When we provide tariffs which will destroy industry inside our country, certainly we are doing our producers no good whatsoever.
Over the years we have seen situations where imports have made it almost impossible, if not impossible, for producers in the country to produce. That is why so many of them have gone under during the last ten years. Any law pertaining to producers should ensure that the tariffs will not destroy or injure the Canadian production of foods. If we keep that point in mind, ensure that Canadian producers have a fair show in producing, and then provide them with a reasonable return for their production, we will be amazed at what can be produced in Canada through the use of hothouse agricultural technology, etc.
The second principle is: How does it affect the consumer? When we raise tariffs and leave them on continually, so that during the last two or three winters the people of this country had to pay $1 a head for lettuce, they are certainly not accomplishing their purpose. Not only is it inflationary, but it is causing consumers either to go without or is providing lettuce only for those who have plenty of cash. That is not the purpose of a tariff. I believe the purpose of a tariff should be to give producers a chance and an incentive to produce. Also it should provide as fair a price as possible to the consumers of these important products. If our tariffs accomplish these two principles, we will see a thriving industry in the country and we will ensure that our consumers get the food they require to build strong, healthy bodies.
November 5, 1979


Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate which I think is the second one that can be called a liberal measure; for example, on the 22nd you vote "blue". All Quebeckers remember that famous slogan of Mr. Andre Payette who is now I believe the Prime Minister's adviser on public relations and who was at that time in the advertising business and was interviewing a lady buying her groceries. She was flabbergasted by food prices and was saying; Mr. Payette, the only solution 1 see to those prices is to vote "blue" on the 22nd. Some Canadians believed it more than I would have liked, and finally, on the 22nd, they voted "blue"to give us that government opposite, that government which in spite of its many promises, introduces a Liberal legislation.
Like my colleague from Windsor West, 1 support this legislation because it was first introduced by the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) in a budget beneficial to all Canadians; but 1 am outraged that this government was not more original and did not introduce its own legislation.
i am pleased that consumers will be protected against overly massive imports of foreign products. Farmers in my riding will also be protected. Potatoes, strawberries and other fruit and vegetable growers in my riding will have access to the Canadian market at a better price for Canadian consumers. The advertising of the Progressive Conservative Party might have been dishonest or misleading, and perhaps the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Lawrence) should set up an inquiry and at the same time look at the embassy issue.
On the night of May 22, the people in my riding were very disappointed to see that a Progressive Conservative government was in power, but they thought: With all their promises, they will certainly introduce legislation to help us, especially as concerns food costs, since even the commercials named the guilty party. Most Quebeckers saw this. The former prime minister was to blame for the increase in the price of bread and for everything else.
Now 1 am wondering whether we are making this government guilty of plagiarism. During the campaign, they had answers for everything, and now their only answer is to salvage the Liberal solutions. All members of my party and myself will support this because we hope it will help the Canadian producer and give some respite to the consumer.
However, Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am extremely disappointed because even though 1 did not have any confidence in this government, I thought that they must have something ready to suggest in view of all the promises that they were making.
In this case, for instance, we see that they want to help reduce horticultural imports. They had also promised to do the same for dairy products. Since this subject is not covered by Bill C-18,1 hope that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), in co-operation with his colleagues, will succeed in reducing
Customs Tariff
imports in this area. The government wanted to stop importing cheese and other food products. As a matter of fact, one of their famous promises was on this subject.
They have not found anything better to suggest than the Liberal proposals. I had to smile when I read in one of the schedules of the bill the reference to the import of coffins. 1 invite Parliament to pass this bill as soon as possible in case the government itself needs a coffin after tomorrow evening.
I have nothing to add and I wish only to remind the government that the motto of Quebeckers is; "Je me souviens" and that we remember those famous promises, that famous commercial and we shall not forget it for quite some time. I hope that at the time of the coming budget, should the government last until then, we shall be able to judge its performance. Mr. Payette, who did a commercial with so much verve might use a little more verve to try and convince his leader to participate more actively in the referendum debate.
Mr. Speaker, those were the few remarks I had to make on the subject. We shall ask more detailed questions when studying the bill clause by clause.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I am amused by the discussions that are taking place under this old ways and means motion contained in Bill C-18. 1 was particularly amused by the remarks of the hon. member who preceded me and who said "Je me souviens". They remember whatever the hell they want, and they forget whatever they don't want to remember.
Cheese was mentioned, but I point out that this problem did not exist until the former prime minister went to Europe and made a deal for gradual entry into the common market, establishing what is called a shoulder to shoulder sort of relationship. He made that deal and the price was the entry of 45 million pounds. That was the price of that deal. Hon. members remember what they want to remember and forget what they do not want to remember. I suppose that is always the case.
One of the problems we have with this kind of a bill is that it does not say anything or it says everything, depending on how you interpret it. It has become a means by which people speak in favour of high tariffs or recommend free tariffs. I suppose civil servants who understand something about tariff practice know what is being done, but 1 am sure most members of Parliament cannot understand these ways and means motions, how these things come about, or what the situation was before amendment. I can read as well as anyone and I would be quite happy to refer to some of the items.
A previous speaker mentioned lettuce and suggested that if it were not for the tariff structure we would not be paying high prices in the wintertime. It is indicated that the tariff on lettuce is 85 cents a pound, which I think is high, or free. It is free in any 12-month period ending March 31. It states that it shall not be maintained in force in excess of 16 weeks, which

November 5, 1979
Customs Tariff
may be divided into two separate periods, and the free rate shall apply whenever the specific duty is not in effect. In other words, it does not apply throughout the year. So the tariff is not really the reason for these high prices, except during those periods when Canadians are producing either at the beginning or at the end of the season.
We have before us a bill that the minister has said he will favour, support and endorse. He did not go so far as to say that he was going to understand it. Most ways and means motions introduced in this House leave a lot to be desired. We have references to South Africa and whether we should maintain the preferential treatment which was extended in 1932. We have heard about other arrangements which were made many years ago, and some references to whether we should now accept or continue those arrangements. The bill does not say what those arrangements were, it does not include an explanation of them and it does not indicate what are the recommended changes. In fact, the words in the ways and means motion only relate to changes that are going to take place.
In relation to the New Zealand agreement of 1932 clause 11 says that we will strike out tariff items 104a and 106 and the enumerations of goods and the rates of duties set opposite each of those items. Then it goes on to say that any enactment founded upon the motion shall be deemed to have come into effect on October 24 and to have applied to all goods mentioned in the said motion imported or taken out of the warehouse, and so on. There are another two or three lines that do not mean any more than the lines to which I have just referred. Then the bill goes on to provide much the same things for Australia and South Africa.
The Australian trade agreement goes back to 1960, but the South African trade agreement goes back to 1932. The members of this Parliament are being asked either to pass this bill or turn it down. If we pass the bill, what have we done to our agreements with New Zealand, Australia, or South Africa? I imagine there are very few people on the tariff board who know what is mentioned in the original agreement. If the government wishes to amend an act, it should at least give the section. I probably have the 1960 amendments in my office, but I do not believe that any member, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), would have the amendment which was negotiated in 1932.


An hon. Member:: It is in his head.


William Arnold Peters: It may be in his head. He has just arrived and he can give that information himself. However, I do not think that it is in this bill, and how can we make even small changes to a tariff agreement with another country that was negotiated in 1932 or, for that matter, in 1960, when the government does not give the sections of the act that it is amending? I do not think that it matters one way or another. It has not really made a great deal of difference to anyone as to what happens with regard to tariff adjustments. These adjustments have
[Mr. Peters.)
been made many times, and there are always changes indicated in the ways and means motions.
In the agricultural field, however, there are too many problems which are of an immediate nature and which can have a detrimental and catastrophic effect on farmers of various commodities. The soft fruit industry has almost entirely disappeared from Canada, such fruits as peaches, cherries and strawberries. Most of the fruit industry in Ontario has disappeared simply because it could not compete in world markets. As I understand it, most of us in this House would like to have free trade and believe that it is a wonderful thing, provided it does not affect our commodities. Naturally, we want to protect our commodities, and I suppose that is true of every business from the peach producer to automobile manufacturer.
But what has happened? Certainly you, Mr. Speaker, have had personal contact with this situation and are aware of the inability of the trade board to operate fast enough to provide the kind of protection necessary with regard to agricultural commodities. It is interesting to note that in all these changes the tariff only applies to a specific field when it comes to agricultural products. The tariff is applied in the period when the surplus in another country is at its peak and our system is either beginning or ending, in most cases beginning.
This prevents countries with which Canada does not have anti-dumping laws from dumping in our country during our peak periods. They would normally be in a position to dump their agricultural products in Canada at the beginning of our season when production costs are still very high and the production period has not yet begun. The government is allowed to make these changes. If one were to take any commodity, and I will use cauliflower as an example, free rates shall apply during the months of January, February, March, April and May. I presume that is because our storage facilities will not hold cauliflower over a longer period. During the remaining months, however, in any 12-month period ending March 31, the specific duty or ad valorem duty, as the case may be, shall not be maintained in force in excess of 20 weeks, which may be divided into two separate periods, and the free rate shall apply whenever the specific duty or ad valorem duty is not in effect.
The reason for 20 weeks is that that is our period of production. We have always found, whether it be cauliflower, cherries or any other commodity, that the tariff board never reacts quickly enough to protect the farmer. The farmer is the victim of the improper or slow use of the regulatory tool with regard to applying tariffs. There may be one or two reasons for this. One may be that the government wants to make money, and they may be able to collect more money from the tariff than from their share of the production. I presume that this is true with regard to many of the commodities in Canada.
The Department of Agriculture does not have a say as to when the tariff shall apply. This means that by the time the matter has gone through two or three departments the problem has developed to a stage where the tariff will no longer alleviate the problem. This was found to be the case with imported meats. For a long time offshore meats were imported
November 5, 1979

into Canada at a rate which was considerably below what the Canadian market could stand. Boxed meat was being brought in from Australia and South America, and this constituted unfair competition to the meat producers in Canada, which meant that the price of beef was depressed for a considerable period of time.
When supplies of this offshore meat dried up, Canadian producers could not meet the demand and consequently the price jumped, which was a great detriment to the consumer because of the advantages taken by the importers and those in the wholesale meat business. That situation could have been balanced out to the best advantage of both the consumer and the producer. The producer would not have been subjected to the low prices then and would not have experienced the difficulties created in a market where the price to the consumer was too high.
One of the reasons that we have had so much difficulty with agricultural production is simply that the Department of Agriculture has not had the mechanism to control agricultural structures and has had no way of applying these tariffs at the most opportune moment. 1 am not suggesting that there is anything wrong with these tariffs or the periods which are mentioned in the bill. It may well be that 30 weeks is the right amount of time for cabbage because cabbage keeps a lot longer than cauliflower. It may well be that 20 weeks is long enough for cauliflower.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Saint-Leonard-Anjou (Miss Begin)-Social Security-Request that principle of universality of family allowances be maintained; the hon. member for London West (Mr. Buchanan)-National Defence-Purchase of new fighter aircraft; the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan)-Regional Economic Expansion-Financial assistance for mine in Cape Breton.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.
Penitentiaries


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, may we discuss motion No. 7? May we, with the unanimous consent of the House, stand motions Nos. 3 and 5?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Is it
agreed that we stand these two items?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PENITENTIARIES
Svend Johannes Robinson: That a special subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs be established to monitor the government's progress on the implementation of the recommendations of the previous subcommittee on penitentiaries, and to conduct such further inquiries and to travel as may be required.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as indicated in the notice of motion, the purpose of the motion this afternoon, which I hope will receive consent on all sides of the House, is basically to revive the terms of reference of a subcommittee established on October 21, 1976, well over three years ago. The reason for the notice of motion is that, despite the fact that the subcommittee had extensive meetings and came up with a unanimous report, today far too many of the recommendations of the subcommittee have yet to be implemented.
As 1 have indicated, it was on October 21, 1976, that the original subcommittee was established with consent from all sides of this House. I think it is important to indicate to the House that one of the reasons for that was that in the month preceding the establishment of the subcommittee, there had been three major riots-at Laval Institute, at the B.C. penitentiary in my province and at Millhaven in the province of Ontario, in which a total of over $2 million damage had been done. A subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs was struck, which subcommittee, I might add, contained a number of very distinguished members of this House who are still members of the Elouse. I should particularly like to commend the work of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) who so ably chaired this subcommittee and who, I know, earned the respect not only of members of this House but of people all across Canada from the very many organizations involved in the field of corrections. He did an outstanding job and he deserves to be recognized for it once again by this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: In addition, there were a number of distinguished lawyers on that committee, such as the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) who today is
958

November 5, 1979
Penitentiaries
chairman of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, and a number of other very distinguished members of this House. The hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Harquail) was a member of the subcommittee, as was the hon. member for Rosemount (Mr. Lachance) who is not in the House today. So was the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday) and Mr. Stuart Leggatt who is not now a member of the House but is in Ottawa today. He played a very active role in the recommendations that led to the subcommittee report.
The subcommittee reported on May 26, 1977 with what might be considered record speed. It interviewed a large number of witnesses and travelled all across the country and to other parts of the world to examine penitentiary systems.
The subcommittee report, which I have before me, was a unanimous one. Members of the House will appreciate the significance of that. The report was perhaps an example of non-partisan politics at its finest. There was obviously some compromise but there was no question that the entire subcommittee unanimously supported the recommendations in the report. The key recommendation was No. 1 and 1 will read any excerpt from that into the record as follows:
A crisis exists in the Canadian penitentiary service. It can be met only by the immediate implementation of large scale reforms. It is imperative that the Solicitor General act immediately on this report as a matter of the utmost urgency.
That was in May, 1977. Unfortunately, the response of the then solicitor general was disturbing, to say the least. On this key recommendation with respect to a crisis existing in the penal system, a crisis detailed by a committee which had travelled from one side of the country to the other, the solicitor general, from the security of his office, said, "No, there is no crisis in the penal system; there may be problems, but crisis is perhaps not an appropriate word".
Things deteriorated from that point, Mr. Speaker. I might also add that during the period in which the subcommittee was making its investigation there was no violence whatsoever within the penal system. I think all components of the penal system had an air of expectation and had hoped that the subcommittee would come up with broad and sweeping recommendations for change, which, of course, it did.
Since that time, there have been a number of occasions both in committee and in the House where hon. members from all sides of the House have had an opportunity to monitor the implementation of the subcommittee's recommendations. It has been a rather sorry state of affairs.
I must again commend the former chairman of the subcommittee, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, who despite the fact that he was a member of the government spoke out very articulately and forcefully, expressing his concerns about the failure of his government to implement a number of key recommendations of the subcommittee on penitentiaries. Certainly if his tones were strong, there was no question whatsoever where members of the Conservative party and members of my party stood on the recommendations of the subcommittee.
For example, in February this year, only a few short months ago, as a member of the opposition, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), now a member of the government, speaking on the motion for concurrence in the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, said as reported at page 2929 of Hansard:
We are as mad as hell, we are not going to take it any more, we are fed up with being ignored by the government.
He went on to talk about contempt. Later at page 2932 of Hansard he said:
What we are debating here today is this government's attitude to-one could almost say contempt for-parliament.
There was no doubt that members of the Conservative party who are now members of the government-the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the hon. member for St. John's East and a number of others, were very disturbed that the key recommendations of the subcommittee were not being implemented in areas such as ensuring an adequate scale of pay and recognition of working conditions within our penitentiary system. The fundamental concern was that those persons who work in such a penitentiary system be recognized as being basically in the front lines of what is a very arduous, difficult and demanding job. That has to be recognized not only in terms of pay, but in terms of pensions.
Surely it is wrong that the government should have to come before the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and ask for supplementary estimates in order to give pensions to the widows and families of guards who are killed within the penitentiary system. What kind of recognition is that of the outstanding job being done by those persons who work within that system?
In addition, the subcommittee recommended that there should be voluntary retirement at age 55. Once again this recommendation has not been implemented by the government. In a moment I shall deal with the government's attitude toward implementation of the recommendations.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that we have to recognize the critical role that the staff within the penitentiary system plays. Morale has certainly not been high. There is no doubt about that. I have recently visited the B.C. penitentiary and a number of other institutions. There is no question that those persons who work in such institutions expected, and had every right to expect, that action would be taken, if nothing else at least on these critical recommendations with respect to working conditions within the penitentiary system.
In addition, the committee recommended in the strongest possible terms that there must be a separate, independent professional penitentiary staff system. This is very important, and it is a recommendation which to this date has again not been implemented by either the past or present government. There were concerns expressed about the size of our pentitenti-aries. There were concerns expressed about a number of different areas. In fact, what we saw was a gradual erosion of the number of recommendations stated to have been implemented by the government.

November 5, 1979

For example, on August 5, 1977, the then solicitor general, the present hon. member for Blainville-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Fox) indicated that he had accepted 53 of the recommendations in whole or in part. In February, 1978 the solicitor general at that time said 37 of the recommendations had been implemented or were in the process of being implemented. In October, 1978, the then solicitor general talked about 22 recommendations that had been completely implemented.
Mr. Feggatt in his speech of February 6, 1979, indicated that it was his view that some 14 recommendations out of a total of 65 had in fact been implemented over a period, at that point, of one year and eight months since the subcommittee reported to the Flouse. I repeat, that-14 out of 65 recommendations had been implemented. The hon. member for Yukon, who is the present Minister of Public Works, in that same debate stated in no uncertain terms that his grievance was not with the solicitor general's department in terms of what it had done but in terms of what it had not done. He stated that the Liberals, Conservatives, members of the NDP and Social Credit parties had agreed unanimously, that this report ought to be taken as a package to be effective.
Its core recommendations have been completely ignored. He went on to say, 1 think quite rightly, that it is not irresponsible to suggest that unless something is done in a meaningful way about the adoption of the package of these recommendations, we will be back at square one. We all believed that this is what would happen when we submitted the report. To say we will be back at square one is a rather disturbing scenario, to say the least, if one bears in mind what I indicated square one was shortly before this subcommittee was established.
We have seen recently that one can build the finest institutions possible, where physical surroundings are flawless, and where living units are included etc. But where the basic recommendations of the subcommittee in terms of professionalization of staff and in terms of a number of other key recommendations, such as those relating to the grievance procedure, are not implemented, one can have the best institution in the world but we will still see flare-ups of the kind that took place at Kent institution within the past couple of weeks. In that case over half the prisoners were involved in a very expensive and damaging destruction of a substantial part of the Kent institution.
Where do we go from here, Mr. Speaker? We have a new government. We have members of this new government who have been active in opposition in calling for implementation, and full implementation, of the subcommittee's recommendations. As I said, we had the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) saying that they were fed up with the previous government's delay in implementing the recommendations, that they were not going to take it any more, and that they were fed up being ignored by the government.
These people are now members of the government. They now have an opportunity to implement those recommendations about which they were so concerned only a few short months ago. What do we see in response? Last week the Solicitor General (Mr. Lawrence) appeared before the justice and legal
Penitentiaries
affairs committee with what he called a progress report. I have the document here. It concerns the implementation of the parliamentary report on the penitentiary system.
The present government has indicated that its view regarding implementation of these proposals is identical to that of the previous government. What kind of hypocrisy is this? What kind of charade are we being subjected to when, in opposition, members of this government, including a number of cabinet ministers, actively and outspokenly called for the implementation of the recommendations of the subcommittee? Yet when these people get into government and have a chance to implement the various recommendations, what happens? They are captured by the same bureaucracy, and we receive a report which might have been a photocopy of reports of January 1979, November 1978, March 1978, or August 1977. There is no change in the attitude of this government to the implementation of these recommendations.
I think that is a scandalous situation, Mr. Speaker. It is a scandalous situation when on the one hand the party in opposition can call in the strongest possible terms for the implementation of certain recommendations, yet when these people are in government and have a chance to act, what do they do? They carry on along the same course. It has been said by others, "progressive in opposition, conservative in government".
I want to say a word or two about the specific terms of this motion in the couple of moments I have left at my disposal. The motion calls for the establishment of a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which would be charged with the responsibility of examining the implementation of these recommendations. These were the recommendations which members opposite, now on the government side, were so concerned be implemented as a package. I say this subcommittee is essential, that there must be a body specifically charged with the responsibility of ensuring that these recommendations-all the recommendations, not just some of them-are implemented.
I understand that my friends on this side of the House will be supporting this motion. I would also hope that friends on the other side will not talk the motion out. 1 must say that I did speak with the Solicitor General, who indicated that he was prepared to accept the substance of this motion. He was prepared for there to be an ongoing permanent reference in line with recommendation 65 of the subcommittee, and he was prepared to appear, as he put it, whenever the committee asked him to appear with his officials. That is all well and good, but members opposite have a chance this afternoon to put their money where their mouth is and to allow this motion to come to a vote. It will be interesting to see whether, in that spirit of non-partisan debate which characterized the deliberations of the subcommittee, we will now be allowed to vote on this motion itself.
It is a straightforward motion. The recommendations of the subcommittee are clear. The attitudes of members opposite to those recommendations, and the failure to implement a number of them, have been clear for some time. I only hope

November 5, 1979
Penitentiaries
that that will be reflected in the vote taken today and that this motion will be passed unanimously by this House, just as the recommendations of the subcommittee were passed unanimously.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I say, I will await with interest the response of members on the other side of the House.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion put by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). 1 am not going to take long because I want to make sure this motion has an opportunity of getting through. The last thing I want is to contribute to the talking out of a motion as important as this one. In fact, not only do we support this motion, but we have in effect made the same proposal ourselves.

The hon. member for Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) raised the question of implementation of recommendation 65 both in the House and in committee.

The most charitable thing to say about the response of the Solicitor General (Mr. Lawrence) on both of those occasions was that he was evasive. He was evasive in the House, although he later claimed he misunderstood the question put in the House. We gave him a chance to put it right in committee but he was even more evasive. To indicate that this may even go beyond evasion, on the one hand he suggested that this recommendation was one of those which had been wholly accepted by the government. It was not on the list of those which had been rejected or was under question; it was on the list of those that had been accepted. Despite that assurance the Solicitor General said in committee that we do not need a reference of this kind, that we do not have time to deal with it, and that in any event it would be impossible to have this kind of reference. So much for his devotion to the implementation of recommendation 65.
Let us just take briefly each of those arguments. He says we do not need this kind of reference because of the fact that he is prepared to appear before us at any time. If we do not have a reference which enables us to hear him, how will he appear before us without a special order of reference? The House is well aware that the main estimates are due back in the House some time early in December. At that time the power of the committee to question the Solicitor General on this issue will expire, unless there is a special reference. It is a special reference we are talking about in this case.
He says we do not have time for it because we will have so much else to do in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It is precisely because of this problem of time that we so strongly support the idea of a special reference. If that reference were to a subcommittee, if the subcommittee were a small one with one representative from each party, for example, the subcommittee could continue work on penitentiaries while the rest of the committee dealt with the work
before it. That would be a way of dividing the business before the committee and enabling it to do both things at once.
The argument the Solicitor General made actually turns back on himself. He attempted to argue procedure, that it is impossible to have a permanent reference. We were anticipating on the one hand that the government would some time soon make it possible to have permanent references to committees or even provide that they do not need orders of reference. This is supposed to be in the package of proposals which the government is going to be making to this House for the reform of the rules. It is one that meets with considerable favour on this side. If that is not the case, there is certainly the possibility of continuing orders of reference each session which achieve the same over-all purpose. It is splitting hairs to maintain it is not possible to give the committee these powers.
We on this side of the House have a suspicion that the implementation of this report by the correctional service is a largely nominal one. Not entirely, since there has been a lot of good implementation. But we were given a lot of statistics in the committee, a lot of things we did not have the opportunity to follow up. We have our suspicions about how deep implementations may be intended to go.
It is for this reason that we feel we need additional time to look at this problem. We simply cannot do the kind of job which this subject requires, we cannot do justice to the work of the subcommittee on penitentiaries which members on all sides of the House say they admire, unless we have the opportunity to continue it in detail in the future.
There is a lot more I would like to say about this subject. I would like to use this motion as a springboard to talk about penitentiaries and I am pleased the hon. member for Burnaby has given us this chance, but I will eschew the opportunity on this occasion. I want to hear whether the government is going to allow this motion to pass or whether instructions have been given to its supporters on the other side to talk it out.


Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, this is one of those topics where there seems to be little middle ground, and when one does speak out and take a stand, either one if viewed as believing penitentiaries should be like dungeons or that they should be like hotels and the prisoners the guests. Obviously, neither view is reality or what we as a society want our correctional service institutions to be. We as legislators must always be cognizant, even in the most serious and disturbing of times, that penitentiaries are there not because criminals are a bunch of mixed up kids. Criminals are there because they committed crimes, possibly violent crimes, and incarcerated only after due process of law and all its avenues have been exhausted. A prisoner or indeed anyone can be helped only if they want to be helped. Consideration and a want to help the inmate will only aid the rehabilitation process; it will not be the factor that will cause change.
The motion before this House today seeks to have a permanent reference during the Thirty-first Parliament to enable the House to review the implementation of the MacGuigan report. Certainly no one who believes that Parliament is important,

November 5, 1979

indeed the place where the laws of the land are made, could disagree in principle with this type of motion. Elowever, and I will speak further about this a little later, when there is good faith from a new minister and 51 of 65 recommendations are in process of implementation or shortly to be acted upon, and only five recommendations because of circumstances outside the control of the minister will not be acted upon, then I believe a motion to ask for a permanent reference to check their implementation is not only redundant but a waste of our time.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Why does he say it has been
implemented?


Duncan M. Beattie: To answer the hon. member's question, the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) asked about and agreed with the terms of reference at the meeting last Thursday. Certainly until the private members' hour is changed, it does a disservice to the more important matters that could come before the House. 1 was pleased, however, to hear him mention the good work and results achieved by the committee.
1 concur with him in that regard. I had the opportunity to have a discussion with two former members, Mrs. Holt and John Reynolds, in Vancouver on Saturday night. They were not only more than pleased to have sat on that committee but pointed out the great work that had been done by the chairman of the committee. That is as far as 1 will go in support of the motion of the hon. member for Burnaby.
1 think it is worthwhile before looking at the report or the motion to look at the situation that caused these recommendations. The relative peace before 1970 ended in that year and between 1970 and 1976 the number of cases of hostage taking, violence and murders in the Canadian penitentiary system increased alarmingly. In the 42 years between 1932 and 1974 there were 65 major incidents in federal penitentiaries. Yet in the two years 1974-1976, before the subcommittee was struck, there were 69 incidents which included 33 hostage takings, 92 victims and one who was killed. The whole process of violence in federal institutions was not just increasing but rapidly accelerating. This situation was judged by the House of Commons to be unacceptable. The matter was referred to the justice and legal affairs committee which set up the subcommittee on the penitentiary system in Canada.
The situation had deteriorated so far that it just was not an intellectual argument of prisoners' rights or a simple matter of a few troublemakers. It was a question of credibility, credibility not only of the institution and the inmates but also of the institution and the general public. There was deep concern, and let us not forget this point, as to who was really running the institution in the minds of many average Canadians. The public could not be sure if the violence was the result of too much suppression and oppression from the security guards or because there was too little supervision and control being exerted.
With Canadians in that sort of quandary, action had to be taken to bring back some sense of order to the penitentiaries in
Penitentiaries
the minds of the citizens. The problem of credibility between the institution and the inmates was a totally different matter. Here it was not just a matter of perception or of public relations, but a question of intense frustration and anger at the lack of change in the institution. Mistrust had been allowed to developed which brought the inmates and staff to a state of anarchy. This whole attitude and situation reflected the state of the whole penitentiary system, not just one or two of the institutions.
The committee's work was intensive. It interviewed more than 2,000 inmates and staff, toured 24 institutes-seven of them outside Canada-and also held 72 formal meetings, lasting over 200 hours. The job done by the committee was just magnificent. The important thing about the 65 recommendations which came from this all-party subcommittee was that they were unanimously endorsed.
The recommendations covered a wide range of topics, from different types of rehabilitation to requirements for staff, to prisoner grievance procedures, to types of permissible treatment of prisoners, to reorganization of the system, and to new structure for the bureaucracy running institutions. The breadth of the recommendations, I think, represents the seriousness and the responsibility with which the sub-committee undertook in its task.
While one may have disagreements with any or all of the recommendations, it is an obvious fact that the 1970-1976 violence has definitely subsided. That is the important thing. Since that time only 17 hostage takings have occurred, which represents an over 60 per cent decrease just since the process started, therefore before any of the recommendations were implemented. The credibility of the system both in terms of the public and inmates has improved. Most Canadians today not only know who is running the correctional system but also feel that the rehabilitation process is much more effective than it was before 1976. Certainly with less violence one has to believe that the inmates have less outright hostility than they did prior to that time.
It is only natural in a penitentiary system that violence will occur from time to time. The important thing is that the violence which does occur is isolated and is associated with individual problems, not over-all grievances regarding the total correctional system. With the success of the sub-committee recommendations one would feel that on the whole they are moving the correctional service in the right direction.
However, to ask now as this motion does today for a permanent reference on the implementation of the recommendations is like shutting the barn door after the horses have bolted. The process of implementing the proposals is not starting but finishing, and not only is it finishing but it is doing it with a guarantee of co-operation from our new Solicitor General (Mr. Lawrence). He is not ducking the issue, as the hon. member suggests or shirking his responsibility. On the contrary, the Solicitor General is being very open and, indeed,

November 5, 1979
Penitentiaries
very supportive of the wishes of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
This motion by the hon. member for Burnaby, while in principle acceptable, is really not needed. The hon. member knows that it is not needed, at least not at this point in time. The Solicitor General and, indeed, the two previous solicitors general have over the past two years regularly reported on the progress of the implementation of the report to the House. They have informed, as they should, the members of this House, the legislator of the land, of their department's action.
I listened to the Solicitor General last Thursday in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs detailing the remaining recommendations which have not as yet been acted upon. Of the remaining 14 recommendations, nine have been accepted in principle, and only five at this point in time will not be implemented. The reasons for the delay or the rejection of the recommendations were explained at that time. I cannot understand why the hon. member for Burnaby insisted on going through with this motion today. It is not a motion which threatens to implement any of the rejected recommendations but only asks this House for what is already taking place.
The frankness and the openness of the Solicitor General should be welcomed, not ignored, by this House. This motion rejects implicitly the reasons for not implementing the other five recommendations. The reasons range from jurisdictional problems to a belief by the minister that other, more appropriate changes have taken place and will suffice, and to where the Solicitor General feels he should remain responsible for his department and therefore, directly to Parliament, rather than shifting that responsibility to a committee which would report to him on the activities of the correctional services. Like many other programs in Canada's federalism, the recommendations will have to be negotiated by province.
To conclude and to reiterate, private members' hour is an important and valuable time period if used in the proper manner. This particular motion, in my opinion, is a useless occupation of hon. members' time in a parliamentary session which has much more to offer in terms of sensible legislation.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion, as did the last speaker. I regret that my address will not be as helpful to people who have not read the MacGuigan report as it will to people who have, but I will try to make it as clear as I can, bearing in mind that many people here probably have not read the MacGuigan report.
My remarks will deal with four aspects of the problem. First, I will review some of the events leading up to the MacGuigan report. Second, I will give some ideas on the penitentiary system. Third, I will discuss some of the principles underlying the recommendations in the MacGuigan report and the difficulties involved in maintaining a prison system. Fourth, I will give an indication of the progress of the implementation of some of the recommendations.
By way of background, between 1932 and 1974 a total of 65 major incidents occurred in Canadian penitentiaries. In 1975

and 1976 a total of 69 such incidents took place, including 35 hostage takings. This prompted the House of Commons to establish the sub-committee about which we have been talking today. That committee did very thorough work. It held 72 formal meetings. There were 407 witnesses. The committee conducted informal interviews with more than 2,000 inmates and staff. It toured seven U.S. institutions. The result of the inquiry was the MacGuigan report containing 65 recommendations.
The response of the government was an implementation committee which was established in the Department of the Solicitor General. To date, 51 of the 65 recommendations have been or are on the verge of being implemented. Five have been rejected, and nine are under review. The hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) were present the other day in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs when the new Solicitor General (Mr. Lawrence) explained why at least some of those five were rejected.
A word about penitentiaries. "Penitentiaries" is an American term for an institution which was started in Philadelphia in about 1789 as a more humane alternative to the harsh punishment of the day.
Mir. Peters: What is the matter? Did you get the pages mixed up? That sounds like the beginning, not the middle of it. You should have come to that first.


David Kilgour: The thought was that imprisonment under conditions of isolation-


William Arnold Peters: Re-number the pages from now on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order, please. I think the courtesy of the House should be extended to the hon. member who is now speaking so that he can carry on.


William Arnold Peters: He is not speaking. He is reading.


David Kilgour: I will put my notes down.


William Arnold Peters: It will be a better speech.


David Kilgour: The original idea was that penitentiaries, by offering isolation and opportunities for work, would provide an enlightening atmosphere, which would render people convicted of crimes penitent and reformed. The original reason for penitentiaries was a benevolent one, but unfortunately it did not work out that way.
Charles Dickens, after a visit to a penitentiary, wrote, and I will have to read this:
-I hold this slow and daily tampering with the mysteries of the brain to be immeasurably worse than any torture of the body; and because its ghastly signs are not so palpable to the eye-and it exhorts few cries that human ears can hear; therefore, I the more denounce it as a secret punishment which slumbering humanity is not roused up to stay.
November 5, 1979


Mr. Baldwin:: That sounds like the NDP caucus.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I never saw you at one.


David Kilgour: Since Dickens' condemnation of the prison system, there has never been a time when the correctional system did not appear in need of rapid and substantial change. David Rothman, the historian, wrote the following:
Each generation discovers anew the scandals of incarceration, each sets out to correct them and each passes on a legacy of failure. The rallying cries of one period echo dismally into the next.
Actually, there has been a great deal of change in the last years, and prisons in Canada are very different now from the first Canadian penitentiary in Kingston in 1835. Large scale reform took place in 1960 as a result of MacLeod Committee's Correctional Planning Report. There were improved work programs, training and education were introduced, facilities were improved, new buildings were constructed. Two major changes were brought about: first, regional offices were established, and second, prison staff was unionized, becoming part of the Solicitor General's component of the Public Service Alliance of Canada.
If there is any inadequacy to my speech, Mr. Speaker, it is because of the flu from which I am suffering. I am afraid I have come from my sick bed this afternoon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't be away tomorrow night.


David Kilgour: The MacGuigan report argues that the two changes which 1 have just mentioned have led to a breakdown in authority, creating a confusion of roles and responsibilities which, when coupled with more militant inmate attitudes, have produced the violent upheavals that have been the chief characteristics in the 1970s.
Two important principles expounded in the MacGuigan report are: first, that the purposes of imprisonment are the protection of society and the denunciation of criminal behaviour. Imprisonment is a legitimate measure as a last resort where a wrongdoer, having been given the opportunity, has wilfully failed to comply with other, more constructive and less severe alternatives to imprisonment. Second, protection of society as a purpose of imprisonment includes not only protection during a term of imprisonment by the physical removal of a person who is dangerous or who has failed to respect values that are protected by the criminal law, but also the protection of society after his release by means of a prison system designed to assist him toward personal reformation.
These principles were fully accepted by the new Solicitor General who has expressed before the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs the hope that the future attention of the committee will be focused on the provision of alternatives to incarceration.
Let me discuss these two principles in terms of the penitentiary system. In prison terms, protection of society means the collective control of violence. The MacGuigan report was undertaken with the understanding that the aim of prison
Penitentiaries
systems is the collective control of violence. In practice, the control of collective violence has been achieved by constant supervision and regimentation with elaborate systems of rules and regulations. In the past, some of these have gone to excesses. The maintenance of custody and order, the prevention of riots and escapes, have overshadowed every other consideration.
The MacGuigan report has properly recognized that to control collective violence, successfully, four conditions must be met: first, justice; second, alternatives to boredom; third, socialization; and fourth, good management.
The second principle refers to the idea of the prison system reforming the offender. The concept of rehabilitation is a fairly modern one which was not accepted in the past. Lor example, the last warden of New York's Sing-Sing prison believed that the aim of prison was to change inmates' behaviour rather than their character-to make them, if not better, at least more obedient to the criminal law. In his view, this was the only reform which society could expect.
In Canada the idea of rehabilitation arose in the 1950s in the Archambault and Lauteux reports, and stayed in the 1960s in the Ouimet report. It was to replace the "warehousing" approach which sought only to accomplish the task of keeping prisoners away from the public. The rehabilitation model caught on and was justified on humanitarian grounds and on the idea of transforming reformable criminals into law abiding citizens. But rehabilitation has proved to be a failure.
The MacGuigan report has also rejected this model. It believes that the incentive model is superior. It bases this on the principle that only the wrongdoer can bring about reform in himself, but the penitentiary system must be structured to give positive support to his efforts at reform by providing essential conditions. These conditions, as mentioned before, are: justice, work, and socialization.
Under the heading of justice, the condition of achieving justice in penitentiaries as stated in the MacGuigan report is based on three principles, which are, first, the sentence of imprisonment imposed by the court constitutes the punishment. People who work in the penitentiary system have no authority, right or duty to add to those penalties. Second, the rule of law must prevail inside Canadian penitentiaries, and third, justice for the inmate is a personal right and also an essential condition of their socialization and personal reformation. It implies both respect for the person and property of others and fairness in treatment. There must be clear rules, fair disciplinary procedures, and the provision of reasons for all decisions affecting inmates.
I cannot stress enough that these principles have all been accepted by the new Solicitor General. The rule of law is an axiom of common law. The concept that justice must prevail in every place and in every situation in Canada includes prisons. Indeed, someone has said that you can judge society not by what goes on outside prison walls but what goes on when someone has had liberty denied them. Where prisons are unjust, hatred is encouraged, and this ultimately leads to violence and the loss of control.

November 5, 1979
Penitentiaries
A number of steps have already been taken in the area of inmates' rights. First, as a result of recommendation No. 36 regarding inmate grievances, a new grievance procedure has been implemented which features speed in handling complaints, inmate involvement, and outside review. There is also a new system of a pre-grievance procedure. Second, in response to recommendation No. 29 which urged that the commissioner's directives be consolidated into a consistent code of regulations, a project was started to implement this recommendation. A project which involves rewriting the commissioner's directives that deal with the custody, treatment, training, employment and discipline of inmates, has also been begun and it should be operative by the spring of 1980. Also, all maximum and medium security institutions now have legal materials from which inmates can borrow on request.
I would like to say a word now on work and socialization. "Activity carries within itself the seeds of its own reformation", as was stated by Samuel Johnson. John Carlyle stated that "work is the grand cure of all maladies and miseries that ever beset mankind". Whether Carlyle and Johnson had prison in mind when they made these comments is certainly open to speculation, but these sentiments fit the second and third conditions in the MacGuigan report, that is, alternatives to boredom, and socialization, which the MacGuigan report believes are necessary.
The Solicitor General has assured the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs last Friday that, to his knowledge, every able and willing inmate is employed. Apparently, facilities for printing, audio-visual and microfilming now exist in several federal prisons. There is a new system of inmate pay, which is not at the rate that a lawyer or someone else might be paid, but it is being developed to provide an economic incentive to develop training skills. Farm production, kitchen gardening, horticultural programs, dairy and meat production are being increased.
Social interaction is another concern expressed by the MacGuigan report. According to the Solicitor General it is now a reality. 1 should like to give some examples. Common dining now has been established in nearly all institutions. Contact visiting has been made available. All inmates except those in dissociation and some in protective custody, of which I concede there are far too many, are now out of their cells for the greater part of the day and evening.
In response to the recommendations concerning socialization of inmates, new ideas such as the team concept, living unit and various treatment programs have been introduced into prisons. These are part of the concept of the incentive model recommended by the MacGuigan report. It goes without saying that his model is not necessarily popular with all inmates. The incentive model is based on the belief that the undesirable behaviour of others can be changed, even if this is done through somewhat coercive means. This coerced cure may be an advance in the prison system, as long as we keep in mind

the words of Norval Morris, director of the Centre for Studies in Criminal Justice at the University of Chicago. He said:
Rehabilitation, whatever it means and whatever the programs that allegedly give it meaning, must cease to be a purpose of the prison sanction. This does not mean that the various developed treatment programs within the prisons need to be abandoned; quite the contrary, they need expansion. But it does mean that they must not be seen as purposeful in the sense that criminals are to be sent to prison for treatment. There is a sharp distinction between the purpose of incarceration and the opportunities for the training and assistance of prisoners that may be pursued within those purposes. The system is corrupted when we fail to preserve this distinction and this failure pervades the world's prison programs.
I should like to make a comment on staff. Much of the MacGuigan report concerns itself with the inability of the staff of penitentiaries to function as a self-regulatory force to control the actions of a minority of offending guards who have contributed heavily to the atmosphere of confrontation in prisons. These negative impulses which affect the prisoner once incarcerated are the crux of the problem facing penitentiary services. The social problem has been at the root of the difficulties facing penal reform. The MacGuigan report succinctly points out, with regard to past programs of reform, that the changes which have occurred have failed to break down the core of repression upon which the system was built. With regard to this, and with reference to the correctional staff, the MacGuigan report sets forth principles five and six which read as follows:
(5)	Ways must be found to enlist the commitment, the reservoir of correctional expertise, the basic humanity and the capacity of the custodial staff to act as successful role-models for inmates in a co-operative effort to accomplish the great tasks that lie ahead of the Canadian Penitentiary Service.
(6)	A staff that is well-selected, well-motivated and well-paid is a key to any program of penitentiary reforms. Penitentiary work should be a professional career service modelled as far as practicable on the RCMP.
According to the MacGuigan report the incentive approach also should be applied to the staff. The idea of a professional attitude on the part of prison staff is stressed. I see the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville has returned to the chamber.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Just to hear the hon. member's comments.


David Kilgour: He stated in a speech to the Canadian Association of Provincial Court Judges in Halifax:
Only professionalism can guarantee the existence of strong staff attitudes which will both prevent collective violence and offer the possibility of reformation of inmates.
The MacGuigan report lays particular stress on recommendation 26 which suggests the following:
. . . penitentiary service under the board must be an independent agency of the government and not subject to the Public Service Employment Act or the Public Service Staff Relations Act. It should resemble the RCM Police in its discipline and professionalism. Employees should be subject to discharge for misconduct or incompetence.
As expressed in the recommendation itself, the MacGuigan report had two reasons for this recommendation: the achievement of proper discipline among the employees, and the development of professionalism in the service.
The Solicitor General told the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that a special task force has been developed to meet the recommendations dealing with the two reasons I have just mentioned. The primary objective of the
November 5, 1979

task force is to remove correctional service from the jurisdiction of the Public Service Employment Act. This will be achieved by referring to provisions in the Penitentiary Act which were rescinded by order in council in 1969. A schedule has been established for the continued work of the task force and the implementation of the recommendation involved. It is anticipated that by March, 1980, a new separate employer status will be created, along with the benefits which accrue to that status.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) with all respect for the importance of the issue and for the sincerity of the hon. member. 1 do this after reviewing the status report offered as evidence that in fact the recommendations put forward, with the exception of the five which have been considered unacceptable for complicated reasons, are acceptable. After suggesting that he will maintain an openness and availability to the committee, the minister in fact has fulfilled his responsibilities, and plans to continue doing so.
I should like to comment on several issues contained within the minister's report. 1 applaud several of them, but I should like to comment on one in particular. Because of the shortness of time, I will deal with the one which 1 hope we will expand slightly. I am referring to recommendation 62 which promoted the concept of a special institution to be established in British Columbia for the exclusive treatment of drug addicts. At this time the federal Department of National Health and Welfare is conducting a national study into the problem of drug dependency and addiction in Canada. The results of this study are not available as yet and when available should be carefully considered, especially after the recent British Columbia experience, before this recommendation is acted upon.
I have had personal representations from persons from Alcoholics Anonymous who have grave concern regarding the treatment of drug addicts and alcoholics within the penitentiary system. On this point in particular 1 plan to make personal representations to the minister. It is clear from my experiences in medical practice that in fact we are inadequate, in the penitentiary system and throughout society, in our ability to deal with alcohol and drug problems. Other people who are much more qualified than I are looking into this area and developing reasonable policies to bring us to a point where we can deal in a more meaningful way with alcoholics and people who are dependent upon drugs. But particularly within the prisons system there is a circumstance where people who enter into the system with an alcohol or drug dependency problem, are perhaps worse when they come out.
The conditions within the penitentiary system do not allow for the normal interflow which can occur outside prison, especially with the association of Alcoholics Anonymous. If
Customs Tariff
there was an opportunity for this association to deal directly with prisoners in penitentiaries, it might improve the ability of the system to deal in a meaningful way with people who have been convicted. I plan on making personal representations to the minister in that regard.
There are several other matters that we could comment upon, but may I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: The
hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie that Bill C-18, to amend the Customs tariff and to make certain amendments to the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act, 1932, the Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1960 and The Union of South Africa Trade Agreement Act, 1932, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, when the House broke off consideration of Bill C-18 at five o'clock I was attempting to make the point that customs bills, and the ways and means motions that precede them, do not provide enough information to enable the average member of Parliament who is not familiar with a specific tariff problem to comment on whether or not they should be passed and, if they are passed, on what difference it will make.
The passage of such customs bills and ways and means motions changing tariffs makes a great deal of difference to the government, as the government collects a lot of money through tariffs. One hon. member suggested that perhaps it is for this reason that the price of lettuce is so high during many months of the year. I suggest that is only part of the reason. In any event, there is a need for tariffs. The Canadian public is not yet aware, and may not be aware for some time, of the difficulties that are created in many fields of agriculture as a result of international agreements at GATT. As we compete in this world with large industrial countries it is almost inevitable that a country the size of Canada will come out badly in
966

November 5, 1979
Customs Tariff
negotiations. Many of our small industrial and agricultural areas are affected by changes, modifications, and upgrading of GATT agreements.
I am pleased to see the former minister of agriculture here tonight as one of the problems we have experienced over the years has been the result of the Department of Agriculture trying to defend and protect fruit producers, vegetable producers, and the producers of many other agricultural products, while at the same time attempting to ensure a supply of these products to the consumer at reasonable prices and to promote the entry of those products into other markets. This situation has been affected by tariffs, and by the very limited role the Department of Agriculture has been able to play in deciding when tariffs should apply.
Many producers have felt that the application of controls has not been fast enough to provide even minimum protection for the industry. If that is not true, then how can we explain the fact that we have lost many of our markets for Canadian agricultural products? We have lost most of our fruit markets. I suppose Niagara Falls will soon be remembered only as a honeymoon centre rather than a fruit growing area. That may now be the case, except for the fact that a few wine companies are still hanging on despite great difficulties in that industry.
Not long ago one could go into a store and buy a crate of Canadian grapes or a barrel of apples at a reasonable price. Today most people cannot afford to buy fruit in that quantity. It has been claimed that the high cost of these fruits and vegetables is directly related to the high cost of picking the fruit and harvesting the vegetables. I do not think that is any more expensive in Canada than in the United States.
One problem that we have faced is the shortage of volume to supply canneries. 1 cannot speak in detail about the situation in the Niagara peninsula and the loss of canneries in that area, but I am aware of the situation in my own area of northern Ontario which is not too well known for its production of vegetables. On probably three or four occasions we have been the world potato king. We have held on a number of occasions the Pea King award. We have received awards for several other vegetables, including turnips, which now have a new name.


Mr. Whelan:: Rutabaga.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, rutabagas or something. At one time in my area, the little clay belt, we had a canning factory which canned peas. Those peas were under the label of Northern Pride, Wabi Valley and several other names. They were produced for two or three of the large chain stores as well. It was a very good industry for the farmers in the area and was owned by a very small company. This company got an offer from Canada Packers, and Canada Packers did the same thing as these packing companies have done all over the country; they bought the factory, operated it for one year, and then closed it down. Now no peas are canned in the little clay belt. This has happened with peaches, pears, apple sauce, cherries,

and many other commodities. They are being bought out in Canada, and instead of the tariff structure allowing a steady inflow over a long period of time, the only fodder available for the canning factories in this country appears to be only in areas where the large bulk of that produce is grown.
The minister indicated that the reason for those limitations in this bill is to alleviate this problem so that we would be able to extend our season through imports. The majority of our products would be under tariff, and when we were finished our producing season then we could import, which would meet the needs of the canning industry. Unfortunately, this does not happen. If I go into a store and buy jam, I probably buy jam packaged in the United States. Some Tory members would tell me it is probably because of the cost of picking the fruit. I do not think that the wages for fruit pickers are higher in Canada than in the United States, so it must be something else.
I would not hesitate to pay a few cents more to buy jam, a car, or anything else that was made in Canada. I once thought that I had purchased a car made in Canada because it had the word Canadian written on the side, but it turned out not to be a Canadian car at all. These tariff adjustments probably will not produce the outcome which Canadians anticipate. It has been suggested that we need free trade. I am all for it because it is great for selling gold, lumber, iron pellets, and many other things which we produce. It is great for selling grain, grass seed, and other commodities, but it is not great for the guy who manufactures cars, or the farmer in the country who is located a number of degrees north of his competitors and who experiences a longer growing season. That is the reason for tariffs.
If we have to use tariffs, surely the government can be fair to the members of Parliament and explain to them the tariff regulations involved in this bill. There are pages of numbers and general changes. They do not show where the numbers came from, what they apply to, what they affect, nor show in any way why there should be a change or where preferential treatment should be increased or decreased. It is all very well when the government has a majority for it to ram through ways and means measures every time it wants more money or it wants to change the tariff structure, but it seems to me that in a minority government it behooves all members to participate. The explanation given for this bill is:
This bill would implement the ways and means motions relating to the Customs Tariff that were tabled by the Minister of Finance on October 23, 1979.
That does very little to explain all the appendages to this bill which include such areas as medicine, aircraft engines, coffee, electricity, steel, soap, gelatine and so on. It goes on for two pages talking about one very simple commodity. I thought that sugar was sugar, but there are two pages on the different kinds of sugar. I suppose that we have learned something about the degrees of good and bad sugar, but the form in which this bill is presented is not sufficient to explain and justify the passage of tariff or customs legislation.
I have mentioned that the bill also amends the New Zealand trade agreement of 1932, the South African trade agreement
November 5, 1979

of 1932 and the Australian trade agreement of 1960. There is no indication on page two of this bill what those amendments mean. As I pointed out earlier, even my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), was not here in 1932, so he would not have the bill in his files. I do not know where we could get the bill.


An hon. Member:: In the archives.


William Arnold Peters: Yes, perhaps in the archives. This bill is important to Canadians. The form in which it has been presented certainly does nothing for the freedom of information policy of the government. 1 believe that when we pass this bill we will be passing a pig in a poke. 1 doubt that even the people who have dealt with the specific segments of the bill could even get up and indicate what the changes are, people such as the former minister of agriculture. Will this bill produce the required changes to eliminate the problems of the producers?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) talked about this bill and what effect it would have on certain people. I think we should understand why this bill is before the House, Mr. Speaker. It has not come about because of one day, one week, one month or one year of work, but because of many days, many weeks, many months and several years of work on the tariff board report and on the negotiations at the GATT meetings in Geneva.
Earlier this afternoon we heard some remarks about consultation. According to that hon. members you would think that this sort of thing had never taken place before in Canada. I was going to inform the government House leader earlier today-I did not want to take up the time of the House-but 1 should like to inform him now, through you, Mr. Speaker, that these tariff changes have come about as a result of such detailed consultation as had never taken place in our history before. I refer to meetings between producers, processors, consumers-all the people involved in the trade who are concerned with the changes in tariffs on food in Canada. There was never such consultation before and the record will show that never have there so many people involved.
Producers and people from different parts of the processing industry and the retailing industry were sent as observers, and as advisers to the negotiators in Geneva. They put forward their ideas on the changes that should be made. That kind of consultation had never happened before. These people were not just from the Liberal caucus but were from all walks of life, from farm organizations, producer marketing groups, provincial governments-some provincial ministers actually took part in the discussions. They were free to do that; in fact they were asked to do that.
Some gains were made, Mr. Speaker, although from the remarks made by the hon. member who spoke just before me, you would get the idea that we gave everything away. I believe he used lettuce as an example. Mr. Speaker, you could use that old story about the best salad in the world-"let us alone".
Customs Tariff
Mr. Speaker, lettuce is left alone except for 16 weeks of the year when it is in production in Canada. The rest of the time it is admitted duty free. The Canadian horticultural industry and the producers' organizations can arrange that it be admitted for one sixteen-week span, two spans of eight weeks each, or for two spans of ten weeks and six weeks in the two production seasons. In this country we have an early spring season, and then the second crop later in the year. It is left to the producers to decide whether they want a straight 16-week span or two eight-week spans at different times, or whatever. This is arranged through consultation; it is not forced upon them.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) is not in the House tonight, but shortly after his appointment he issued a press release announcing some of these new tariff changes and pointing out how beneficial they would be to agriculture. You would have thought he had accomplished this in his two weeks as minister. Mr. Speaker, we started meetings long ago. Our chief negotiator would return from Geneva and we would have meetings late into the night to discuss the changes and concessions that were offered. We had to take some very tough positions, as is obvious by what has been accomplished in these negotiations. The minister's press release pointed out how beneficial these changes would be to some agricultural production entities in Canada.
A good example of some of the benefits that have been gained is in the production of tomato paste. This will affect southern Ontario, southern British Columbia and, with new varieties, many other parts of Canada such as the Annapolis Valley will benefit. Some hybrid varieties are proving very successful in areas of the country that do not have the same number of heat units as southern Ontario. The new varieties require less heating units and thus require fewer frost-free days to produce a mature crop.
We know that the processing industry is on the verge of expansion because the protection given to the tomato paste industry has been raised to 13.5 per cent. This will make it possible for the producers to know what they face and what their competitors will have to pay in order to bring that product into Canada.
Mr. Jake Warren, who was our chief negotiator in Geneva, formerly our ambassador to the United States and High Commissioner to Great Britain, is one of the most capable men I have ever met. Certainly, we did not always agree. When 1 remarked that on one occasion, someone replied, "For Whelan to always agree would be an amazing thing in the first place." Mr. Warren was a tough negotiator, and when we told him what we wanted, he went to Geneva with our demands, and generally that is what we got. Naturally, he did not win everything, but he won some concessions for the agricultural industry. Some of them were things that we should have had previously. The hon. member who spoke before me said that some industries had been disappearing in parts of Ontario, parts of Quebec, parts of British Columbia such as the Fraser Valley which produces vegetables, and some parts of the maritimes.

November 5, 1979
Customs Tariff
We must face facts, however. We should concentrate on growing those products which are suited to our climatic conditions and in which we have proved our efficiency. This bill will help us accomplish that although, of course, not to the degree that will satisfy everyone.


Mr. Roy (Laval):: Gene Whelan's bill.


Eugene Whelan: Humility just about overcomes me, Mr. Speaker, because my hon. friend said, "That's the Gene Whelan bill."


William Arnold Peters: It sounds like one.


Eugene Whelan: It may be said that the bill does not provide enough protection for those vegetables that require a great deal of hand labour. The hon. member who spoke before me talked about having some kind of immediate surcharge or border control that could be activated if damage is about to be sustained by producers of a certain commodity and cheap imports are going to destroy their return. This is one of the things that was recommended in the tariff negotiations and it was expected that an agreement could be worked out.
The Minister of Agriculture, who is not present in the House, issued a press release about the changes in the implementation of an import surtax. The Canadian horticultural industry and the tariff board made a recommendation that an automatic surtax should be applied to imports of horticultural products as they cross the border, if the cost fell below a "trigger" price based on an average of the previous three-year f.o.b. import prices. That is not what we got, Mr. Speaker. We have something that can take as long as 20 days to implement. That is not what I had suggested and it is not what I thought would be brought forth in this House by the minister. He comes from an area that is involved in all kinds of production. When you consider the kind of consultation that has to take place before the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce can implement that surtax, you can see that it is going to be too late to be of any benefit.
The Minister of Agriculture is one of the key ministers in this matter, but if he should happen to be out of the country there is nothing in the bill, that I can find, that provides for action to be taken in his absence. It appears to me that nothing can be done if these products are coming into Canada while he is out of the country-unless they find him so that he can issue an order, and then they go through this consultation process. That is a bunch of bureaucratic nonsense. Hardly another country in the world that would allow that. I fought against that same thing and I was so sure that we would be successful.
I am so disappointed that we have something that will take as long as 20 days.
Some Canadian products have only 20 or 30 days' production. It takes 20 days to put in an order. My God, Mr. Speaker, it will be too late. Destruction will take place and you then discourage production of that kind of a crop. Anyone who knows about high risk crops will understand that. Talk about

the amount of money involved! The Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) is not here. There is one minister here, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. McKinnon). He is going to defend the government's stand on these things. But the Minister of Finance is not here.
Talk about vegetables and things which require a tremendous amount of hand labour. These are the things for which farmers borrow. Over 50 per cent of farmers' total income goes in interest on that kind of borrowing because they need so much capital to operate. From the time they plant seedlings to the time they transplant them, they cultivate them, baby them, harvest them, pack them, and all those things, over 50 per cent of their expenditures go on interest rates and this was when they were below 10 per cent.
1 have letters from farmers who are paying 15 'h per cent and 15 % per cent on greenhouse operations to keep going for this winter's operation. They do not know what will happen to them. They do not know whether they should continue. Some are not, because of the insecurity that exists. The insecurity is still there because the surtax, the program announced by the new Minister of Agriculture is just not satisfactory. It is just not what the horticultural industry asked for. It is not what the over-all industry asked for and it is just not what the former minister intended. He wanted to make sure Canadians had the opportunity to consume Canadian products and wanted to give them the kind of protection and security they needed, so that when they do go to the bank manager-


William Arnold Peters: Why wasn't there a trigger mechanism in the bill?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan), should carry on.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Eugene Whelan: It is up to the government to implement the regulations. But I know what those gals and guys in Industry Trade and Commerce think about farmers in negotiations. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. de Cotret) in the other place answered a question the other day. I can find no place where this has been changed. They were talking about negotiations on quotas and chickens coming into Canada. He said that that was the Minister of Agriculture's job. I can find no place where that authority has been vested in the Minister of Agriculture. I can find no place where the Minister of Agriculture went to Washington to negotiate chickens at all. A bunch of bureaucrats went to Washington to do it. Let me tell you when I was Minister of Agriculture they were not allowed to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: When we went to Washington and the secretary of agriculture for the United States sat across the table, if we did not agree then we went to GATT and let an independent court settle the problem. We did not give away the kitchen with the stove and the cupboards and everything in them. We
November 5, 1979

knew that we were right. My, the controls that the Americans have. When a Canadian tries to export products to Americans he finds that the controls are much stricter than the Minister of Agriculture is suggesting now. We want at least equal to that or even better than the Americans have to protect their producers.
Most people try to get across that Americans are not protective of their society. They are not trade restrictionists, so people say. Mr. Speaker, they are the greatest trade restrictionists that I know of any place in the world. 1 base this on my nearly seven years as Minister of Agriculture studying and looking at what other countries were doing to protect their producers. They have some of the most restrictive trade practices anywhere. Some have been wiped out under these negotiations. There are hidden tariff practices. If there is evidence of their using them, you can take them to GATT to find out why they are using them, and appeal for compensation in those cases.
If one checks the history of negotiations, one will find there have never been any more detailed negotiations. This applies not to just the horticultural sector but to the meat sector also, probably the most successful of all negotiations that took place at Geneva. They were probably most beneficial for that industry, the most important industry of all, the over-all agricultural industry of Canada.
As I said, most of it was agreed by consultation with the provincial ministers and in some instances with the provincial premiers. If they wanted to be involved they could be. One or two of them actually took part in the negotiations. They went there themselves to make suggestions and to consult with the people who were concerned.
1 could not agree more with what was stated earlier. Ministers have had since June 4 to draft a new bill or have a new policy to inform people. But what we should have is an old schedule alongside this one to make a fair comparison and to see what changes have been made, how they have been made, whom they will benefit and whom they will harm, etc. There will be some who will say that they have been harmed by this.
If you read this bill as an ordinary layman it says: an Act to amend the Customs Tariff and to make certain amendments to the New Zealand Trade Agreement Act, 1932, the Australian Trade Agreement Act, 1960. 1 believe the Australians and New Zealanders are given one more year of phasing in the tariff changes on pears, and it makes it a little better for British Columbians who export some cherries to Australia and New Zealand. One would think that was the main part of the act. But when one looks at the act and sees the tremendous amount of changes that have been made not only for horticultural crops but for the many other entries produced in Canada-some we hope will be produced more abundantly than- ever before because of this legislation-it will be a challenge to a lot of producers in Canada. It will be a challenge to a lot of people thinking about processing here.
Our biggest customer is the United States. We are their biggest customer in the world for these particular products. Many people are not aware of this fact or are not aware of the
Customs Tariff
amount of trade that takes place between our two nations. That does not mean that we cannot discuss or disagree, or go to GATT if necessary to have those kinds of discussions. It does not mean we cannot put things on the table and allow a free and independent body to make that decision for us if we cannot come to a harmonious agreement between ourselves. We will see as we go over the schedule the many changes that are made. I hope that any members who do not have the answers before them will be provided with them when the time comes for this bill to follow that stage.
1 have had some discussions, not in as much detail as I would have liked since the ways and means motion has been tabled. I think we should have had the opportunity to discuss in full detail some of these things with the Canadian Horticultural Society, the Canadian Food Processors Association and the Canadian Federation of Agriculture. How many members have done this? 1 have not had time to go over each item to see if there are other changes. Maybe I should not even be concerned about that because the ones that are being changed from the original negotiations I believe are mentioned at the front of the bill.
Some questions will be asked by members who were not involved in the negotiations. These people will want to know if it will protect the potato growers. We think the tariff on potatoes is probably something farmers have wanted for years and years. Equalization, fair trade, and fair opportunities are what these tariff negotiations have brought for Canada and the United States. The Americans removed their quota. I do not have the figures in front of me. 1 believe their quota was around 400,000 cwt., and that has now been removed. The exorbitant rate that was put on after reaching a certain amount was removed from the United States tariff program. There have been concessions in the potato industry in Canada. For a long time this industry has wanted to be on an equal footing.
The increase in production will not take place overnight with these commodities, even if we have the know-how. I know that in Your Honour's constituency there is a tremendous potential for certain horticultural crops. 1 was recently there. I saw some of these commodities left in the field.
The other night there was a program over CBC which showed grain rotting in Stavely, Alberta. The next morning I called the Alberta Pool to see how much had been lost. I was told that the amount lost was unreportable. The other night the head of the Canadian Grains Commission appeared before our committee. 1 asked how much grain is lost this way in western Canada. He informed me the amount was so small it could not be measured. Because of that report, editorials were written about what a crying shame it is that our grain is rotting while people are starving in other parts of the world.
The other day while driving down highway 115 through Victoria county I saw acres and acres of pumpkins that had not been harvested. There are tomato fields in my area that were not touched because production was so good. Because of

November 5, 1979
Customs Tariff
their capacity for processing, they could not handle all the production. One farmer had 500 tons on his farm that were not touched. His acreage was that good that he was able to supply his share of the market off the other part of the field. The processing facilities of the other companies were filled to the brim. The gods were good to us.
Some of this kind of production could be used for tomato paste. Tomato paste does not require the same high quality product as ketchup, canned tomatoes and tomato soups. In Canada we maintain a very high standard. These tariff changes will allow us to keep that high standard of which we are so proud. We are superior to any other country. Any country that exports to Canada must meet the same high standards that we impose on our producers and processors.
Let us hope that some of this waste will be overcome. Some producers may be enticed to crowd their facilities a little if they have this kind of protection. They could gear up their facilities to take care of the extra tomatoes.
Fast food outlets are rapidly becoming a way of life in Canada. The pizzerias and similar establishments use a very high quality tomato product. It contains vitamin C and other minerals necessary for a healthy diet. That was something that was considered in these tariff negotiations.
1 am sorry 1 was not here earlier today to hear the Minister of Finance introduce this bill. I hope he gave those responsible for these tariff changes some credit. They worked hard on the negotiations that took place. There was horse trading, bartering, and travelling back and forth across the ocean to see if they should bend a little bit, and so on.
Our world is small and becoming smaller all the time. We are trading in a world community, in fact a world neighbourhood. No matter what happens, we are going to be affected. Something may happen that would never have happened 10, 20, 30, 40 years ago. We are affected almost instantly now.
With satellites we now know what production will be ahead of time. We can pretty well tell whether there will be a lack of food before harvesting, because of the pictures continually sent to earth by these satellites. Our Canadian Department of Agriculture shares in some of these satellites. We are in a better position to know how to deal with our fellow man not only in trade, but to assist him in a time of need. Are we doing that?
We in this country have some of the best know-how on production and processing. We have the most modern means for processing. We also have some of the best methods of research. In addition to our own researchers, we have signed agreements with other countries which have top notch researchers and scientists.
We have an exchange program with the United States for scientists. In January of this year we signed an agreement with Israel, which has some of the most competent scientists. They do an excellent job on horticultural crops. Their research is available to us through agreement. On projects where we do better, their researchers work here instead of duplicating the work in their country. Their researchers work on projects here

and ours work on some projects in their country. This could be with regard to apples, pears or peaches, or any kind of vegetable crop.
Israel's irrigation expertise is superior to any in the world. It can be beneficial to Canada. Their research has come about because of the tremendous amount of energy it takes to pump their water. Nearly one-third of their energy consumption is to irrigate crops in desert or semi-desert areas. Although there are different climatic conditions there, this research can be used for many of the crops produced in Canada.
Possibly Bill C-18 is not considered by some to be important. However, it is a very important bill for the horticultural industry. They have been asking for it for a long time. I note that two concessions are being made to Australia and New Zealand concerning pears. I do not see much wrong with that. I am not saying I would have given them because we are always being told if we do not do something, they will. However, they are Commonwealth trading partners and members of GATT. If it will be beneficial to one part of this nation, allowing our producers to expand their production, that is all right with me.


Mr. Woolliams:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan) will accept a question. In his speech he talked about seeing fields of tomatoes in Ontario that were not harvested. He has always been a great advocate of governing boards. There are boards that govern wheat and other commodities. Does the hon. member not feel that if we had the law of supply and demand governing, maybe these tomatoes might have been harvested? The hon. member made a great speech. Why is he so extravagant in his suggestions as to what happened? I would like to hear what he has to say. I do not live in a tomato area. I live in a wheat area where young farmers today are questioning even the Canadian Wheat Board and government interference with private enterprise. I would like to ask the hon. member about that.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, first I want to say that the tomato marketing board was put into effect in Ontario long before I even came on the scene. That was under a Conservative government which has been here for 37 years. The Canadian Wheat Board was put into effect by a Conservative government, and it had reasons for setting up the Canadian Wheat Board. One need only read history and refresh his memory about the unfairness which took place.
The same thing happens with any other crop. If you happen to be a big tomato grower and are a good friend of the processor, you might just deliver all your crop. However, if you are out in the country a little farther away and perhaps not such a good friend of the processor, you may not deliver yours. Under the marketing system of Ontario under that great Conservative regime, all producers are treated equally and fair. They are producing the product they contract to produce. Nothing stops them from being efficient or producing the best tomatoes. They strive to produce more per acre than they did previously, and they up their production per acre all the time.
November 5, 1979

remedy. I know that even this government, with all its undoubted ability, will find it difficult to make 48 hours out of only 24, and even if there were 48 hours we could not legislate in this Parliament for all the problems which exist.
We must have a system whereby, through the regulatory process, we can implement in some detail the general principles laid down in Parliament. But in doing so, there must be some remedy. It is not for this House to allow governments to cut the umbilical cord. When we give authority by a statute through an enabling section to a government, a government agency, a government corporation, the governor in council or the minister, to proceed by regulation, we must guarantee to the people we serve that there will be a remedy for them to come back and say, "this is unfair, this is unjust". When that happens, when the public is aware of this, then the bureaucrats-and we have been making a little fun of them but I have deep respect for the people in the public service who serve this country-will have to realize they have a responsibility and that the attempts to govern by regulation must always be subject to the supervision of the House. Anything less than that is not good enough.
[ Translation]


Mr. Pierre Deniger (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise briefly tonight to congratulate the government for introducing the bill with which I agree entirely, Bill C-18, to amend the Customs tariff.
Mr. Speaker, if we have those trade agreements, if we have customs agreements, it is still important that we have customs clearing centres. As member for Laprairie, a riding which includes six cities, the cities of Saint-Lambert, Candiac, Lemoyne, Laprairie, Brossard and Greenfield Park, I rise on behalf of my riding and the whole south shore to ask the minister if he would not consider it appropriate in 1979 to support for the whole south shore the establishment of a customs house. The riding of Laprairie is the place where all trucks coming from the United States pass to go to Montreal and there are now in Montreal only two customs clearing centres and those centres are overworked and nearly have a monopoly. In light of the volume of goods being moved by truck and also the extent of the energy crisis that is coming in our society 1 believe the time has come for us on the south shore to have a customs clearing centre. When I talk about the south shore, I am talking about a territory that includes the riding of Beauharnois, the riding of Chambly, the riding of Longueuil, the riding of Vercheres, the riding of Shefford, several ridings which would be directly affected and would benefit directly from such a center. Do not forget, Mr. Speaker, that this summer we on the south shore had to put up with the inconveniences of repairs made to the bridges linking my riding and the surrounding ridings with the island of Montreal. Champlain, Victoria, Jacques-Cartier bridges and the Hyppo-lite-Lafontaine tunnel-bridge as well as the Mercier bridge were very congested.
Customs Tariff
The reasons for that congestion in addition to the repairs were precisely that heavy traffic caused by trucks hauling those commodities so essential to our survival coming in from the United States. And precisely, Mr. Speaker, if we had had on the south shore that customs clearing centre which comes entirely under the responsibility of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker) and to whom I have already spoken about this problem, I am sure all people in general would have benefited from it.

The present sufferance warehouse facilities are becoming increasingly congested and the addition would make the present facilities more efficient and give a better service to the community at large. The prime location of the proposed warehouse being at the focal point of the main highways from New England, New York and all states on the eastern seaboard, and the fact that trucking companies would be able to proceed on delivery without having to incur crossing and recrossing of bridges as it is with the South Shore industries, would reduce traffic congestion of the bridges to and from the Island of Montreal. Also the non-productive mileage incurred would be reduced drastically.


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Deniger: If the hon. minister would permit me, I have seized him of this matter and I hope that he will give it his usual wisdom.


Walter David Baker: 1 thank the hon. member for his comment, but I want to assure him tonight that the question of a customs house at Candiac is under very active consideration by the department.


Pierre Deniger: I want to thank the minister for his kind words. 1 hope he will see this matter through, because it is very important to my entire region.


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to say a few words on the Customs tariff bill because I do not think one has come before the House in the last seven years on which I have not spoken. I had quite a lot of input into the customs tariff question before coming to the House of Commons. I see the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan), is coming into the chamber. Certainly I give him some measure of credit for this bill, but I would not give very much credit to the Liberal government when it was in power. I do not believe the former minister had very much clout in the cabinet because it took so long to get this type of bill before the House. 1 know the hon. member likes to take credit for it, but I would give an awful lot of credit to the people in the industries and the farming communities through their horticultural councils and other organizations, as well as the tariff board. They made a comprehensive study of what was going on. Also l would like to give a lot of credit to the negotiators at the tariff negotiations.

November 5, 1979
Customs Tariff
For many, many years the former Liberal government gave agriculture away in its negotiations. It gave away tariff concessions for agriculture in this great agricultural Canada of ours. It gave it away to other types of industry which had high tariff protection. Because of this we had to do a tremendous amount of work. We even went so far as to point out that Canada was a saint in the world of sinners when it came to tariffs for agricultural products. Canada had nothing when compared to other countries, to protect its agriculture.
It reminds me of the Kennedy Round of Negotiations. This type of thing happened to us. The Kennedy Round negotiated the removal of the tariff on apples over an eight-year period. What happened to us? No sooner were the negotiations finished and they came back, and the former minister of finance removed completely the tariff on apples coming into Canada. Then he told the people in the agricultural community that the . United States would do the same. When he went to the United States asking them to do the same, they said, "Look, when we make a negotiation that is what we mean". They did not take their tariff off. We had nothing; they had something. It was things such as this that were happening to agriculture in Canada. It was difficult to receive any information on what was going on in the negotiations. It was very, very hard to get any information. Organizations such as the horticultural council and others in Canada spent years and years trying to get something which would help the situation.
Perhaps I will say that this bill goes a long way toward doing something to assist the situation, but it does not go all the way. It does not give us a protection similar to other agricultural countries. Certainly it does not give us the protection which exists in Australia. Australia partakes in tariff negotiations, but if that country does not like one's product, it finds something to stop it completely; it is not even let in. I am not happy about concessions to Australia on canned pears. I do not understand exactly what the concessions are with Australia.


Herb Breau: Cherries.


George H. Whittaker: I hope the concessions will not do too much. The hon. member mentioned cherries. The former minister of agriculture said that we shipped cherries to Australia.


Herb Breau: Crosbie said, "Cherries".


George H. Whittaker: That will be the day. They would not have them; they would not take them.


Herb Breau: Your minister said that.


George H. Whittaker: Well, okay.


An hon. Member:: Why do you believe him now?


Herb Breau: I do not believe him; neither does he.


George H. Whittaker: Perhaps the hon. member could rise and make a speech after I am finished. Sometimes he makes good ones. I agree with the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) on what he said about orders in council and regula-

tions being established without consultation and knowing what was happening. That type of practice will not continue.
The former minister of agriculture mentioned what the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) said a few months ago about Customs tariff. There was a complete and utter mess left for us when the election was called. It had to be straightened out.


Eugene Whelan: Oh, oh!


George H. Whittaker: This bill was brought in approximately a month to six weeks before the election was called. Why was it not brought to the floor of the House? Why was it not passed? There would have been no trouble having it passed through the House quickly. It was not brought in. It was given as a concession to keep the minister quiet. Certainly his government was not willing to bring it in, and the election was called. When the season for fruit came around, there was a complete and utter mess which had to be straightened out.


Eugene Whelan: That is not true.


George H. Whittaker: I will tell the hon. member that I have never seen such fast action in my life as that of the present cabinet. The mess was straightened out and put on the right footing.


Eugene Whelan: Tell us what they did.


George H. Whittaker: The Minister of Agriculture contributed greatly.


Herb Breau: It is a good thing Ray was not responsible for it; they would be bankrupt.


George H. Whittaker: 1 can tell the hon. member that the minister contributed greatly because he had some clout in cabinet. The President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker), who is charged with the responsibility of collecting these tariffs after the bill is passed, was involved. His input was fast, sure, and decisive. The Minister of Agriculture had to come in and make some press releases.
We have heard members talk about surcharges. We have not asked for a surcharge for a great many years. The first time I was involved in a request for such a surcharge was in 1955, but we got absolutely nothing. There was no such surcharge established before the election. We did not obtain a surcharge because, as I believe, the then minister of agriculture could not get his five-ring circus together, and I mean the five departments that are involved. Our Minister of Agriculture has been able to accomplish a great deal in a very short time on behalf of the consumers and agricultural producers.
The hon. member for Essex-Windsor says it will take 20 days to bring a surcharge into effect. The Minister, being honest, says it could take up to 20 days even though they will work with the speed we saw at the end of last June in cleaning up the mess left by the former government. We do not have to
November 5, 1979

These tariff negotiations are something they have wanted for some time.
There is no guarantee that we can stop the waste. But if the matter was left to the open market system everybody would grow tomatoes and hope somebody would buy them. Tomatoes are a perishable crop. If they are two days too long on the vine and the wrong kind of weather comes along, they are destroyed immediately and completely. They are unfit for processing, and unfit for human consumption because they burst and rot in the field.
If the hon. member wants to come down to Ontario and grow tomatoes, I do not think the Ontario government would let him. He could grow all the tomatoes he wanted in the Fraser Valley or some other area, but I do not think he could find a grower in all of Ontario who is in an area where there is a tomato processing plant who would grow them without a contract, even if he had the right to do so, because of the terrible things that used to happen. It is not new for these products to be wasted. I think there are about 30 products in Ontario which are regulated under provincial marketing legislation provided for the protection of producers. They are guaranteed nothing. They are guaranteed compensation only if the proper grade of product is delivered. If junk is delivered, producers are told to take it home. They have to meet the grades and standards provided for under the legislation.
Let us consider the Canadian Wheat Board. If a farmer was 20 miles out in the country and got to the elevator late, he would find the elevator was full, and he was told, "No room; go home." R. B. Bennett set up the Canadian Wheat Board because of the unfairness that existed regarding quotas. If we could find a way to get rid of all of our grain and if we could sell it all on the world markets, quotas would be opened up and there would be practically free delivery. I am sure the hon. member knows that from time to time farmers just said they would wait for a better price. They were not going to deliver even where quotas were opened wide. However, the Alberta Wheat Pool told me an interesting thing. They said, "You know, Mr. Whelan, this year 60 per cent more grain than last year was delivered to our elevators". I asked why. They said, "Our grades are better. We do not have so much tough and damp grain and we are able to store it without worrying about it spoiling". If they did not have drying facilities and if they took in tough and damp grain-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order, please.


Eugene Whelan: I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I appreciate the speech made by the former minister of agriculture.
Customs Tariff
not on a compulsory basis. McFarlane was head of the Canadian Wheat Board. Later during the war it operated on a compulsory basis. The hon. member was very verbose in making a speech in support of boards. He was talking about tomatoes and other products, but when he dealt with R. B. Bennett's setting up the Canadian Wheat Board he did not point out that it was not set up on a compulsory basis. Only when the Liberals got back in after the depression did it operate on a compulsory basis. The hon. member's brother was in the socialist government in Saskatchewan, and the hon. member believes in boards. I am not saying boards are all wrong, but I am referring to some of the complaints he made tonight. I hope the Canadian people and the farmers of Alberta and Saskatchewan know that when the Canadian Wheat Board began operating on a compulsory basis-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will agree with me that he is raising more a matter of difference of opinion than a point of order or a question of privilege, which has to be related to procedure and practices in the House. An abuse of a rule does not excuse another abuse, unless the hon. member wants to make his case.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I would still like to finish one thing. The former minister of agriculture has been basically hypocritical in what he has said.


An hon. Member:: Hypocritical?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Well, in his statement. I am not saying he is a hypocrite. He believes in boards, and then complains about abuses.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think the hon. member's case was not too good as far as questions of privilege are concerned. He just had another opinion.


Eugene Whelan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not pretend to be a perfectionist. The hon. member almost appears to be saying he is. A perfectionist is a person who takes infinite pains-and then gives them to others. The hon. member referred to my brother. He has brought my family in on this. My brother has lived in Saskatchewan since 1946. The hon. member said my brother was a member of a socialist government.


An hon. Member:: Isn't he?


Eugene Whelan: I point out to the hon. member that the Conservatives have been in power in Ontario for 37 years. They are strong marketing board people. R. B. Bennett forced the Canadian Wheat Board on the people. They never had a vote until the Liberals came in.


Marcel-Claude Roy: A great speech.	Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member will
agree that we are faced with a difference of opinion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Certainly it was great, and I know the hon.
member would like it, but let me point out one simple factor. Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I would When R. B. Bennett set up the Canadian Wheat Board, it was like to say just a few words before the hon. member for

November 5, 1979
Customs Tariff
Essex-Windsor (Mr. Whelan) retires to receive first aid for his arm with which he has been vigorously patting himself on the back. Before he does that, I want to remind him that he was a member of a government which collected together the greatest galaxy of bureaucrats with which this unfortunate country was ever cursed.


Eugene Whelan: Not in my department. We only added 23 in seven years.


Gerald William Baldwin: 1 sat on a committee which examined some of the work of the bureaucrats in the hon. member's department. I will admit that after the joint Standing Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments had occasion to rebuke the minister and his department, they did mend their ways. There never was a government which got together such a group of bureaucrats who would never use one word when they could use 100, particularly if those 100 were couched in a form which was unintelligible to the ordinary person.
Getting back to the bill, from which we seem to have departed, and looking at the bill, at first blush, clause 2 says: The Minister may order
(a) that the specific rate of duty ... shall apply in lieu of the ad valorem rate
of duty-
Then we go from there to clause 6 (2) which says:
Notwithstanding anything inserted in Schedule A to the customs tariff... the Governor in Council may, at any time during the period commencing with the coming into force of that section ... by order effective on and after ... increase a rate-
Then we come to look at the fine print, and I happened to turn this up at page 27 Schedule III: a new tariff on "Aircraft, not including engines, under such regulations as the minister may prescribe". These have been the curse of this country, the attempts by governments, at the instance of their bureaucracy, to control this country by order in council and by regulation.
We sat on this committee, which was a good, all party committee, which acted unanimously. I recall one of the victories, which we should have won but which we did not, when a member of the party of the hon. member for Essex-Windsor, the former member for Vancouver-Kingsway, Simma Holt, was persuaded to bring in some very legitimate complaints about non-tariff structures brought into effect by order in council which had a very deleterious effect on the entry into Canada of certain types of footwear. She made a very strong case-she showed there had been much injustice- but nothing was done.
This is the trouble we face, and I am sure the minister will agree with me in his heart because he knows it to be so, that the former government intervened so massively in every aspect of the private lives of people, giving itself the right through its bureaucrats to act by order in council, that the rule of law and the rule of Parliament ceased to exist. That is what we face today. 1 call attention very briefly to the fact that here in a very simple bill amending the tariff structure we find-


An hon. Member:: It is not simple.


Gerald William Baldwin: The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) brought to my attention the difficulty which ordinary people have in understanding the legislation, and not only understanding it but realizing the extent to which, at the whim of the minister on the advice of his officials, the government may vary, change and alter not only these tariffs but the non-tariff structure, and the people who are involved will not know anything about it until it is over and done with.
I am fortunate to be able to sit on the same committee in this ensuing session, and I hope that the committee will continue to give to the people of Canada, as an arm of this Parliament, an opportunity for them to stand up and complain about the practice of using orders in council and regulations under this act without there being some remedy. One of the things which we have suggested, and I hope this government will bring it into force-and I see my hon. friend, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker), who is charged with this bill and is a very useful member of that committee, and also the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnaty-shyn), both of whom, I hope, will see to it-is that in cases of this kind there be pre-publication of rules and of orders in council as well as of regulations so that people who are affected will be advised. This will be done by notice so that those who will be affected, the producers and the consumers, will have an opportunity to make representations directly to the government or to the tribunal which will be making the decision, or to members of Parliament who, in the final analysis, are the ultimate harbingers of destiny, as it should be, of the affairs of the nation.
There is no doubt in my mind that a continuation of this practice is the easy way to do things, to sit cosily up in your office and enact the regulation or order in council. Nine times out of ten the minister does it on the advice of his advisers. I am not saying that in a disparaging sense, because it is utterly impossible in the kind of society we have for ministers to be on top of all the data, all the orders in council, and all propositions which are put before them.


Eugene Whelan: You have super ministers over there and they have three departments!


Gerald William Baldwin: The trouble with new ministers is that they are like Hercules.


Eugene Whelan: Come now.


Gerald William Baldwin: They have the old stable to clean up with a hundred years' accumulation of you know what.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: They were not in power one hundred years; it just seems like that.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is time the matter received the attention of this House. I am sure that from time to time this committee will be bringing in recommendations when it has come to their attention that there have been abuses of the regulatory process, so that the public of Canada will know that there is a
November 5, 1979

worry about the lack of speed in respect of agricultural matters at this time. These things can and will be done.
Under this new minister most of those things that have to be known to keep the agricultural industry out of trouble are known very quickly. Most of these things are known two or three weeks before the trouble develops. Under the previous administration we had great difficulty in getting things done. 1 should not say that we never got tariffs imposed, because I remember shortly after coming here the hon. member for Essex-Windsor did impose a surcharge on cherries. 1 think he was able to do that because other members of cabinet did not realize or understand what was going on. As soon as they did, that was the end of it, and we did not see another rapid imposition of a surcharge to provide the protection needed.
Under the previous administration we thought we were going to see a formula developed. We had hopes that the former minister would be able to sell that formula to his cabinet colleagues. He was unsuccessful because five years or six years later we still did not have a formula. We have such a formula today, and I am quite proud to note its existence. This is a formula that can and will be workable.


Eugene Whelan: You know it is a halfway measure.


George H. Whittaker: The former minister says it is a halfway measure. He did not bring in anything so we did not have any measure at all. I do not believe this is a halfway measure. That hon. member can sit there and say those kinds of things, but let us wait and see how this works. When we see it work we will realize it is not a halfway measure. I think it is going to work, and the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Essex-Windsor-


An hon. Member:: He will be the minister again next week.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George H. Whittaker: If he is going to be the minister again next week, God help the country. That hon. member keeps patting himself on the back, and he did so while watching the producers and the canners in this country go down, down and down. I have in mind the tomato industry in southern Ontario, which is now in a really sad situation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 1 think the hon. member for Okanagan North (Mr. Whittaker) should be allowed to make his speech without constant interference by other members in this chamber.


An hon. Member:: They just do not like to hear the truth.


George H. Whittaker: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. 1 was coming to the end of my remarks at any rate. The catcalls from the other side sort of worked me up. At any rate, I am sure that the industry will be pleased to see this bill passed. It should have been in place for last year's crop. Some products did receive the protection required through an order in council by our government. Some products did not receive the protec-
Customs Tariff
tion needed. When we pass this bill it will go a long way toward helping the agricultural industry in this country but, as I said before, it does not appear to me to provide the protection in Canada that other countries have in respect of agriculture.


Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, the tariff board and the horticultural industry recommended that an automatic surtax be applied to imports of horticultural products as the produce crossed the border when the price fell below a "trigger" price based on an average of the previous three-year f.o.b. import price.
The present proposal is not automatic and is not what was requested by the industry or the tariff board, and the news release of October 22 is erroneous and misleading.
The improved faster system is unlikely to be any different from the present system, for the following reasons. There is a time delay between the produce crossing the border and the industry authorities verifying the information to bring to Agriculture Canada's attention, resulting in a probable delay of several days. The imports are usually made in summer months when cabinet ministers are frequently on holidays or absent from the office and cannot take the fast and effective action necessary. Officials of both departments need time to consult and go over the information, and this will result in more delays. This type of procedure requires notifying the exporting country, and consultation prior to the surtax being put in place, with more delay.
It is common knowledge that the three-year average proposed as the trigger price base did not take into account the inflation rate, and the 85 per cent of the three-year average is unlikely to be of much help under present economic conditions.
Since the season for crops like sweet cherries, etc., is very short, about three to four weeks at most, and injury can occur within a few days and a few shipments, the proposed system will not be of any real value because it is not automatic. The season will be over and the injury will have occurred before any action will have been taken. For commodities not named, the 20 days to make a decision is completely unworkable. The opposition among the two departments from a bureaucratic standpoint is well known, and since there is nothing new in the proposals to overcome this opposition, these time delays will be long. I cannot see that this proposal will be any different from the present procedure.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, this bill will implement the ways and means motions relating to the customs tariff which were tabled by the former minister of finance in the last Parliament on October 23, 1978. Essentially it removes the tariffs on imported fruits and vegetables at certain times of the year and reinstates them during our growing seasons when domestic produce is available. It helps the consumer at times when food is scarce and expensive, and it protects our producers at other times.
Unfortunately the new government did not see fit to recall Parliament in June to deal with these matters. In the situation in which we find ourselves now, it becomes clear that this bill and other measures are needed more than ever.

November 5, 1979
Customs Tariff
Consumers are bearing substantial increases in food costs. U.S. trucking costs have increased 45 per cent since last winter, and those increases are expected to drive imported food prices to record highs this winter. The increases in gasoline prices in Canada which the government is about to impose, will further drive up prices, as the energy costs involved in the food chain-transportation, storage, processing and packaging-are passed on to the consumer. The decline in the dollar will add 15 per cent to the cost of imported foods. When imported foods become more expensive, we have seen that domestically produced foods go up in price too, because there is less competitive pressure from imports.
In all these circumstances, this bill which is before us and which is left over from the previous Parliament, is necessary, and it is also very necessary that other measures be introduced. I hope that when this bill is passed, the government will introduce its own measures in response to the current situation. The food policy group, for instance, in the consumer affairs department needs to be strengthened, not, as rumour emanating from the new government would have it, included in the Department of Agriculture. With this change, it would be difficult to see how this group could maintain a strong, independent voice for consumer interests.
Food policy decisions which have been in abeyance need to be implemented. The new government has said that it is committed to bringing down the cost of inflation. One of the key places to start is with food prices. People must shop for food every week, and when they are faced with increasing food prices it tends to trigger more demands for wage settlements as people become concerned about how they will cope with the cost of living. While I commend the government for belatedly introducing this measure, I would also point out to ministers that, in our present circumstances, it is a very small measure. I trust that they will soon bring in their own measures and address the question of rising food prices.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. McCain in the chair.
On clause 1-
Herb Breau: Mr. Chairman, as we begin consideration of clause 1 in Committee of the Whole, could the parliamentary secretary indicate exactly where the changes are? I understand that there are some changes in this bill in the ways and means motion of this Parliament as compared to the motion in the previous Parliament. We will give the parliamentary secretary a minute to get organized and for the officials to be seated. Before we go any further, we would like to know what the changes are.


Mr. Ritchie (York East):: Mr. Chairman, 1 will start by giving some of the changes involved, and when the officials arrive I will make sure whether or not I have the complete list. The change on canned pears from Australia has already been mentioned. It extends the phasing out of the preferential tariff by a year and gives a slightly more favourable rate in the

interval than the original ways and means motion of the last Parliament. There is an inclusion, and 1 believe this is a change which is not related to fruit and vegetables. It extends numerous temporary tariff reductions on consumer goods which were scheduled to expire on June 30, 1979. Most of these were originally introduced in the budget of February, 1973, and have been extended from time to time since. The main products subject to these so-called temporary reductions are raw sugar, motor vehicle parts, cameras and films, vacuum cleaners, pharmaceuticals, chinaware, bottles, and hand tools.
These temporary reductions will become permanent when the bill is introduced on the results of the multilateral trade negotiations and is enacted. There is I believe one other change with regard to sugar. The temporary rates on sugar and related products now in effect were based on the recommendations made by the tariff board in its 1971 report on sugar. By virtue of this bill these rates will be continued indefinitely rather than just to June 30, 1980, as provided in Bill C-51 in the last Parliament. Those are the changes about which the hon. member inquired.


Herb Breau: While on clause 1 it is customary to make some general comments. The hon. member for Windsor West mentioned to the Minister of Finance that perhaps the other bill could be tabled and, before it is passed to third reading, referred to a committee of the House for detailed study as was done ten years ago when the Kennedy Round was brought before the House. This would do two things: it would give hon. members an opportunity to study the bill in greater detail, and it would facilitate the passage of the bill when it comes before the House again. This is the approach that we hope the government will take. Can the parliamentary secretary tell the House whether that is the government's intention?


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, I have not consulted with the minister on this matter, but I thought about it myself in the interval. It seems to me to be a very sound suggestion. However, subject to checking with the minister, I cannot confirm just what we will be doing.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Chairman, what will the situation be with regard to cheese? As part of the GATT negotiations, 1 understand that we agreed to allow the Europeans access to our domestic market. During the election campaign, when the Prime Minister was leader of the opposition, he said in a speech in southern Ontario and one in Quebec that he intended to reduce the import quota on cheese by ten million pounds. 1 am not quite sure at this point whether we can take as the government's intention, the GATT agreement of last June or the Prime Minister's statement when he was leader of the opposition, during the election campaign.


Ronald Stuart (Ron) Ritchie: Mr. Chairman, I will have to take that question as notice because 1 am not informed on the subject and it is not, of course, affected by the current bill.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 2-
November 5, 1979
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I would like an explanation. This is a fairly simple section. It reads as follows:
Section 15 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
Normally when you are making an amendment to a bill and have it before you, you also have what it amends. In this case, however, we have the following:
15 (1) The minister may order (a) that the specific rate of duty provided for in tariff items 8702-2, 8703-1, 8704-1, 8706-1, 8707-1, 8709-1, 8710-1, 8715-1, 8717-1, 8720-1, 8721-1, 8722-1, 8724-2, 8728-1, 9201-1, 9202-1, 9203-2, 9205-2, 9206-2, 9208-1, 9210-1, 9211-2.
It is continued on the next page where it reads:
__and 9402-1 shall apply in lieu of the ad valorem rate of duty or the free rate
of duty.
Mr. Chairman, we are asked to pass that. What in hell does it mean? What is the point of putting it in there in that form? There is no explanation of what it modifies, and no explanation of any of the figures. Why did they not just put in the numbers from 8702-2 to 9201-1 inclusive? Why did they leave some out? Why is it not a full series of numbers. Now we are going to pass it. Why? What does it say? What does it tell me? What does it tell you? We can go on, as there is a whole lot more.
If anyone here thinks they understand it, I will read it for them, but 1 do not see any sense in reading it. It does not make any sense to me and I do not think it is going to make sense to anybody else. There is nothing to put it against, as the former minister of agriculture pointed out. How are we going to make a tariff change by a number that does not apply to anything, is not related to anything, does not modify anything, and when there is no indication of what product is affected? Can we guess? The hon. lady who spoke a minute ago mentioned cheese. Is that 8704-1 or 8722-1 or could it be 9211-2?
During the war this kind of code was used to confuse the enemy; here it is used to confuse hon. members. There is no bloody way we should pass this kind of junk, and that is all it is. I do not think I ever remember not having something to put it against. If we are going to modify something we should say what we are modifying. The act is not mentioned nor is the section that is to be modified. The page supplied for notes is blank on what is being modified.
I do not know if this is good or bad, Mr. Chairman. 1 do not know anything about it-I do not know what any of those numbers are. 1 am pretty sure not many Canadians know what the numbers are, either. I do not think there is any sense in me saying, "pass Mr. Chairman, pass, Mr. Chairman"-pass for what reason? If we wanted to give this government a blank cheque we would do so, but we do not need to do it in this form.
We got a little lecture on freedom of information tonight- and 1 agree entirely with it-but Mr. Chairman, this is not freedom of information or freedom of anything else. The explanatory note comprises three lines which read:
This Bill would implement the ways and means motions relating to the Customs Tariff that were tabled by the Minister of Finance on October 23, 1979.
Customs Tariff
I lost the ways and means. 1 asked the Table officer to send me a copy, and he did. It is identical to what is here. It does not tell me anything different. What does tell us something? If the parliamentary secretary wants to tell me what these specific rates of duty provided for in tariff item 8702-2 are, and later is going to tell me about 8703-1, then I would also like to know why 8702-1 is not included? Why do we not do something with that one as well? Maybe he wants to tell me that and maybe he does not. 1 do not know.
We do some very stupid things as members of Parliament, Mr. Chairman. Today I was considering the salary we are paid and I am surprised how highly paid we are for our efficiency. If we were to pass this, it seems to me that we do not deserve any kind of salary. We are being asked to pass something that does not relate to anything and that does not have any yardstick to measure it against-obviously it is modifying something. It reads, "Section 15 of the said act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:". The note in the margin reads, "Application of specific duties or ad valorem rate in certain items." It does not say what they are nor whether they are additions.
Clause 1, which we passed, referred to: "Strawberries or cherries, pickled or preserved in salt, brine, oil or any other manner,". That covers a wide variety of things.


Mr. Froese:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The schedules are attached to the bill and the numbers are there. I realize they are not the same as they were in former years. I cannot understand the hon. member, with all his years of experience in the House, not knowing what the numbers were in previous years. I personally have looked up the areas that are important to me and I know where the changes have taken place. When it comes to fruit and vegetables, I know what the numbers are. 1 feel the schedule shows the changes that are going to be made, and there must be a record in Parliament of what they were before.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I am duly chastised, humbled, and highly sorry that I cannot understand it. We are not on the appendix, are we? Maybe I missed something-maybe we have reached the stage of the appendix, or maybe we are going to discuss the appendix separately item by item. If we are at that stage, then I missed something. I was of the opinion that we were on clause 2. If I am, it does not list the appendix in this section. When we come to the appendix I presume we will discuss that. 1 am pleased that the member is familiar with the tariff numbers and that he understands. 1 would guesstimate that there are 250,000 tariff numbers. Maybe that is a conservative figure. In 20 years 1 have not given much attention to memorizing that list. It is not the Canadian Tire catalogue, and 1 am not going to get a prize.
I am still of the opinion that we have listed these numbers but have not indicated what they are put against or to what they apply. Maybe I should ask a very simple question. Why

November 5, 1979
Customs Tariff
do we underline some of them and why do we not underline others? Why is "rate" underlined? Is that a new item?
Now we go on to some of the clauses under proposed section 15, and ad valorem-I suppose that means value, does it? They cannot even write the damn thing in English. It is not even in French. It is written in another foreign language. Whatever it means it says ad valorem. It says here: "rate of duty provided for in tariff items 8718"-they are not in the list-and it carries on to say "shall apply in lieu of the free rate of duty."
Proposed subsection (c) reads:
(c) that the specific rate of duty, or ad valorem minimum rate of duty, as the case may be, provided for in tariff items 10 8702-1, 8705-1, 8708-1, 8712-1, 8720-2, 8724-1, 9203-1, 9205-1, 9206-1, and 9211-I shall apply in lieu of the free rate of duty,
There is an indication that subsection (c) is a substituted section and I would like to know for what it is substituted. Is the underlining showing the changes that were made?
I know this has been translated into the second language, whichever way that is, but we always have room on the other page to put the explanation of what we did. We are not doing that. It seems to me that we can pass this if we want, but we will not have understood it or have done much about it if we do. We are not sure whether it is good or bad. I am not sure. But I am sure that some of these changes must mean something. It does not mean that we have had people in Geneva negotiating GATT agreements, in many cases getting the worst of it for several years. Yet we are going to come up with a total change in our tariff and Customs structure that is obviously not going to be good for everybody. It will be worse for some and better for others. I would like to know first who it will be good for and who it will be bad for: Those things that are good for the people that I represent, I will vote for. But I would have to look seriously at the ones being taken away.
We are all Canadians, but we differ in some respects. Some people depend on agriculture, some on natural resources, and some on manufacturing for their livelihood. I would imagine each of these tariff items will affect something. I would like to know what they are. I do not imagine that when I sit down the parliamentary secretary will tell me what they are. I know that I can look back. But let us take a look at No. 8702-2. This is in schedule I at page eight of Bill C-18. This concerns asparagus processing. My friend knows all about this one, he knows that number off by heart. It says that if it is British Preferential Tariff-and I do not know whether we get asparagus from Great Britain, I would doubt it but maybe we do-asparagus can come in free. On what is it free? What does this mean? Is it free on two cases of asparagus? I do not know. But we are not buying any asparagus. If we get it from the most favoured nation, we will pay V/i cents but not less than 10 per cent, or free. That is nice, but what does it mean? It is not going to be less than 10 per cent, or free. What does it mean?
It does not mean anything to me. It is going to be 3Vi cents but not less than 10 per cent. 1 do not think I can get any asparagus for three cents. Now, if we buy it under "general
tariff' it says V/2 cents but not less than 10 per cent, or free. That has not told me anything. Has it told hon. members anything? Has that told us what it was before? Does it tell us where it was moved from? How do we modify it? To what extent will it apply? However, it does say: "In any 12 month period ending 31st March, the specific duty or ad valorem duty, as the case may be, shall not be maintained in force in excess of 8 weeks, and the Free rate shall apply whenever the specific duty or ad valorem duty is not in effect." What does that tell me? I suppose if I were in the business it would tell me something about it.
I listened with great interest to what the former minister said. He said it would be triggered by the horticultural society. Then he was a little indefinite as to how they were doing it. I may have got confused by him saying that in some cases it took three weeks to make the kind of order they were going to trigger.
It is all very well, but I suppose there is some reason why we made this change. I do not see why we should pass all these numbers. The hon. member may know, but we are not supposed to be flipping to the schedule and the annexe until we come to them. We are supposed to follow some order, confusing and unenlightening as it may be. Before we pass these items we would like to know whether there was any increase or a decrease.
What was the most favoured nation tariff last year? Was it two cents or five cents? I do not know whether or not it was raised. It does not even say plus or minus. It does not say it was increased or decreased. There are some very serious omissions in the way we are presenting these Custom tariff amendments, Mr. Speaker.
I would like to call it ten o,clock so the department can think about these things and perhaps supply some additional information.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Monique Bégin: On October 24 last, Mr. Speaker, I put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) a simple and direct question, to wit whether he was in favour of universal family allowances. As it has been customary for Progessive Conservative ministers

November 5, 1979

ever since they came into power, he spoke entirely beside the question telling me how much he approved the child tax credit created by the Liberals.
Why did I suddenly ask such a question? Because serious rumour in women's organizations and in social planning councils has it that the Progressive Conservatives have decided to remove part of the family allowances to finance their credit, that is some $575 million for the first year.
We saw during the weekend that the cat was again out of the bag as evidenced by an article in the Toronto Star and another in Dimanche-Matin. Even the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) in Gander was compelled to admit that such an idea was being considered by the Progressive Conservative government. Again today I put my question to the minister who once again answered beside the question, this time referring to the redistribution of income and to poverty. He also deceived the House and the Canadian people when he made them believe that I had myself initiated a review of family programs for children which he only carried on. This is entirely false. The work which I undertook in my former department dealt with the creation of a Canadian guaranteed annual income plan.
As long as an annual income guarantee proposal is not put forward in this House, I will find it unbelievable that a minister whose mandate is to improve the family policy can be so weak in front of his cabinet colleagues as to consider taking the family allowances from certain children. Is the minister for children ready to sacrifice nearly $1 billion in fiscal exemptions for children, and a good part of the $2 billion family allowances, in order to finance the Conservative election promises of his Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie)? He would then be on an equal footing with the minister of the underprivileged, which he is at that, who will sell out Canada's poor during a secret meeting of the welfare ministers Monday next, November 12, behind closed doors, at the Four Seasons hotel in Toronto. Is he so weak in cabinet-he who is not even in charge of the committee on social affairs-who is not political minister from Toronto, who is the junior to the future superminister of social development who is not even appointed yet, that he cannot hold his own before the Treasury Board bureaucrats and the economics ministers, who do not give a hoot about the seven million Canadian children who are still receiving family allowances? To whom and for how much will the children's budget be sold out in a country where provincial governments do not develop policies for the support of families, and where 2,000 day care places were lost during last year only? No redistribution policy, Mr. Speaker, and I shall conclude on this, can replace a family policy. And neither should be sacrificed by any minister who cares, who believes in the quality of life.
Family allowances, after all, are but a timid step to promote birth and prove to young couples and especially mothers that our society believes in and wants to help Canadian families. In cases where a couple earns $35,000, Mr. Speaker, the wife
Adjournment Debate
does not get that salary, and often the only cash that goes to the mother is the family allowance cheque.
I therefore conclude on this suggestion: a government that intends to do such a thing and cancel family allowances is totally cut off from the grass roots.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member raised her question about family allowances the other day, the minister made reference to developments a year ago when the hon. member occupied the post of minister of national health and welfare. At that time the hon. member sponsored new legislation which reduced the amount of the universal family allowance from approximately $28, which it would have reached last January under normal escalation, to an even $20 per month. At the same time a new child tax credit was introduced in association with the income tax system under which families could receive an annual amount of up to $200 per child depending on the amount of family income. This was, in effect, a move away from universality and an increased emphasis on selectivity in the provision of child benefits.
We on this side of the House supported that legislation at the time because it represented an attempt to ensure that government assistance to families to meet the costs of raising children was being directed more efficiently toward those with the greatest need. Of course, we recognized this was a new step. It was an experimental step, so to speak, but we felt it was something worth a try, and therefore we supported the legislation in this House.
It may well be that the hon. member may be posing her question in order to give the minister an opportunity to expand on the government's future policy in the child benefit system. He is not prepared to do that at this time, and I think it is reasonable for him to take that position after only a few months in this portfolio. 1 know that the hon. member opposite and her colleagues spent many years studying the child benefit system and possible improvements to it before they were able to come to a decision which led to the legislation a year ago. While the minister does not intend to take as long as his predecessors in coming to conclusions, I think it is only reasonable for him to have a little more time to look into the whole system of child benefits which the Government of Canada administers at this time: the universal family allowance payments, the more selective child tax credit and, of course, the tax exemptions under the income tax system.
I will simply say at this time that the minister is aware of the important role the universal family allowance has played in Canada. He also regards the experience with the child tax credit over the past year to have been an interesting one and something worth careful consideration and assessment. I can assure the House that the whole field of child benefits is one of the minister's priority interests in his portfolio, and he will be giving serious study to possibilities for improving the system. Indeed, this government accords a high priority to social programs generally and to seeking improvements which will

Adjournment Debate
ensure that the needs of Canadians are met as effectively as possible.


NATIONAL DEFENCE-PURCHASE OF NEW FIGHTER AIRCRAFT
Hon. Judd Buchanan (London West):: Mr. Speaker, on October 23 of this year I asked the Minister of National Defence (Mr. McKinnon) two questions regarding the new fighter aircraft program. The first dealt with the dearth of industrial benefits being offered by the two contenders on the short list. The second question was directed specifically to the engine problems being encountered with the F16 and the performance problem with the F18A.
When the short list containing these two aircraft was announced last November, the present minister described it as a peculiar choice. Now he seems to be moving with unseemly haste. The minister must be aware-and if he is not, he should consult his colleague, the Minister for Science and Technology (Mr. Grafftey)-that it is absolutely crucial that Canada be assured of solid industrial benefits and offsets when making such a major purchase. There is grave doubt as to whether either the FI6 or the F18A will be able to provide these. We have not been nearly as bloody minded as countries like France and Sweden in using our major military procurements to aid and assist our high technology industries.
Let me deal with the industrial benefits proposed by General Dynamics, the manufacturers of the FI6. Of the $2.3 billion involved in the purchase, only $10 million is for advanced programs and advanced technology. There is absolutely no system or subsystem work. When there are large electronics contracts, they call up "manufacture of card assemblies, castings, ' and other built to print hardware, in other words, a sophisticated form of paint by numbers.
If one assumes that in a modern fighter aircraft about 35 per cent to 40 per cent is for electronics, then the real amount of electronics transmitted on this aircraft is a pitifully small percentage of the total. There is, in short, almost no significant technology transfer. The General Dynamics proposals will guarantee our accelerated obsolescence and continued build-to-print handouts.
The Industry, Trade and Commerce evaluation report which was completed in July of 1979 stated, concerning General Dynamics:
If the attitude displayed by General Dynamics' negotiating team is typical of other aspects of its operations, one would have to be seriously concerned about the seriousness of their intentions to live up to any industrial benefit commitments.
General Dynamics' past record indicates that this concern is well founded.
When General Dynamics sold the FI6 to the NATO consortium in 1976, they made a series of commitments. Let us look briefly at what has happened to them.
The price per aircraft was "not to exceed" $6.09 million. By 1977, each aircraft was costing $11 million. According to the

November 5, 1979
general accounting office in the United States, there is no common understanding of the term "not to exceed". What is being said now is that the price was only a goal-any modifications made to the aircraft would push up the price, and the European countries must in turn pay for all such increases.
General Dynamics also promised 58 per cent in offsets to the European countries-a commitment which would guarantee 25,000 new jobs. An average of only 48.5 per cent has been achieved, with the resulting 11,000 jobs, with no outlook that this number will increase.
The high technology transfer has been, at best, negligible. The European countries have become subcontractors; all the research and development has taken place in the United States. The NATO consortium does little more than assemble parts.
Congressman Jack Edwards, the leading Republican on the house appropriations defence subcommittee, said recently that the engine problems "leave us in a right disastrous position", to use his words, and that if he were building the F-16 powered by this engine, "I'd be nervous". To add insult to injury, strikes at the Pratt & Whitney plant together with a shortage of parts mean that by the end of this year planes will be delivered with "gaping holes where the engines should be".
The other contender on the short list is the F-18A, built by McDonnell Douglas. Here again, there would be no high technology transfer for Canadians. McDonnell Douglas has included a $507.5 million package of Standard DC-9 and DC-10 work. This "offset" is clearly outside the guidelines established for the NFA program. So far as the aerospace subsystem work is concerned, again the ITC evaluation stated that:
Neither company's industrial benefits in this category are considered to make an adequate contribution to a life cycle support capability in Canada, nor do they extend the technological expertise of the eventual Canadian industrial participant.
The F-18A is now running into significant cost overruns on the U.S. order of 1,366 planes.
Serious deficiencies are showing up during the test stages of the plane. Of major concern is the combat radius and range shortfall. The F-18A is having to come home early because of its inability to stay in the air; there is a range loss of between 10 per cent and 15 per cent. The U.S. navy does not know why they are seeing this loss of range. Nor is the F-18A achieving a proper speed of acceleration. What is specifically important here is the fact that the aircraft cannot get to the sector of the area where the intruder is. The enemy may be out of radar range and the radar of the aircraft then cannot pick it up.
On Friday last, there was an accident involving the landing gear on the F-18A. The plane had gone through two days of testing on an aircraft carrier; however, when it came to make its first land approach, the landing gear broke. Because the landing gear is so complex, there could be serious problems and expense involved in maintaining the aircraft in a land role, which is the stance for which Canada intends to use the aircraft. We think it would substantially and significantly push up its life cycle costs. There is clear evidence that there is no

November 5, 1979
effective competition between the two contending aircraft. The potential industrial benefits package does virtually nothing for Canada's high technology industry. Moreover, both aircraft show serious deficiencies in their performance capabilities. In view of this, I urge the minister to add the F-18L to his short list. We would be in on the ground floor. It would offer significant technological advantage for Canadian industry. I feel strongly that that is something members on all sides of the House would like to support.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the only gaping holes we have are in the presentation made by the hon. member this evening. I have complete confidence in the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. McKinnon) and his officials. They will not buy any aircraft with landing gear falling off, or gaping holes. The hon. member can be assured that we will ensure industrial benefits for every province in Canada.
On October 23 the Minister of National Defence replied to a question by the hon. member for London West (Mr. Buchanan) regarding an article which appeared in the Washington Post. The article in question reported upon delivery delays and other problems being encountered with the engine which powers the General Dynamics F-16 aircraft, one of two finalists being considered by Canada in the new fighter aircraft competition. Having now had an opportunity to examine the article, the minister asked me to elaborate upon his earlier reply, which I am pleased to do.
For the past 2'h years, the fighter aircraft project team of the government has been investigating both the F-16 and F-18A aircraft in most minute detail. Before any decision is made by the minister, I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that he will have received a very comprehensive assessment of the situation, and that this factor will be considered carefully in the government's forthcoming selection of a new fighter aircraft, together with many other factors which affect the decision, including all aspects pertaining to both final contenders.
It is worth bringing out that two separate problems were discussed in the article. The first involved late deliveries of new engines to the United States air force because of extended strikes at two American companies supplying components to the engine manufacturer. Both strikes are now over, and there is no reason to doubt this problem will be cleared up by the time Canada starts receiving CF-16s in mid-1982, should that aircraft win the competion. The second problem involved technical difficulties with the engine itself. I can only reiterate that all technical aspects will be examined fully before the final decision is made.
1 am reluctant to say more at this time because of the highly competitive stage we are currently at in this lengthy competition. I can assure the hon. member that there will not be a repeat of the Liberal disaster in purchasing LRP aircraft for Canada, in which there was complete disarray among all
Adjournment Debate
government departments and costs were very, very high to the Canadian public. I assure the House that the present minister will not repeat the past mistakes of the former government.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR MINE IN CAPE BRETON
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on October 19, 1979, in answer to my questions on financial assistance for the proposed Donkin mine in Cape Breton, the minister told me that the matter is under very active consideration at this time and will be discussed in cabinet before very long.
Since we are now getting toward the middle of November, and in view of the remarks we are hearing practically every day in the House from the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that the goal of the present government is self-sufficiency in energy by 1990, it seems the cabinet and Treasury Board are taking a long period of time in making a decision about the Donkin mine. Recent evidence for this is the statement attributed to the premier of the province of Nova Scotia as carried in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald on October 22. It reads as follows:
We have determined that we are not going to be held up on this. We are going to move on it ourselves so that when the final decision is made we will be right on schedule.
Considering that the mine when it is completed after five or six years will be producing or is slated to produce in its first stage two million tons of coal, and this will permit the replacement of some eight million barrels of oil per year, it is difficult to understand why the premier should have to make the threat that Nova Scotia will go it alone, at least in respect of the clearance and preparation of the site, as I understand it, during this winter. Surely the minister will acknowledge that if the drill ships had been leased and done their work in June or July we should actually have started by this time, not next spring. The tunnels should be on the way to being built so as to get the coal to the market as early in the mid 1980s as possible.
The minister in his answer to my questions has said:
The timing of the production of the mine is very important to ensure that market conditions and forecasts are such that it will come on stream at the most opportune time.
I think the minister will agree with me that, given the precarious situation as far as imported oil is concerned, which could become even more desperate if there is a counterrevolution or further trouble in Iran, then the market for that much coal is certainly there. The president of the Nova Scotia Power Corporation, Dr. Lester Kirkpatrick, told the industrial committee of the Nova Scotia House of Assembly on March 30, 1979, that the absence of assured coal supplies over the next decade and the need to find alternatives to oil-fired generation forced the power corporation to take a share in New Brunswick's Point Lepreau nuclear power plant.

November 5, 1979
Adjournment Debate
1 think it is obvious this means that we should not postpone the opening of Donkin any longer. The extra test hole drilling that began in September is now finished and confirms more accurately the quality and quantity of the coal in the Donkin area, as well as off Point Aconi.
Considering that in the first two years of constructing these tunnels to get at the coal about 500 persons will be employed in the construction process, and that when finished 1,150 will be employed at the mine by 1985 or 1986, if it is started now, and when you consider the help this would be in terms of our balance of payments problem, which is now very acute and will remain so for some time, the minister will understand why we are impatient with the speed at which this mine is being developed.
Surely the financial cost to the federal government, through the Cape Breton Development Corporation, will be high, but it would be spent over a period of four or five years and there is a good chance that all of these capital costs would be returned to the government because the prospects for this mine are so good.
We have thousands of people looking for jobs at the Cape Breton coal mines. The savings in unemployment insurance and, in some cases, in welfare payments, would be very noticeable in such an area. The spinoff effects from this mine would give a stability to the mining areas on the south side of Sydney Harbour which they have not seen since the Second World War, and this time it should be of much longer duration.
I hope the minister will convince the cabinet to proceed quickly on this vital labour-intensive and energy-intensive project that would be good for the province of Nova Scotia, the people of Canada, and the industrial area of Cape Breton.
A friend whom I have known for many years, with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, has warned me that, given the present restraints program, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) might prefer to help two private foreign firms to invest in Cape Breton coke production. He estimated that this would bring about 400 new jobs. We are anxious to see the Cape Breton coke production increased since that could only be good for the area, including the coal mines. Surely, though, the minister will not allow the priority of the Donkin mine, with its 1,150 potential employees, to be scrapped by the Treasury Board in favour of private foreign firms producing coke that would give us 400 jobs.
If the coke oven consortium can be a viable thing for Cape Breton, it should go ahead as soon as possible after the Donkin mine is started. Such productive expenditures could only be good for this long suffering area of Nova Scotia and, as I mentioned, ultimately redound to the good of Canada.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say to my friend opposite that I enjoyed the informative presentation which he made tonight. 1 want to assure him that, as far as I am concerned, there is no danger of scrapping the Donkin mine per se in favour of any coking operation.
As the hon. member knows, because he is knowledgeable about mining and comes from that area, currently Devco supplies coal to two distinct segments of industrial activity. He knows that there is high grade metallurgical coal for coke making operations as well as thermal coal which is purchased by Nova Scotia Power Commission. Devco has demonstrated over the past five years the capacity to develop markets for its coal. As its production has increased I believe from one million tons to 2.6 million tons, a planned increase of the thermal portion of this coal production from 1.3 million tons to 4.2 million tons over the next five years will require the development of further markets.
The major increase in consumption is expected to be from the Nova Scotia Power Commission. There is also a possibility, of course, that should it be possible, as the hon. member has said, to have an auxiliary coking capacity because of some merchant coking operation, that would also require additional coal. The corporation intends to press ahead with plans by the new mine.
The premier of Nova Scotia has recently indicated that for the best long-term advantage of Nova Scotia, a further reliance must be placed on coal. Like the hon. member opposite the premier of that province is impatient for this to commence. There has been excellent co-operation between the two levels of government, and the drilling operations that were conducted this year, and for which the province of Nova Scotia will be reimbursed, were in my view done within the proper time. They could have been done a few weeks or months earlier, but the main thing is they were done within the limit of the weather which would have soon made it impossible had weather conditions worsened.
The hon. member also knows that very shortly there will be financial and technical people from the Cape Breton Development Corporation appearing before the standing committee. He can be assured that he will have an opportunity to speak to these people about these conditions and the Lingan mine which has had a strong performance recently. The No. 26 collery is of particular interest because of the type of coal it produces. There is also the Prince mine.
As far as segregating funds or giving the member a definite commitment about the precise amount of money that will be used, for example, in the Prince mine, or the allocating of funds for the starting up of the Donkin mine, 1 have to be honest and say that at the present time I do not know what kind of money is involved for each of these operations. They are all part of the general coal strategy. It is a high priority with myself and my government. It is true that some time has gone by since I indicated to him that we would be talking about this matter in cabinet. We are still at the discussion stage and I am hopeful that quite soon we will have more definite information for him. In the meantime he can pursue this matter with myself and the officials in committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 10.29 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, November 6, 1979