1979-10-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Monique Begin (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of pressing necessity.
In view of the fact, as we all know, that 1979 has been designated as the International Year of the Child by the United Nations and that October 24, that is today, has been selected as the Day of the Child by the ministers of education in Canada, I move, seconded by the member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc):
That the House urge the government to state unequivocally that family allowances paid to Canadian mothers for their children will remain universal.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a 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.


PETRO-CANADA SUGGESTED DEDICATION OF RIDEAU CLUB DESTROYED BY FIRE-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde):
That the site of the recently destroyed Rideau Club, which faces the Parliament Buildings in Ottawa, be dedicated to the construction of the central
Canada branch of Petro-Canada to serve as a reminder to the government and the Canadian people of the importance of this vital Crown corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PENSIONS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), I move:
That this House is pleased to learn that there is a government document known as the Lazar report which recommends that action be taken to provide substantial increases in pensions as well as other important improvements, and this being the day when a freedom of information bill is being introduced, this House calls on the government to drop the secrecy, to make public the Lazar report forthwith, and to indicate when it proposes to take action thereon.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the terms of Standing Order 43, the presentation of this motion for debate at this time can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, under the terms of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) to allow fishing vessels of 100 feet or more to Fish 6,000 metric tons of cod in the 4T area of the Gulf of St. Lawrence from November 1 will have adverse

October 24, 1979
effects on crab fishing because they will destroy crab stocks, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr):
That the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans be requested by the House to rescind his decision which favours large fishing companies to the detriment of all the independent fishermen of the Atlantic provinces and of the province of Quebec.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the hon. member's motion. Under 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.


FISHERIES
Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of pressing urgency.
Since the large offshore fishing boats based outside the Gulf of St. Lawrence have recorded increased landings in the last two years, and whereas the small inshore fishing vessels based in the Gulf of St. Lawrence have not yet attained their full catch rate and are subject to a shorter fishing season, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr):
That this House directs the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to rescind, before the starting date of November 1, his decision to allow the return of non-Gulf based fishing vessels to compete with small inshore fishermen.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with Standing Order 43, the presentation of such a motion for debate at this time can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent necessity.
In view of the crisis that successive increases in interest rates have recently created in Canada; given the negative impact

that interest rates of 14 per cent to 18 per cent have on small businesses and workers in general who run the risk of being laid off; and also in view of the urgency of putting an end to ever-rising interest rates, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ostiguy):
That this government refuse for the time being any new increase in interest rates and introduce compensatory measures such as tax exemption adjustment, now set at $1,000, on income originating from interest or dividends.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the present efforts of the Pittston Oil Company, of New York, to locate an oil refinery in Maine which would produce unacceptable and intolerable levels of air pollutants in New Brunswick, and in line with the statement made in the House on October 22 by the Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Fraser) that both the United States and Canada "were polluting each other and effective control could best be undertaken on a co-operative basis", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint John (Mr. Ferguson):
That this House request the minister to consider a study which would establish guidelines for enforceable air quality laws and federal emissions requirements, complementary to those administered by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, which Canada does not have.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
October 24, 1979

In view of the fact that the Northern Mineral Advisory Committee does not represent the broad range of interest in the north and, therefore, constitutes only one of the many sources of input which the government must consider when forming a northern mining policy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez):
That the report of the Northern Mineral Advisory Committee be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and that this committee seek representation from all groups involved in or affected by mining in the north.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[ Translation]

Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion whose urgency and national import are obvious.
In view of the news concerning the profits earned by two of the biggest oil companies operating on Canadian soil from January to September, 1979, to the effect that they have increased by an average of 50 per cent as compared with the corresponding period in 1978, an excellent year according to the leaders of the oil industry in terms of return on capital investment and net profit registered, and in view of the answer of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) to a question put by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr.Broadbent) in the House yesterday, and I quote:
-that it is a matter of very real concern to this government to see that as much as possible of the revenues that come to energy companies operating in this country are reinvested in Canadian energy development.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren):
That this government introduce, in the budget to be brought down in the near future in this House, a special tax to constitute a working capital fund financed by the excessive profits of oil companies operating on Canadian soil to be used for research and development in the Held of new sources of energy, and to be levied according to the following formula: 25 per cent of excess profits made in 1979 and the following years by said companies, as compared with 1978 as the standard year, to the extent where those profits exceed, as is now the case, a minimal return of 15 per cent of capital investments.
Oral Questions


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, in the absence of the Minister of Finance who may fear that if he were here today there might be a snap meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affiars at which the minister would have to make an appearance.
Yesterday, several American banks raised their prime lending rates on business loans to a record 15 per cent. Will the Prime Minister assure the House right now that his government will not allow further increases in interest rates in Canada, which are already at record levels?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can reply to the hon. member's question. He commented upon the Minister of Finance being out of the House today. I can assure the hon. member that the Minister of Finance is away on government business in western Canada.
In answer to the hon. member's question, he is quite correct in indicating that there has been another increase in interest rates in the United States. This, as we all know, brings added pressure to the North American economy and particularly to our own interest rates. The government cannot give any assurance that interest rates in Canada will not go higher.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the acting minister, since he cannot give the assurance on interest rates which I sought, will he tell the House what estimate he and his government have made of the effect its high interest rate policy will have on the level of unemployment in Canada?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, we have not made a current estimate of the impact of rising interest rates on unemployment in Canada but, as the hon. member knows, such estimates are continually being made by officials of the Department of Finance and other economists. I am sure that when those figures become available, we will be very pleased to provide the hon. member with an update.

October 24, 1979
Oral Questions


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, it is surprising, in view of the seriousness of the matter, that a government which is committed to open government does not have a current estimate right now which it could give to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In view of the government's policy of moving domestic interest rates almost in tandem with the American rates to record high levels, and in view of the professed desire of the government to see domestic oil prices rise quickly to world levels, are not the acting minister and his government in fact telling the Canadian people that their policy is to have this country move into a recession?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, 1 can assure the hon. member that that is certainly not the government's policy. I would draw to the hon. member's attention, since he has referred to the American situation so much today, what noted economists in the country have been saying. For example, last week an article stated that the Canadian government announced plans to encourage the development of a free market economy and to reduce the role of the public sector, and it went on to say that that policy boded well for the long-term prospects of the Canadian economy.


OIL PRICES-REQUEST GOVERNMENT ABANDON PLANS FOR FURTHER INCREASES
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since, even at present rates, home owners with a $40,000 mortgage negotiated three to five years ago will have to pay, under the present rate, approximately $ 1,022 more a year, and since the government is pressing ahead with the largest increase in oil prices in our history at a time when multinational oil companies are registering record profits, will the minister agree to abandon his plan for oil price increases equivalent to an additional tax of up to $200 a year on every home owner and car driver in this country?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned on previous occasions the fact that any speculation on the part of the hon. member or anyone else with respect to any price increase is premature. In those terms, I would ask the hon. member to consider the implications of merely standing pat or doing a flip-flop with respect to energy policy, as his party has done.
I also want to point out that in our considerations of the implications of price increases we are concerned about the economic consequences. We in this government want to make sure that measures are put in place which will, in fact, in the event of an increase, address these particular problems.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, if the minister had done his homework and read up on the previous government, he would

have seen that we had a policy which took care of the average Canadian consumer and the average Canadian citizen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: If the minister will not act to protect the consumer and prevent the price of home heating oil reaching unconscionable levels, will he at least set up immediately the energy supply allocation board provided for by the Energy Supply Emergency Act passed by the previous Parliament, especially since his provincial colleagues in Calgary yesterday concluded that in view of the inaction of this government, they themselves would set up a purely interprovincial advisory committee on energy? Will he set up that board right now?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I simply reject out of hand any suggestion made with respect to the premise of that question. The fact is, and the hon. member knows, that my department has been working very hard in close co-operation with the provinces with respect to the Emergency Supplies Allocation Act and the background and support apparatus that may be required in the event of an emergency, real or apprehended.
The fact is that we are working hard. We have in our department taken the kind of support positions that will be available to us in the event of an emergency. I do not think it sits well with the hon. member to make accusations of the sort he has, because they are simply not true.


FINANCE, TRADE AND ECONOMIC AFFAIRS INTEREST RATES-ORDER OF APPEARANCE OF WITNESSES BEFORE HOUSE COMMITTEE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot understand the Liberals complaining about the government carrying out their policies; but that is another matter.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


John Edward Broadbent: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question about this important matter of interest rates that concerns every Canadian.
As the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs is planning to hear both the governor of the Bank of Canada and the Minister of Finance, will the Prime Minister reverse the decision forced upon two of his backbenchers by the Minister of Finance last night when he instructed them to support a motion that would have the governor of the Bank of Canada appear before that committee ahead of the Minister of Finance, when it should be the Minister of Finance who is there first to state government policy?
October 24, 1979


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have such respect for Parliament that I would naturally not reverse the position of a parliamentary committee.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, neither the Prime Minister, when he was in opposition, nor I were content to let his predecessor get away with such glib answers. 1 should like to ask him if he thinks it is appropriate for any minister of the Crown, particularly a prime minister who has talked about reforms of Parliament, to direct his own backbenchers to vote in a way completely contrary to their own independent desires, as happened last night?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what kind of relations exist in that party between backbenchers, as he calls them, and the leader. Certainly, in this party all members of Parliament come to their own conclusions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 must note that that principle, which has been long established in this party, is so remarkable to the others that it evokes surprise and agony.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My answer stands. We have a recommendation from a parliamentary committee. I understand it was made in part because it reflects the interest of the governor of the Bank of Canada in having the earliest possible opportunity to appear before that committee. Naturally, that is not a recommendation that I propose to reverse.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, most people thought that the government was elected to lead the governor of the Bank of Canada, not follow him. That is not the implication of the Prime Minister's answers.
On the important question of interest rates policy, for which he has responsbility as head of the government, does the Prime Minister not think that by this time Canadians are fed up with having their interest rates dictated by decisions made in Washington instead of in this country? Does he not think Canadians would like to have a government that pursues the kind of successful low interest rate policies that have worked so well in dozens of countries of western Europe?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I take it that the Leader of the New Democratic Party is asking me for an opinion. My opinion-which, I think, by the rules of the House perhaps 1 should not be giving-is that the people of this country do not want high interest rates. Neither do we. But we know that as a national government we have to work our way out of a very difficult economic situation, and this will not be done by ducking the hard decisions.
[DOT] (M25)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Chretien:: You had all the solutions in May.
Oral Questions INTERNATIONAL TRADE


MEASURES TO PROMOTE CANADIAN EXPORTS
Mr. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, at an export conference yesterday, the Minister of State for International Trade forecast a record Canadian trade deficit for 1980-81 of $10 billion. On the other hand, in connection with the same conference, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is reported by the Canadian Press to have stated that government intervention on behalf of Canadian exporters has now ended, including market surveys and trade negotiations.
Can the minister of state please assure the House that there will be no cuts in measures to promote Canadian exports, including those specified by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of State for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, what I said at the conference yesterday was that the trade deficit, the current account deficit, could reach a level of $10 billion. What I was indicating was the magnitude of the size of the problem that we have. It is a problem of a long-standing nature. As the hon. member well knows, it is one where there is a considerable amount of momentum attached to the problems that we got into in the middle seventies under the previous government.
We have said that considerable effort will be made on the trade side. There are a number of programs under review right now in the areas of trade promotion and trade policy. We had hoped that we would have some announcements to make on these reviews before the end of the year. There will not be a diminution of effort on the part of this government to support trade in this country. I should say-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, may I take it from the answer of the minister of state that what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is reported to have said about specific cuts in market surveys and trade negotiations-that the government will remove itself from those areas-will not in fact now happen?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I believe the remarks that are attributed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce relate to a much broader area than just trade. There is no intention on the part of this government to remove itself from assistance on trade promotion or trade negotiations where it is appropriate for the government to be involved.


POSSIBLE MOVE OF CANADIAN EMBASSY FROM TEL AVIV TO JERUSALEM-EFFECT ON TRADE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, a number of
Canadian businesses have deplored the consequences of the
550

October 24, 1979
Oral Questions
government's plan to move the embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem and some experts have estimated that the cost of this loss in opportunity to bid will reach $5 billion worth of contracts to Arab states.
Based on the studies which have been done by his department, can the minister comment on whether this potential trade loss is accurate?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, there have been studies done on the effect of the announcements in June of the possible movement of the embassy to Jerusalem. I cannot confirm right now the precise figure that the hon. member mentions. There is clearly a hiatus resulting in trade negotiations on contracts with those countries. We are concerned about it, we are following it closely, and we hope that the whole matter will be clarified shortly as a result of the trip made by the Hon. Robert Stanfield.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister of state would table the studies which have been done by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. At the same time, will he table the programs that he intends to cut out as announced by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce yesterday?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the studies that have been carried out are, essentially, an ongoing review of the discussions that have been held between the department and interested companies who are doing business in that part of the world. I do not propose to make those public because they are confidential discussions between companies and officials in my department.
As far as the second part of the hon. member's question is concerned, I have said that I propose to have something to announce in relation to a trade policy and trade promotion activities.


FINANCE
Mr. Arthur Phillips (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Finance. Over the past year or so, the President of the Treasury Board and other ministers, including the Prime Minister, have made many statements to the effect that if elected they would take steps to raise the value of the Canadian dollar to approximately 90 cents U.S.
In view of the terribly pessimistic forecasts by the Minister of State for International Trade for a deterioration of our trade balance in 1980-and, indeed, 1981-is this still the government's policy?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks if this is still the govern-

ment's policy. I would like to correct him. It was never the government's policy.
In direct answer to the hon. member's question, I would say that the desirability of a stable dollar in relation to the American dollar is certainly something that all in this House surely seek. A higher dollar would be something that any government in power would like to achieve. As has been indicated time and again in the House, we are in a situation where, as the Secretary of State for International Trade indicated, the aftermath of the previous government's handling of our export position is something that will take some time to turn around. But I can assure the hon. member that it is being done.


Arthur Phillips: Mr. Speaker, I was really talking about the next two years, rather than looking at the past and reliving previous elections.
Since the trade minister forecast that the negative balance of payments would go from about $5 billion to $10 billion, we are looking ahead. What does the Acting Minister of Finance believe would be an appropriate level for the Canadian dollar in terms of the U.S. dollar?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows that such a hypothetical question cannot be answered in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for International Trade, whose job is to support exporters in many ways such as by keeping political, external relationship harmonious and productive.

I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, what the minister's itinerary will be for the weeks to come, and if it will include the Middle East.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have no immediate plans to take any trips in the next few weeks. My intention is to be very active in support of Canadian exporters in other countries of the world and to support their business activities.
October 24, 1979


INTERNATIONAL DAY OF THE CHILD
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Today is the International Day of the Child. As a symbol of this government's commitment to children, and to the urgent need across this country for more accessible and affordable child-care for all sectors of our population, will the minister establish a model seven-day a week child-care centre on Parliament Hill?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: I thank the hon. member for her question and, indeed, her preamble with regard to the International Year of the Child.
As to the specific request regarding a day-care centre, 1 will be happy to take that under consideration and report to the hon. member.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker,
1 would like to ask a supplementary question.
Following the excellent proposal made by my colleague from the other party in connection with the celebration of this famous Day of the Child, could we ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he is in favour of universal family allowances for all the little Canadians?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, universal family allowances have served this country very well for a long time. When the hon. member occupied my position, she went through a number of models and options with respect to its use and brought in the child tax credit, a move that I applauded. She may therefore understand that I have been doing exactly the same thing in trying to deal with the child tax credit because 1 believed that was a good move on her part.
Oral Questions


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport.
Could the minister tell the House whether or not Loto Canada ticket wholesalers have just sued Loto Canada for $10 million because the new government has decided to dismantle the corporation and by so doing has not respected the contracts it had signed with them?


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism):: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding that no legal action has been taken by any wholesalers as far as my department is concerned.


INQUIRY WHETHER PROVINCES WILL ASSUME SHARE OF POSSIBLE DAMAGES
Irénée Pelletier: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Since the minister has transferred Loto Canada to the provinces, can he tell the House if it is true that he will follow the fashion started by the new government and invite the provinces to participate in the payment of the sum which will be equitably distributed to the provinces?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. The former government committed $10 million toward the initial cost of the development of the Prince mine. To date, this money has not been given to the Cape Breton Development Corporation; in fact, the Cape Breton Development Corporation has had to spend $4,700,000 of its own funds to do this work. When is Treasury Board going to pay this money which was promised to the Cape Breton Development Corporation?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: If 1 might answer the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker-which is a very relevant and good one-the answer is simply this: Treasury Board and the cabinet are

October 24, 1979
Oral Questions
considering this matter; it will be dealt with in due course and it will not take very long.


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As the minister knows, there is a great deal of serious concern about the lack of progress in the settlement of the Yukon Indian land claims. This concern is being expressed not only by the Council of Yukon Indians but also by Mr. Robert Blair, chairman of Foothills Pipe Lines and the president of Foothills Oil Pipe Lines, a sister company, who cited this lack of progress as a reason for withdrawing his company's application before the National Energy Board.
Following the recent meeting with representatives of the Council of Yukon Indians, can the minister report to the House what plans he has to get negotiations going which will lead to a satisfactory settlement of this outstanding claim, a settlement which will open the door to economic development in the north?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: In response to the hon. member's question, Mr. Speaker, I must first indicate to him that meetings have been held with the Council of Yukon Indians and representatives of the Yukon territorial government. I had two meetings with the Council of Yukon Indians yesterday, and one meeting with the representatives of the Yukon territorial government. We all agreed it was essential that land claims negotiations begin and that they move forward speedily. All hon. members are interested in an early settlement.
We have not concluded the various matters that were on the table. I will be meeting with the Yukon territorial council representatives today at 5.30 and with the Council of Yukon Indians today at seven o'clock.


B. Keith Penner: Is it not the case that the government really has no policy for the settlement of northern native claims? Will the minister get busy right away and apply himself to this serious matter and announce to this House, without any more delay, exactly what is the policy of the government in the settlement of these claims? Exactly what is the policy of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question contained not one, not two, but three argumentative points.
[Mr. MacKay.J
[ Translation]


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Pierre Deniger (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Last week he said in the House that he intended to make a recommendation to cabinet within a month concerning the sale of Nordair. In the meantime, does he intend to refer the matter to the Canadian Transport Commission?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be making a proposal to cabinet on the disposition of Nordair and it will, naturally, follow that this will have to be approved by the CTC in due course.


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Is the Minister of Transport aware that the Canadian Transport Commission has exclusive authority to issue licences for the commercial operation of air carriers and the sale of these transportation undertakings? Is he and his government going to impose a political decision on an administrative tribunal?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is not at all the intention of the government. Any change in the ownership of Nordair will, naturally, have to be approved by the CTC.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question to the Minister of State for International Trade. Does his pessimistic view of the current account trade imbalance reflect his calculation of the loss of the Argentine contract, the loss of the Japanese contract, the loss of the Mexican contract, the disturbance to Middle East trade, all of which result from the actions or inaction of this government?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: First of all, we have not lost the Japanese contract. The Mexican contract is still being worked upon: there is a study which was commenced two months ago and we expect it to take about six months; then we shall be able to proceed with further negotiations in connection with that contract.
The statement I made yesterday with regard to the current account balance next year is related primarily to the fact that trade with the United States is likely to continue to be poor in the coming year. The deficit with the United States this year is
October 24, 1979

$1 billion, compared with a considerable surplus last year on trade alone. That, together with the continuation of their recession next year, will likely result in an increase in the current account deficit.


Robert Knight Andras: Can I take it the minister's answer is that he agrees his pessimistic view of the future trade picture is very much the result of the losses of those trading opportunities and contracts, which losses are the result of the actions of this government since May 22?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I thought I made it clear that the deterioration in the trade picture is related to the recession which we are expecting will continue in the United States next year. In addition, the over-all current account deficit will be adversely affected by the increase in dividend payments next year as a result of the continuation of deficits from which we have been suffering for four years now.


Robert Knight Andras: Ten o'clock.


CANADIAN EGG MARKETING AGENCY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It is my understanding that the minister has asked the National Farm Products Marketing Council to investigate some of the allegations and charges made against CEMA.
Is the minister in a position to confirm that he has asked for an investigation? If so, can he tell the House the scope of that investigation; and, further, can he make a commitment to the House that the report, when it is finished, will be made public and that he will also refer it to the Standing Committee on Agriculture?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: In response to the hon. member's question, I did not have to contact the Farm Products Marketing Council or its chairman in order to instigate that inquiry: it is already in motion.
As to whether or not the report will be made available to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, 1 can give no commitment at the moment. I see no problem, though, in making it available. As I indicated yesterday, we have not only tabled the annual reports, but decided to have them referred to the appropriate committee.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: A supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that CEMA has confirmed that it has hired in the past a company called Roygold, which is partly or wholly-owned by the general manager of CEMA, and in view of the possible-and I underline the word "possible"-implications of such a practice as far as other Crown corporations and agencies are concerned, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether or not he might move to have the same conflict of
Oral Questions
interest regulations as apply to government servants and government departments applied to all Crown corporations and public bodies of Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: I think that is a very valuable suggestion. It is one we are considering now. We shall want to see whether it has any implications which I might not have foreseen up to this moment. If there are not, it will be our intention to move in the direction the hon. member has suggested. Indeed, we have been considering doing so for some time.


NATIONAL RESOURCES
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister: it has to do with the policy of the government concerning offshore mineral resources.
1 would remind the right hon. gentleman of his correspondence in September with the premiers and of the basic principles which he described in that correspondence as guiding this whole matter. The first, to refresh his memory, is that the province should own the mineral resources off the continental margin off its coast; the second is that such ownership would be consistent with, and subject to, the division of legislative competence between the Parliament and the legislature.
My question is: In this division of powers, is the Prime Minister retaining for the federal government the declaratory power and the expropriation power? In other words, would the federal government, in explaining its policy, indicate that in certain circumstances it would bring back federal jurisdiction over the offshore or might even bring back the ownership of the offshore resources as the constitution presently provides?


Charles Joseph Clark: The purpose of the move we are making with regard to jurisdiction over resources under water is to try to bring that situation in line with provincial jurisdiction over resources under ground. The declaratory provision would apply in both cases.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Which is to say that the declaratory power and the expropriatory power could be used to bring these resources back under federal jurisdiction in circumstances that Parliament wished. I want to make sure that the Prime Minister is saying this, and that the policy of giving those resources to the provinces applies only until such time as the Parliament of Canada wants to bring them back.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Of course, that emergency power resting with the Government of Canada will continue to rest with the Government of Canada. But I would make it clear-and I want this to be understood not only by the Leader of the

October 24, 1979
Oral Questions
Opposition but by the provinces-that we do not contemplate invoking this power.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. When the Law of the Sea Conference held its ninth session in New York last August, this government's lack of interest was deeply regretted, because there was not a single minister present. An important subject of major significance for Canada is the development of offshore mineral resources. In 1978, the Canadian delegation proposed a ceiling on the production of nickel extracted from offshore nodules. It seemed possible to have this production ceiling formula accepted, but some consumer countries like Japan and those in Europe will no longer accept it.
Could the hon. minister advise the House about the diplomatic steps she will take with those countries to make sure that they accept the Canadian formula concerning the ceiling on the development of offshore resources, in order to protect the mining industry in Canada and prevent the closing of nickel mining operations in Sudbury and copper mining operations in the Gaspe region?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, this government attaches the utmost importance to the successful conclusion of the Law of the Sea Conference next year. My colleagues and I met the Canadian delegation both before and immediately after the last session. Concerning the ceiling to be put on the production of nickel, I must say that Canada continues to defend its interests and to exert pressures on other countries. In this connection, I have personally raised this question with the American Secretary of State, Mr. Vance, with the members of the European Economic Community and with other foreign affairs ministers.


INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER WILL DISCUSS
Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the present state of our mining industry, does the Prime Minister intend to add this matter of overmining of offshore nodules to the agenda of his conference with President Carter?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is a matter I would be willing to take up with the Secretary of State for External Affairs and, if it appears in the interest of

our country that I should discuss it with President Carter, I would certainly be willing to do so.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and it relates to the inexcusable police killing of a Caughnawaga resident last weekend.
Does the minister intend to ask the Solicitor General to launch an independent inquiry into this disgraceful episode; or do the minister and his colleague, the Solicitor General, intend to request the establishment of a joint inquiry into this sorry affair by representatives of their ministeries as well as appropriate representatives from Quebec?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate to the hon. member and to members of the House that I sent my condolences to the bereaved family following the incident. A coroner has been appointed, Mr. Cyrille Delage, for the purpose of having a full inquest. We have been in contact with the chief of Caughnawaga, and we are trying to clear my schedule so that I can go down there on Monday or Tuesday not only to discuss the police issue but other issues.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Marcel Ostiguy (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Since this is harvest time for grain farmers, and since they must use dryers and there is a shortage of propane gas, can the Minister of Agriculture order an immediate inquiry to ascertain the cause of this shortage of gas which is harming Quebec farmers?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, 1 appreciate the hon. member's interest. I must confess, in all honesty, that I am not aware of the fact that this situation exists. If the hon. member wishes to share some information with me, I can give him a commitment that I will consult with my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and will do everything possible to overcome the shortage, if indeed that shortage does exist.
October 24, 1979


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I have a short question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs arising out of our exchange yesterday. The minister was good enough to tell us that she has raised the matter of Foothills with Mr. Vance. Would she be good enough to tell me the date? Was it during the regular consultation at the United Nations in the fall that the Canadian foreign minister had with the Secretary of State for the United States?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: This was among many other matters that I discussed with the Secretary of State, Mr. Vance, concerning both our east and west coasts during our discussions in Tokyo at the time of the economic conference.
The hon. member may also wish to be informed, at this time, that I have heard from the president of Foothills to the effect that the support accorded by this government to the Foothills' project has been very gratefully welcomed and that Foothills will again be submitting their application to the National Energy Board tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am just a little puzzled by the hon. member's answer, because the Prime Minister told us not so long ago that the matter was not raised at Tokyo.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The question is whether or not the Prime Minister had raised it. I had said that 1 had been the one who had spoken to the U.S. Secretary of State. I trust the hon. member will realize that there was more than one person at the Tokyo conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the port of Churchill shipped only 500,000 tonnes this year instead of the 600,000 tonnes which was the target, and since the first ship to Churchill did not reach there until August 9 instead of mid-July-and even at that time there was not enough grain at that port-would the minister inform the House of the steps the government will take to guarantee that this northern port is used to full capacity for the benefit of all Canadians?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the hon. member's question and I assure him and other hon. members of the House of this government's
Oral Questions
support for the greater utilization of the port of Churchill. To that end, we will be taking steps to encourage its increased utilization both in terms of providing better access and of improving the facilities on site.
We are distressed by the fact that the shipments are down this year compared with last year. However, it was essentially a matter of supply, and I have discussed this matter with the Canadian Wheat Board officials. 1 am sure that, together, we will be able to put our act together and ensure we will have record shipments for the next year.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is possible and efficient to use Canadian icebreakers in Canada's north and this would help to lengthen the season, would the minister provide a guarantee that icebreakers will be used next spring and that Canadian ships will be available, instead of our having to wait for weeks for foreign ships to come to our ports?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is a matter that has been considered. As a matter of fact, it had been hoped that we would be able to get a load out of Churchill prior to the regular shipping season; however, we were not able to get an order at that time. But that work is still going on and the marine administrator is in contact with officials of the Canadian Wheat Board and other interested parties to make the necessary arrangements to ensure we can work toward extending the season.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Minister of Supply and Services. Since he indicated recently that a meeting between federal ministers and their Quebec counterparts would take place in Montreal or Quebec City, with a view to discussing certain priorities and projects that the federal government could carry out in Quebec with the $85 million that GM does not want to use for the moment, could the minister tell us whether he intends to apply pressure, or merely indicate to the Quebec government whether he intends to recommend that the decentralization program involving the Jonquiere taxation data centre be carried out? Further, does he really intend to maintain the priorities of the federal government rather than those of the provincial government?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, obviously during his visit throughout Canada the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will discuss economic priorities with each province. The minister responsible for energy and commerce, the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations and myself will discuss, during our visit,

October 24, 1979
Oral Questions
an economic scheme which would affect mostly Quebec and I would like to assure the hon. member that the present government knows what projects ought to be continued. But the right hon. Prime Minister agreed-and I think this is true to his policy-to consult with the provinces before trying to reconcile the objectives of both sides.


QUEBEC-INQUIRY WHETHER SUBSIDIES WILL INCREASE
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if the government really intends to spend more money in Quebec than was previously planned. Furthermore, is the $85 million in addition to what was normally going to be spent in Quebec, or is it just a transfer which in fact will add nothing to what was going to be spent in Quebec anyway? I ask this question, Mr. Speaker, because rumour has it that the federal government is going to spend more in Quebec than was previously planned, which I think must be inaccurate. I would like the minister to clarify that matter.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member got that information. What I know is that we are prepared to listen to the provinces, including Quebec, and to discuss with the Quebec government priorities in that province which would be in line with national objectives. As for saying whether the amounts will be more or less important than had been planned, I will let the minister responsible answer that question. The hon. member should know that we have already shown great generosity in the GM case, because while the former government had promised $50 million, we raised that offer to $80 million.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the urgent need to improve ground transportation between Mirabel and downtown Montreal via Laval, and to help make international airport services at Mirabel profitable, is it the minister's intention when he meets with the Quebec government to consider that request as a priority, as something that is urgently needed and that would also provide jobs during the construction period and for future generations?


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt we consider that project as very important, and in the views of some Liberals it is more important than the Place Guy Favreau project. At any rate, 1 would repeat for the benefit of the member that we want to

hear the recommendations and submissions of the Quebec government, after which we will decide.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have received three notices of privilege, one from the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), one from the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and a third one just now from the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). I presume the question of privilege of the hon. member for Algoma arises out of today's question period. Therefore 1 think I should take it into account now, and 1 will do the other two in the order I have just indicated.


PRIVILEGE
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of the question which I directed to the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) this afternoon. I put a question to him concerning the trade opportunities which were lost due to the Israeli embassy question. In his response he indicated that he was not prepared to make available to members of this House copies of the studies which had been done by his department, yet he indicated that he was making these studies available to the companies which were involved.
It would seem to me that on this day, when we will be debating freedom of information legislation in the House, the hon. minister would want to reconsider his position and make these studies available to members. Surely freedom of information legislation will give members a new privilege, in that they will have access to greater numbers of government documents on which to base their opinions and judge government programs. I am not asking for the individual documentation or the correspondence with individual companies. I am asking for the over-all studies which have been made available to companies, yet the minister has indicated that he is unwilling to make them available to members of the House.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of which studies the hon. member is referring to that have been made available to individual companies. What 1 said in answer to his question was that the studies which have been done are studies discussing the particular statements or comments made to us in relation to their own particular business in the Middle East. That is the information which I said that I could not make available to the House because it is strictly confidential.


MR. SKELLY-RADIO OPERATORS' DISPUTE-REQUEST THAT MINISTER WITHDRAW REMARKS
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on an important question of privilege. 1 refer to an answer given yesterday in the House by the hon. Minister of Trans-
October 24, 1979

port (Mr. Mazankowski) concerning the withdrawal of designated services by flight service centre and coastguard radio operators. The statements made by the minister in the House yesterday led members to believe that designated services were being provided when in fact they are not. Also his remarks led members of the House to believe that there had been no recorded incidents where flight safety had been compromised. This is certainly not the case.
To substantiate my second point first, in the last two days there have been more than 50 major breaches of air safety in western Canada. In fact, these were reported to the Ministry of Transport. I would suggest that some of the more serious ones are very reminiscent of the scenario which unfolded in places like Tenerife and Cranbrook where equipment was left on the runway, where instances of aircraft taking off in different directions on the same runway have occurred.
On the second point I would suggest the minister's statement that designated services are still being provided is not the case. In fact it has been reported widely that operators have withdrawn all services except guarding emergency frequencies.
I would ask the minister to withdraw his statements, conduct an immediate investigation and report to the House tomorrow on what he plans to do with this very serious situation.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to respond to the hon. member's question of privilege, because I think it might give me an opportunity to clarify what may have been a misinterpretation. If the hon. member looks at my answer, I think he will see that I said the following:
I am informed that where the prescribed duties are being carried out by the designated employees as per schedule, there are no difficulties.
I think that is the key word. Certainly it was not my intention to imply that in all cases the necessary services to be provided by the designated employees in fact were being carried out.
Furthermore, 1 indicated at the time that I had not been informed of any recorded concerns of matters affecting safety or security, and that if the hon. member in fact had some examples, I would be pleased to look into them. I have been informed by the department that the allegations referred to in a press conference yesterday in connection with Quesnel, Lynn Lake, Quebec City, Fort Chimo, Lac Rone Riviere, Scheffer-ville, Uranium City and Toronto do not appear to be based on any fact or foundation. As far as the preliminary investigations are concerned, 1 want to assure the hon. member, the House and the public that these matters are being investigated currently by Department of Transport officials.


PRESENCE OF PHOTOGRAPHERS IN CHAMBER
Mr. Speaker:: Before dealing with the question of privilege of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), may I
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
take this moment to inform the House that members will have observed still photographers on either side of the chamber during the last couple of days. Earlier in the week I had intended to indicate that last year this matter was raised with the special committee having to do with television in the House. As a result of the position the print media had been put in since the introduction of television, they are not able to take direct photographs which they can use in print, as is available to the television or electronic media. Therefore, they asked if we might try at some time to experiment with this.
Nothing could be done at that time. Recently I discussed this matter very briefly with the House leaders and indicated that we ought to experiment for a period of a week or perhaps two. During this time it is our intention to take these photographs. They will not be used in any way except for the internal use of the House, for examination by House leaders and discussion with the parties, to determine whether it is appropriate to carry this practice on or discontinue it. If it is appropriate to carry it on, we shall discuss upon what basis, under what controls and under what regulation.
I simply want to indicate to the House that there is this request that these photographs be made available, not only for journalists but for archival and related purposes-for library purposes, biographers and things of that sort. There have been quite a number of requests of this nature. Until we do an experiment of this sort, we are not really able to evaluate the difficulties or the advantages of it. Therefore, this is to be treated purely as an experimental period of approximately a week or ten days, at which time it will be evaluated by House leaders, and in turn, I presume, discussed with caucuses before anything further is done.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of privilege that I consider to be an extreme one which infringes not only on my rights as a member of this House but on the rights of the members of this House on either side.
The question of privilege arises from an incident which took place last evening at the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. We are all aware that the standing committees of the House are in control of their own agendas and their meeting times subject, of course, only to this House.
The first meeting of that standing committee last Thursday gave its steering committee a direction by agreeing that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), as the person responsible for monetary and fiscal policy in this country, should be asked to appear before the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs First, to be followed later on by the

October 24, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Rodriguez
governor of the Bank of Canada. The steering committee meeting had in attendance the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ritchie York East), the chairman of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and representatives from the major parties on both sides of this House.
The steering committee submitted its report last evening to the committee and, lo and behold, there was the parliamentary secretary presenting an amendment to that agreement that had been reached. The amendment proposed by the parliamentary secretary in effect reversed the order of appearance before the standing committee. It put the governor of the Bank of Canada first and the finance minister somewhere down the line.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that we should keep in mind the statement by this government in the Speech from the Throne at page 4, as follows:
Proposals will be submitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to strengthen the powers and resources of parliamentary committees, to accord more prominence to private members' initiatives, and to make my ministers more accountable to you.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, the ministers are accountable to Parliament; it is not the committees that are accountable to the minister. That was the process followed by the previous government. Here we have a wonderful opportunity for this government to start off on a new beginning, on a new footing, but in fact we have the Minister of Finance pulling the strings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I resent that as a member, and members of this House ought to resent it. The committee-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) will realize that even if I accept his entire premise without any qualification, he is in serious difficulty in attempting to establish this matter as a question of privilege. He indicated that steps had been taken at the steering committee and that in turn the steering committee reported and dealt with it in a certain way, a way that he resents. I accept all that and his resentment is his right. Nevertheless, the proceedings of a committee remain the proceedings of the committee. As the hon. member understands, this House ought not ever to be considered as a court of appeal in respect of a committee's decision on procedural matters or on other matters taken in the committee.
If the hon. member wishes to reopen the matter before that standing committee, that can be done. If he wishes to take action when that committee endeavours to report, there are certain things that may take place. However, I have to accept what he has described and examine it to see whether on its face it constitutes privilege, but from what he has told me so far I am not able to do that.


John R. Rodriguez: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not resent the report of the steering committee. What I resent is the interference by the Minister of Finance with an agreement that had been reached among members of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. I do not
(Mr. Rodriguez.]
appreciate this attempt to pull the strings of a standing committee of Parliament to which the minister is subject. It is not the committee that is subject to the Minister of Finance. If he wants to hide behind the governor of the Bank of Canada, let him go right ahead and do that, but do not make me a party to that kind of jiggery-pokery.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have indicated to the hon. member that he has raised what he considers to be matter of resentment. It may even be a grievance that he can air before the committee. However, I cannot find any basis for privilege in it.


MR. YURKO- MOTION ON CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT-OMISSION IN OFFICIAL REPORT
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to draw to your attention and to the attention of the House a serious printing error in Hansard which I noted last night. This is an unfortunate printing error but it is necessary that I point it out and that Hansard should correct it, as it changes the entire meaning of a paragraph.
The error relates to notice of motion No. 2 which was debated in this House on Monday, October 22. In the Monday, October 22 order paper, the second paragraph in paragraph 10 read as follows:
On the receipt of such validated petition, the Parliament of Canada shall, before the lapsing of two full years from the date of receipt of the validated petition, hold a national referendum on the substance of the petition and shall enact into law the substance of the petition if such petition receives a 75 per cent plurality of all votes in Canada and no less than a 50 per cent plurality of all votes in each and every province of Canada.
I should note that Votes and Proceedings of October 22, 1979, is identical in this respect to the order paper. However, Mr. Speaker, Hansard itself has an entirely different version and I shall read it as follows:
On the receipt of such validated petition, the Parliament of Canada shall, before the lapsing of two full years from the date of receipt of the validated petition, hold a national referendum on the substance of the petition if such petition receives a 75 percent plurality of all votes in Canada and no less than a 50 per cent plurality of all votes in each and every province of Canada.
The sentence "and shall enact into law the substance of the petition" was left out of Hansard. I brought this to the attention of Hansard and I hope the correction will be made.


MR. KNOWLES-ACTING MINISTERS-TABLING OF ORDER IN COUNCIL
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Earlier today the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) responded to a question in his capacity as the Acting Minister of Finance, which leads me to suggest that it would be of advantage to all members of this House if the order in council indicating who are the various acting ministers could be tabled, so that we might all know. Perhaps if the government House leader arranged for the tabling of that order in council, it could be appended either
October 24, 1979

to Votes and Proceedings or to Hansard so we could all have it.


Hon. Walter Baker (President of Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I tabled that order in council on the second or third day of this Parliament. I have another one changing the acting capacity from one minister to another which I intend to table either today or tomorrow. I assure my friend that the other order in council was tabled here,
I forget the day, but either on the second or third day.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it is a worthy suggestion that either the previous order in council, or the proposed one, if it is comprehensive, should be-


Walter David Baker: They are the same, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I was not certain whether the new order in council dealt with only one change or constituted a comprehensive list. In any case, I suggest that a comprehensive order in council covering all acting ministers ought to be printed at some time as an appendix to Hansard, perhaps today or as soon as possible.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the President of Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker) would indicate whether the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. de Cotret), who is in the other place, has an acting minister in the House of Commons?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I can deal with that in just a moment. The first acting minister for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of State for Economic Development is the Hon. Michael H. Wilson, Minister of State for International Trade. In fact, there are two ministers in the House, and the second acting minister is the Minister of State for Small Business and Industry (Mr. Huntington).


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have one further point, Mr. Speaker. I have been puzzled again by the reply of the hon. minister. Did the minister take under consideration the unusual situation which was created by having Mr. Wilson, as he called him- and I do it respectfully-as the acting minister when he has not had assigned to him any statutory authority? I have been wondering how it is possible for the minister to operate not only as Minister of State for International Trade but also as an acting minister, when as far as I know no responsibility has been assigned to him by order in council except to describe him as an assistant to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would the minister consider that and give us some clarification?
Private Members' Public Bills


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the minister has authority under an order in council, so I am advised. In any event there is an order in council, 1979-2783, an order of the Government of Canada, designating the hon. gentleman as the acting minister. The hon. gentleman is a member of Her Majesty's Privy Council for Canada, and I think that that ought to satisfy my good friend with respect to the minister's capacity. Moreover, I want the hon. member and you, sir, to know that the Government of Canada is exceedingly proud of the Minister of State for International Trade and the way in which he has conducted himself in this House.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Walter David Baker: for leaveto introduce Bill C-15, to extend the present laws of Canada that provide access to information under the control of the Government of Canada and to amend the Canada Evidence Act, the Federal Court Act and the Statutory Instruments Act.


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

Mr. Speaker:: May I refer hon. members to the practice which has been followed by the House invariably in the recent past with regard to the introduction and first reading of private members' public bills. On today's order paper there are listed some 285 bills standing in the names of various hon. members. It was, of course, not practical or possible for the Chair to review the provisions of each of these bills. Might I therefore suggest to the House that we adopt the procedure which was agreed upon in the past several sessions, namely,

October 24, 1979
Private Members' Public Bills
that we proceed to the introduction and first reading of these bills today so that each may be scrutinized between now and its calling for second reading, in order to allow the Chair to consider whether or not there are defects in the bills with respect to the practices and usages of the House.
1 suggest that, by unanimous consent, all the private members public bills listed for introduction on today's order paper be deemed to have been introduced, given first reading, ordered to be printed and to stand for second reading at the next sitting of the House, subject, as always, to a subsequent examination as to the procedural regularity of each bill.
Is the procedure to which I have just referred agreeable to the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. While perusing the list I found at approximately No. 275-actually it appears as the second item in the first column on page 20 of the order paper-a bill which is in my name. It reads:
An act to change the name of the electoral district of Edmonton West.
That is complete news to me. There has actually been a bill submitted with wording to the effect "An act to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act". It was Bill C-342 introduced last year. How on earth somebody would connect that with changing the name of Edmonton West, which is, I suppose, the most historic name in the province of Alberta, I do not know. Such a proposal would only merit that I be run out of town on a rail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that in the sense of the hon. member's representation, that item will be deleted from the order paper as soon as possible, which we will do. It is so ordered.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-201, an act to encourage investment in business by employees.-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).
Bill C-202, an act to amend the Statistics Act.-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-203, an act respecting foreign economic boycotts.- Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-204, an act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (language rights).-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-205, an act respecting the protection of borrowers and depositors.-Mr. Caccia.

Bill C-206, an act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-207, an act respecting the International Maritime Boundary between Canada and the State of Alaska.-Mr. Fulton.
Bill C-208, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act (aluminum wiring).-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-209, an act to amend the Divorce Act (alimony and maintenance orders).-Mr. Greenaway.
Bill C-210, an act respecting Canada Prayer Day.-Mr. Richardson (Beaches).
Bill C-211, an act to amend the Hazardous Products Act.- Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-212, an act respecting Petro-Canada.-Mr. Stollery.
Bill C-213, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (labour disputes).-Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River).
Bill C-214, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act to provide for the standardization of warranties and to define the minimum provisions thereof.-Mr. McKenzie.
Bill C-215, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (permament voters list).-Mr. Buchanan.
Bill C-216, an act respecting Family Week.-Mr. Corbin.
Bill C-217, an act respecting the age of retirement.-Mr. Mitges.
Bill C-218, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.- Mr. Evans.
Bill C-219, an act respecting farm equipment emergency repair parts.-Mr. McKinley.
Bill C-220, an act to amend the Criminal Code (time limits for prosecution of offences).-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lake-shore).
Bill C-221, an act to amend the Criminal Code (parental abduction of children).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-222, an act to provide for the employment of handicapped persons in the federal Public Service and in the federal jurisdiction.-Mr. Rae.
Bill C-223, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971.

Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-224, an act respecting public referendums on the subject of capital punishment.-Mr. Kushner.
Bill C-225, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (rights of taxpayers).-Mr. Hopkins.
Bill C-226, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (health and safety committees).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-227, an act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).-Mr. Graham.
Bill C-228, an act to prohibit discriminatory and restrictive trade practices, resulting from foreign economic boycotts.- Mr. de Corneille.
October 24, 1979
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-229, an act respecting the enforcement of maintenance orders.-Mrs. Appolloni.
Bill C-230, an act to amend the Department of National Health and Welfare Act to create a national council for the aged.-Miss. Begin.
Bill C-231, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (equal time to opposition parties).-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-232, an act to amend the Supplementary Retirement Benefits Act (pension index).-Mr. Wightman.
Bill C-233, an act to provide for the establishment of an authority to conserve for public use all abandoned railway lines in Canada.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-234, an act to stimulate regional development and to combat regional disparity.-Mr. De Bane.
Bill C-235, an act respecting the recovery of alimony and maintenance.-Mrs. Hervieux-Payette.
Bill C-236, an act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (abolition of the Senate).-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-237, an act to provide for the accountability to Parliament of Crown agencies.-Mr. Roy (Laval).
Bill C-238, an act to readjust the representation of Quebec in the House of Commons and to readjust the electoral districts in Quebec.-Mr. Caouette.
Bill C-239, an act to amend the Official Languages Act (supremacy of the act).-Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier).
Bill C-240, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax.-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Bill C-241, an act respecting National Heritage Day.-Mr. MacGuigan.
Bill C-242, an act to establish a press council for Canada.- Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton).
Bill C-243, an act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code to provide for the establishment of sector bargaining.-Mr. Jelinek.
Bill C-244, an act respecting the Port of Vancouver.-Mr. Phillips.
Bill C-245, an act to amend the Railway Act (definitions).-Mr. Brisco.
Bill C-246, an act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (national capital of Canada).-Mr. Isabelle.
Bill C-247, an act respecting the political affiliation of members of the House of Commons.-Mr. Ouellet.
Bill C-248, an act to amend the House of Commons Act (vacancies).-Mr. Malone.
Bill C-249, an act respecting a Northern Development Plan.-Mr. Murphy.
Bill C-250, an act to amend the Criminal Code (young offenders).-Mr. Woolliams.
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-251, an act respecting confidential communications between elected representatives and their constituents.-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-252, an act to amend the Criminal Code (mandatory breathalyzer and blood tests).-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-253, an act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion and the unborn infant).-Mr. Roche.
Bill C-254, an act to amend the Criminal Code (death sentence).-Mr. Greenaway.
Bill C-255, an act to amend the Interest Act.-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-256, an act to amend the criminal law (punishment of certain offences).-Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich).
Bill C-257, an act to protect the Canadian environment by instituting mandatory impact assessment procedures prior to the construction of installations potentially damaging to the environment.-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-258, an act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-259, an act respecting the right to life.-Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River).
Bill C-260, an act to grant a pardon to all persons convicted of certain offences (Louis Riel).-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-261, an act respecting fair foreign exchange.-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-262, an act to amend the Juvenile Delinquents Act (restitution for wilful damage).-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-263, an act to amend the Bank of Canada Act (provincial representation).-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-264, an act to provide for collective bargaining rights for employees of the House of Commons.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-265, an act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control).-Mr. Fulton.
Bill C-266, an act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-267, an act to amend the Criminal Code (driving while disqualified under provincial law).-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke- Lakeshore).
Bill C-268, an act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Richardson (Beaches).
Bill C-269, an act to amend the Criminal Records Act.- Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).
Bill C-270, an act to amend the British North America Act (House of Commons representation).-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-271, an act to amend the Criminal Code.-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-272, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (refusal to work).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-273, an act to amend the Criminal Code (sexual
exploitation of children).-Mr. Friesen.
[Stage Direction]
October 24, 1979
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-274, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (safety of employees).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-275, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (voluntary contributions).-Mr. de Corneille.
Bill C-276, an act respecting the cost of publishing public reports.-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-277, an act respecting disclosure of credit rating records.-Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River).
Bill C-278, an act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mrs. Killens.
Bill C-279, an act to amend the Criminal Code (death sentence).-Mr. Kushner.
Bill C-280, an act to amend the Income Tax Act to authorize payment of the child tax credit on a trimester basis.-Miss. Begin.
Bill C-281, an act to amend the Official Languages Act (notices and advertisements).-Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vani-er).
Bill C-282, an act to amend the Immigration Act.-Mr. Stollery.
Bill C-283, an act to amend the Criminal Code (parental abduction of children).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-284, an act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi).
Bill C-285, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-286, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act.-Mr. Evans.
Bill C-287, an act to provide for the establishment of the office of Parliament Hill Curator.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-288, an act to amend the Criminal Code (death sentence).-Mr. McDermid.
Bill C-289, an act to amend the Canada Council Act (financial accountability).-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-290, an act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Yurko.
Bill C-291, an act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 (admission of entrepreneur trainees).-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-292, an act respecting the disclosure of financial interests by Senators, Members of the House of Commons and certain other persons.-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-293, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Canada Labour Relations Board).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-294, an act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-295, an act to amend the Official Languages Act.- Mr. De Bane.
Bill C-296, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (provision for increased minimum hourly wage).-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-297, an act to encourage the growth of the reserve force of the Canadian Forces.-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).
Bill C-298, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (vacation pay).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-299, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (disability pension).-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-300, an act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control).-Mr. Haliburton.
Bill C-301, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands.-Mr. Taylor (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands).
Bill C-302, an act to establish the Canadian Solar Energy Institute.-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-303, an act to amend the Criminal Code (death penalty).-Mr. Crosby (Halifax West).
Bill C-304, an act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).-Mr. Gamble.
Bill C-305, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (benefits to adopting parent).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-306, an act to provide for emergency measures to deal with the inflation of prices.-Mr. Caouette.
Bill C-307, an act to amend the Prisons and Reformatories Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-308, an act to promote the participation of small business in federal government programs and contracts.-Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River).
Bill C-309, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (time off without loss of pay).-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-310, an act to protect individuals, companies and businesses from the consequences of foreign boycotts.-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-311, an act to provide for the establishment of a Canada sea coasts conservation authority.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-312, an act respecting Canadian Ports.-Mr. Phillips.
Bill C-313, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.- Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-314, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act.-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-315, an act to amend the Resources and Technical Surveys Act (map quality control).-Mr. Corbin.
Bill C-316, an act to amend the Bank Act (sale advertisements).-Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier).
Bill C-317, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act (class action).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-318, an act respecting Crown corporations (not agents of Her Majesty).-Mr. Herbert.

October 24, 1979
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-319, an act to amend the Official Languages Act (supremacy of the Act).-Mr. Corbin.
Bill C-320, an act to amend the Atomic Energy Control Act (provincial representation).-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-321, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (eleven general holidays with pay).-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-322, an act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1975, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons.-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-323, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (three weeks annual vacation after three years).-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-324, an act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-325, an act respecting the acquisition of lands by non-Canadians.-Mr. Stollery.
Bill C-326, an act to amend the Criminal Code (culpable homicide redefined).-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).
Bill C-327, an act to amend the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (crash restraint protection devices).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-328, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (termination of employment).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-329, an act to amend the Criminal Code (obscene broadcasting).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-330, an act to amend the Canada Grain Act (notice of grade).-Mr. Nystrom.
Bill C-331, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.- Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-332, an act to amend the Criminal Code (death sentence).-Mr. Mitges.
Bill C-333, an act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 (undesirable aliens).-Mr. Richardson (Beaches).
Bill C-334, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (mining employees).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-335, an act to register lobbyists.-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-336, an act to amend the Criminal Code (pornography).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-337, an act to readjust the Electoral Boundaries in the Provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland.-Mr. Ittinuar.
Bill C-338, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (labour dispute).-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-339, an act to amend the Statistics Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-340, an act to establish a commission to provide an awareness and understanding of the Holocaust era.-Mr. de Corneille.
Bill C-341, an act to encourage the use of the government's purchasing policy to stimulate regional development.-Mr. De Bane.
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-342, an act to amend the Criminal Code (death sentence).-Mr. Elzinga.
Bill C-343, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (secret Ballot).-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-344, an act to amend the Criminal Law Amendment Act (No. 2), 1976 (punishment for murder).-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-345, an act respecting the implementation of International Labour Organization Convention 96, concerning fee charging employment agencies.-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-346, an act respecting Immigration.-Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-347, an act to establish a universal emergency telephone number.-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-348, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (choice of polling day).-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-349, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Rimouski-Temiscouata.-Mr. Allard.
Bill C-350, an act to amend the Public Service Employment Act (discrimination as to age or physical handicap or health).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-351, an act respecting legal tender (braille numbers).-Mr. Mayer.
Bill C-352, an act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act.-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-353, an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (survivor's pension).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-354, an act to amend the Railway Act (movement of western grain).-Mr. Benjamin.
Bill C-355, an act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-356, an act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).-Mr. Jelinek.
Bill C-357, an act to proclaim a day in commemoration of Sir John A. Macdonald.-Mr. de Corneille.
Bill C-358, an act to amend the Criminal Code (soliciting for the purposes of prostitution).-Mr. Phillips.
Bill C-359, an act to permit the recall of a Member of Parliament by the initiative of constituents.-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-360, an act respecting the independent dealer.-Mr. Whelan.
Bill C-361, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act (pollution).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-362, an act to amend the Federal Court Act (disclosure of documents).-Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-363, an act respecting the cost to the public of government regulation.-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-364, an act to amend the National Energy Board Act (provincial representation).-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-365, an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act
(incriminating statements).-Mr. Orlikow.
[Stage Direction]
October 24, 1979
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-366, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-367, an act respecting a Canadian Bill of Rights for Children.-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-368, an act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (controlled drugs).-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-369, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (freedom to campaign).-Mr. Whittaker.
Bill C-370, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.- Mr. Evans.
Bill C-371, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (certification of union).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-372, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Notre-Dame-de-Grace.-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-373, an act to amend the Parole Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-374, an act to provide for the establishment of a Canada-Alaska and Maine corridors authority.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-375, an act to amend certain statutes to encourage the employment of the physically handicapped.-Mr. Symes.
Bill C-376, an act to amend the Criminal Code (off-track betting).-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-377, an act respecting the acquisition of certain property of the International Nickel Company Limited without compensation.-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-378, an act to readjust the representation of Quebec in the Flouse of Commons to establish the electoral district of Iles-de-la-Madeleine.-Mr. Bujold.
Bill C-379, an act to amend the Railway Act (half-fare railway tickets for senior citizens).-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-380, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act and to amend certain other Acts in consequence thereof to change the name "old age pension".-Miss Begin.
Bill C-381, an act respecting war criminals in Canada.- Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-382, an act to amend the Holidays Act.-Mr. McMillan.
Bill C-383, an act respecting public hearing for federal agencies.-Mr. Waddell.
Bill C-384, an act to amend the Federal Court Act (production and discovery of documents).-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-385, an act respecting the conduct of a public referendum.-Mr. Chretien.
Bill C-386, an act respecting political partisanship.-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-387, an act to provide for the establishment of the office of Archeological Curator for Canada.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-388, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.-
Mr. Oberle.
Bill C-389, an act to amend the Narcotic Control Act, the Food and Drugs Act and the Criminal Code.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-390, an act respecting noise in factories.-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).
Bill C-391, an act respecting the Alaska Panhandle Boundary Settlement of 1903.-Mr. Fulton.
Bill C-392, an act to readjust the representation of Newfoundland in the House of Commons (Labrador).-Mr. Rompkey.
Bill C-393, an act respecting the designation of a day to commemorate the Holocaust.-Mr. de Corneille.
Bill C-394, an act to recognize the Capitals of the Provinces and to amend the National Capital Act.-Mr. Crosby (Halifax West).
Bill C-395, an act to amend the Criminal Code (search warrants).-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-396, an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act.-Mr. Allmand.
Bill C-397, an act respecting a national holiday.-Mr. Stollery.
Bill C-398, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (use of contributions).-Mr. MacGuigan.
Bill C-399, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code.- Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-400, an act to amend the Criminal Code (pornographic displays).-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-401, an act to amend the Foreign Enlistment Act (recruiting by advertising).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-402, an act to amend the criminal law (punishment of certain offences).-Mr. Blenkarn.
Bill C-403, an act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (tenure of Senators).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-404, an act respecting Public Referendums in Canada on Questions relating to the Constitution of Canada.-Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River).
Bill C-405, an act to establish the Journal of Public Comment.-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-406, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (strike or lockout).-Mr. Jelinek.
Bill C-407, an act to amend the Statutory Instruments Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-408, an act respecting the political affiliation of members of Parliament.-Mr. Malone.
Bill C-409, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (secret ballot voting on strike votes).-Mr. Jelinek.
Bill C-410, an act to provide for the establishment of an Indian-Eskimo Employment Authority.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-411, an act to provide for posthumous pardons.-Mr. Penner.

October 24, 1979
[Stage Direction]
Bill C-412, an act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act and the Canada Labour Code to provide for the establishment of sector bargaining.-Mr. Jelinek.
Bill C-413, an act to establishment an investment fund for small unit investment in Canadian companies listed on stock exchanges.-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-414, an act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Reimer.
Bill C-415, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (attendance at educational institutions outside Canada).-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-416, an act to amend the Export Development Act (foreign competition).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-417, an act to amend the CRTC Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-418, an act to amend the National Transportation Act (provincial representation).-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-419, an act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1975 (duration of House of Commons).-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-420, an act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mrs. Appolloni.
Bill C-421, an act to establish an agency for the purpose of monitoring and reviewing the outflow of investment capital from Canada.-Mr. Fulton.
Bill C-422, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (publication of the result of opinion polls).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-423, an act to amend the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (provincial representation).-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-424, an act to amend the Criminal Code (impaired driving).-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).
Bill C-425, an act to amend the Railway Act (fences).-Mr. Wightman.
Bill C-426, an act respecting parliamentary reform.-Mr. De Bane.
C-427, an act respecting a minimum allowance for housewives.-Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse).
Bill C-428, an act to amend the Criminal Code (death sentence).-Mr. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton).
Bill C-429, an act respecting the designation of the Speaker of the House of Commons as the Member for the Electoral District of Parliament Hill.-Mr. Knowles.
Bill C-430, an act respecting trafficking in exotic pets.-Mr. Watson.
Bill C-431, an act to establish a Sunset Law for Canada.- Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-432, an act to provide for public inquiries respecting the control of food additives, agricultural chemicals and other chemical products.-Mr. Nystrom.
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-433, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (advertising on children's programs).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-434, an act respecting the official designation of "Nova Scotia".-Mr. Nowlan.
Bill C-435, an act to promote profit sharing by employees in business.-Mrs. Hervieux-Payette.
Bill C-436, an act respecting a National Forestry Policy.- Mr. Caccia.
Bill C-437, an act to amend the National Transportation Act (review and re-hearing).-Mr. MacGuigan.
Bill C-438, an act respecting the age of retirement.-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-439, an act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act (provincial representation).-Mr. Wenman.
Bill C-440, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act.- Mr. McKinley.
Bill C-441, an act to provide for the Protection of News Sources (Press Privilege).-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-442, an act respecting the international airport at Ottawa.-Mr. Isabelle.
Bill C-443, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.-Miss Nicholson.
Bill C-444, an act to amend the Western Grain Stabilization Act (contributions on advance payments).-Mr. Nystrom.
Bill C-445, an act to divide the calendar year into three parliamentary semesters.-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-446, an act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion).-Mr. Daudlin.
Bill C-447, an act to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (National Capital of Canada).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-448, an act to change the name of the electoral district of (Hastings-Frontenac)-Mr. Vankoughnet.
Bill C-449, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (payment of income tax).

Mr. Harquail.
Bill C-450, an act to amend the Winding-Up Act (publication of notices).-Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier).
Bill C-451, an act to amend the Criminal Code (capital punishment).-Mr. Froese.
Bill C-452, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (reserve forces training leave).-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).
Bill C-453, an act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals).-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-454, an act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act (strike ballots).-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-455, an act to amend the Criminal Code (invasion of privacy).-Mr. Woolliams.
Bill C-456, an act to amend the Criminal Code (death
sentence).-Mr. Fretz.
[Stage Direction]
October 24, 1979
Private Members' Public Bills
Bill C-457, an act respecting employment with the Government of Canada not covered by the Public Service Employment Act.-Mr. Orlikow.
Bill C-458, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act (educational use of programs).-Mr. McKenzie.
Bill C-459, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (vacation pay).-Mr. Domm.
Bill C-460, an act respecting the televised advertisement of beer and ale.-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-461, an act to amend the Criminal Code (in relation to the reinstatement of capital punishment).-Mr. Guay.
Bill C-462, an act to amend the Criminal Code (N.S.F. cheques).-Mr. Turner.
Bill C-463, an act to amend the Canada Council Act (Killam-Dunn).-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-464, an act to establish the Office of Ombudsman.- Mr. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River).
Bill C-465, an act concerning the exportation of the growth and produce of Canada.-Mr. Peters.
Bill C-466, an act to amend the Bank Act (qualification of directors).-Mr. Herbert.
Bill C-467, an act to amend the Indian Act.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-468, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (maternity leave).-Mr. Rodriguez.
Bill C-469, an act respecting the disclosure of ingredients of restaurant foods.-Mr. Nystrom.
Bill C-470, an act respecting the use of Social Insurance Numbers.-Mr. Friesen.
Bill C-471, an act to amend the constitution of Canada (federal general elections).-Mr. Malone.
Bill C-472, an act to amend the Railway Act (signs, notices and forms).-Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier).
Bill C-473, an act to provide for the constitution of a Federal Transport Commission of Inquiry (impartial investigation of transport accidents).-Mr. Forrestall.
Bill C-474, an act to amend the Citizenship Act.-Mr. Stollery.
Bill C-475, an act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 (sponsors).-Mr. Richardson (Beaches).
Bill C-476. an act to amend the Canada Pension Plan to defer payment of the pension at the claimant's discretion.- Miss Begin.
Bill C-477, an act to amend the Divorce Act (Living separate and apart).-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).
Bill C-478, an act to establish a Bill of Rights for children.-Mr. Robinson (Burnaby).
Bill C-479, an act respecting collective bargaining by employees of Parliament.-Mr. Forrestall.

Bill C-480, an act to amend the Criminal Code (restoration of the death sentence for first degree murder).-Mr. Gilchrist.
Bill C-481, an act to amend the Agricultural Stabilization Act.-Mr. Nystrom.
Bill C-482, an act to prohibit aid to foreign countries consistently violating human rights.-Mr. Kaplan.
Bill C-483, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act (reduction in federal election period).-Mr. Jelinek.
Bill C-484, an act to provide for a full public accounting of tax expenditures by the Government of Canada.-Mr. Rae.


[Stage Direction]
MISS MacDONALD-FOOTHILLS project-response during QUESTION PERIOD
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, earlier today in response to a question from the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen), 1 think I used the words, with regard to Foothills and their wire to me, that they would be submitting an application tomorrow morning. In order to clarify that I should read their actual words regarding what they will be submitting to the National Energy Board:
Tomorrow morning, Wednesday, Foothills will file with the NEB another four volumes of material including 1,150 pages and 60 maps. Thus we have complied with all the information requests of the board and the Foothills all land route application is ready to be heard when we make that formal request of the board.


ATOMIC ENERGY
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
October 22, 1979-The President of the Privy Council:
That a special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to inquire into the economic, social, environmental, health and international considerations bearing upon the role of the Government of Canada in the development, use, regulation and export of nuclear energy, including but not limited to:
(a)	energy and economic policy considerations:
(i)	the costs, risks and benefits of nuclear electric generation in comparison with practical alternatives;
(ii)	the role of fission power in the national energy economy;
(iii)	the allocation of federal research and development funds for nuclear energy matters, including the potential for a Canadian role in the development of fusion technology;
(iv)	the relation of Canadian nuclear science and technology to industrial strategy and quality of employment objectives;
(b)	social and environmental policy considerations:
(i)	the basis for the adequacy of national nuclear, health, safety and environmental standards and of compliance monitoring;
October 24, 1979
[Stage Direction]
(ii)	the responsibility for and adequacy of radioactive waste management, both high and low level;
(iii)	public rights of access to information in nuclear matters;
(c)	federal-provincial considerations:
(i)	an examination of federal instruments, structures and responsibilities for the development and regulation of nuclear equipment, technology, materials and facilities;
(ii)	the role of federal agencies and the adequacy of federal legislation in the event of a nuclear accident and in the prevention of harm to man and the natural environment;
(iii)	the evolution of intergovernmental arrangements for, and views of the provinces on, the financing of nuclear energy;
(d)	international considerations:
(i)	an examination of Canada's nuclear export policy;
(ii)	an examination of Canada's safeguards requirements for the export of materials, nuclear materials, equipment and information in the context of the development of an effective international non-proliferation system;
that ten members of the House of Commons to be designated at a later date be members on the part of this House on the special joint committee; that the committee have power to appoint from among its members such sub-co. .mi.tees as may be deemed advisable and necessary and to delegate such sub-committees all or any of their powers except the power to report directly ic I he House;
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 sit during sittings and adjournments of the House of Commons;
that the committee have power to adjourn from place to place within Canada;
that the committee be empowered to retain the services of expert advisors 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;
that the committee submit reports from time to time and in any case a final report not later than October 31, 1980 which shall include recommendations for the revision or replacement, if need be, of the Atomic Energy Control Act together with such other matters within its general mandate as it wishes to report on or recommend;
that a quorum of the committee be 7 members, whenever a vote, resolution or other decision is taken, so long as both Houses are represented and that the joint chairmen be authorized to hold meetings, to receive evidence and authorize the printing thereof, when 5 members are present so long as both Houses are represented; and
that a message be sent to the Senate requesting that that House do unite with this House for the above purpose, and to select, if the Senate deems it to be advisable,. . . members to act on the proposed special joint committee.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 2 of Standing Order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACTS, 1867 TO 1974 REVIEW OF RULES BY STANDING COMMITTEE ON PRIVILEGES AND ELECTIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motion:
October 22, 1979-The President of the Privy Council:
That the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be authorized pursuant to section 7, chapter 13, Statutes of Canada, 1974-75-76, to review the Rules provided by subsection 51(1) of the British North America Acts, 1867 to
1974, as amended by the British North America Act (No. 2), 1974, and to make recommendations with respect to any amendments, alterations or modifications thereto that appear to the committee then to be necessary or desirable.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   RAILWAYS CANCELLATION OF TRANSCONTINENTAL PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), under the provisions of Standing Order 26, to move the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing an important and specific matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the cancellation of transcontinental passenger rail service to several important areas and centres across Canada due to take effect on Saturday of this week, despite a serious breach of the principles of democracy and federalism in the making of these decisions, specifically, the lack of opportunity for public appeal and the absence of provincial consultation, and in spite of the terrible inconvenience that will be caused to the people in the areas and centres affected, with service to New Westminster and Fort Langley in British Columbia being cancelled, service between Capreol and Winnipeg and between Edmundston and Quebec City being cancelled, and service in northern New Brunswick being drastically cut back.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 26, the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) gave me notice, as required within the rule, within the time prescribed and gave me also an opportunity, therefore, to consider whether or not this kind of matter is proper for discussion under Standing Order 26.
Hon. members will realize that it is with some difficulty that the emergency rule, as it is sometimes called, would be applied to a decision to be taken by a board. Obviously, there are circumstances in which that could take place, but on the face of it, it certainly does not appear to be the general area in which we would be looking for the application of an emergency.
I would like to refer the hon. member, with respect to the guidance and application of this rule, to the language of subparagraph 16(a) of the Standing Order which reads:
The right to move the adjournment or the House for the above purposes is subject to the following conditions:
(a) The matter proposed for discussion must relate to a genuine emergency,
calling for immediate and urgent consideration;-

October 24, 1979
In this case it is difficult to see that a genuine emergency of that nature is contemplated when it is a decision before a regularly constituted board. Although I ought not to forever rule that out it certainly would not on the face of it appear to be the proper application of the rule.
In addition, in this particular case, of course, this matter can scarcely be said to come upon the House as a surprise. In fact, the hon. member's seatmate raised the matter by way of question on October 12, in which the hon. member then asked whether on that particular day the Minister of Transport proposed to redirect any of the deliberations that were then before the Canadian Transport Commission about this matter.
Furthermore, I would have to take into account the fact that it is now not only a matter of weeks or months but in fact a matter of years that the Via Rail service was established with the intention of rationalizing into one service the existing two service transportation facility. Obviously that contemplated the cancellation of certain runs. That has taken place over not only one set of hearings but several sets of hearings.
The hon. member, of course, is not alone in expressing her displeasure at the actual decisions and cancellations at the hearings and at the discussions that have taken place, or at the absence of the hearings, as the hon. member's deskmate now reminds me again.
In any case, in case there were any doubt about this matter,
I have looked at the precedents for guidance and happily have been able to refer to a decision of my predecessor who, in his usual distinguished way, dealt with a similar matter on June 22, 1970. At that time the reasons had to do with matters before the Canadian Radio and Television Commission. The hon. member for Matane at that time had filed a notice pursuant to Standing Order 26 requesting that a similar kind of unhappy decision or treatment before that board be taken into account under this rule. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux then said the following:
May I suggest to hon. members that the decisions taken by commissions while carrying out their normal functions should not constitute matters for urgent discussions. Even under the circumstances which seem to cause the hon. member some concern, it would seem to me difficult to justify the adjournment of our proceedings to allow interested members to express their views. I would point out to the House that if the CRTC decision was only made public recently, the problem itself has been discussed and commented, even in a controversial manner for several months, so that hon. members have had many occasions to express their views and present arguments for and against the project in question.
That reasoning seems to me to apply very directly to the present circumstances. I would therefore have to conclude that while there may be-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While there may be many criticisms levelled, or concerns or many disagreements expressed, at the quality of the hearings or even in fact, as in this case, the complaint that there were insufficient or no hearings at all into this phase-this is, after all, a tertiary or at least secondary phase of a series of matters concerning rail
[Mr. Speaker.)
transportation since the inception of Via Rail service-it would hardly seem appropriate to intervene now on the question of an emergency with this rather secondary or tertiary phase, as was exactly the case in the previous ruling to which I have referred. Therefore, I do not think this is a proper matter for consideration under Standing Order 26.




[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that they be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) on a point of order.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I just heard the parliamentary secretary say there was to be no production of papers today. I should like to refer him specifically to two motions on which I thought at this first opportunity he would be most anxious to table the documents. The first is No. 3, which deals with the decentralization of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the province of Prince Edward Island. In view of the flip-flop of the government in changing its mind and deciding to follow through with the previous government's intention to decentralize to Prince Edward Island, I assumed automatically that the documents it must have in its possession to arrive at that conclusion would be tabled today. I suggest that since this is an important item for consideration, he should give consideration to tabling them next week at that opportunity.
October 24, 1979

I should also like to draw his attention to item No. 10. This item was much sought after by the present Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) who presumably has access to this document. I suggest that since it is now in the hands of the government whose members were so anxious to get it in the last Parliament, he should also give his attention to producing this document for all members of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Shall the notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that	a	ways	and	means	motion	to	amendthe	Petroleum	Administration	Act,	laid	upon	the	table
Monday, October 22, 1979, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-16, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act, be read the first time.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, October 22, 1979, consideration of the motion of Mr. Fraser that Bill C-l 1, respecting certain postal rates, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the other evening I was participating in debate on second reading of Bill C-l 1, which is really a bill in principle to retroactively approve by Parliament an order in council made under the Financial Administration Act to justify and legalize increases in postal rates. I said at that time, Mr. Speaker, that we agreed in principle with the bill. We have no quarrel with it. Indeed, we
Postal Rates
welcomed the new approach that, in effect, orders in council made under the Financial Administration Act be brought to Parliament. That was a good principle that was being established by this government and we had no problem with it.
We then turned our attention, Mr. Speaker, to problems we felt this government could have solved with respect to postal services in this country. We would have hoped they would place the same assiduity into solving problems in the Post Office as they had done in dealing with retroactive postal rate increases. We said first off that they were well aware of the importance of the postal service to the people of Canada. Indeed, they were well aware that it is probably the most important public service problem in this country today.
We further pointed out that, in effect, knowing that problem, we now have a ministry related to postal services-a Postmaster General (Mr. Fraser) who has been given dual responsibility. One would have thought that the Postmaster General would have his hands full just dealing with problems in the Post Office and trying to bring about harmony in the post office which would result in good postal service for the people of Canada for the taxes they pay. That is the first problem.
Why did the government lay on the Postmaster General the onerous task of dealing with post office problems? It seems to us on this side of the House that there should have been one minister with that responsibility. We said that, in effect, while they were in opposition the Conservative party knew well the problems in the Post Office. Indeed, their speeches could fill books and books of Hansard in which they properly identified the major problem in the Post Office, which is a human problem-the relationship between management and workers in the Post Office. The government therefore had an opportunity, a golden opportunity, to make a new beginning. They did not have to apologize for the government of the past. It was not of their political stripe. They could have dumped the problem on the previous government and had a new beginning. Why did they not wipe out the 60,000 grievances which are hanging fire and which are the cause for much of the abrasiveness in management-personnel relationships within the Post Office? They are allowing those grievances to stand.
We also raised the question of the leadership in the Post Office. In particular, I will be emphatic in saying that the deputy postmaster general, Mr. J. C. Corkery, and Mr. J. A. Pare, the assistant deputy postmaster general, personnel, ought to have been removed from their positions. What a wonderful opportunity it would have been for the government to have removed them. It could have blamed them for being Liberals. Maybe someone found out they were Tories, I do not know, but it would have been a wonderful opportunity to wipe them out.

October 24, 1979
Postal Rates


Mr. Fraser:: The hon. member made this speech the other night.


John R. Rodriguez: I am just recapping so that it will read with some continuity in Hansard.


John Allen Fraser: It is appreciated.


John R. Rodriguez: I am glad that the minister is here, Mr. Speaker; I make these suggestions in all honesty and fair-mindedness. I think that Mr. Corkery and Mr. Pare have been the bones of contention in the Post Office. Indeed, the insights that Mr. Corkery had are well documented in transcripts of the trial of Jean-Claude Parrot. I will quote from that transcript because it gives us an insight into the kind of leadership in the Post Office, the leadership of Mr. Corkery. At page 221 of the transcript of the trial it deals with the impressions Mr. Pare said he had. Indeed, it was part and parcel of the strategizing to deal with the latest incident of industrial dispute in the Post Office. The question asked was this:
Did you have any particular, apart from this information gathering technique, did you have any other strategy at the point of the legal strike call?
Mr. Corkery answered:
Well, I think our strategy basically had to be based, was based on the assumption that the majority of the employees would not support a full-blown strike. Whether that was valid or not nevertheless it was the strategy on which we based our planning, and really, in that situation, it was a "wait and see" kind of strategy-the extent of it, the degree of it, could they sustain it, or would it die of its own accord.
Here we have management of the Post Office entering into negotiation with a strategy in mind that, in effect, the workers could not sustain a strike anyway, so why should they have to negotiate in good faith? In my opinion that is very eye-opening, and I recommend to the minister that he read this transcript. If I had a person responsible to me as a manager, 1 would fire him on the spot after reading this transcript.
At page 224 of the transcript the question asked was:
So your assessment, let us say by the 17th October, would be what, in relation to the over-all operation?
The answer given by Mr. Corkery was as follows:
We had misjudged, miscalculated our strategy, and basically they had been able to launch a full-blown strike, and we were out of it.
Finally on page 254 the question asked was this:
And it was your view, when you found out what was going on in the field, that legislation would not be required? When you found out what was going on, as you indicated this morning, you were of the view that the majority of the employees of the Post Office, CUPW, would not support a strike?
The answer to that question was this:
Our original recommendation to our minister was on the basis that we thought that if we went the legal strike route they would not be able to sustain the strike.
So the advice and the whole strategy for negotiations that the minister was getting from chief personnel in his department was based on the fact that they believed the workers could not sustain a strike. That is bargaining in bad faith. Mr. Speaker, that is absolute bargaining in bad faith.
I make this suggestion again to the minister, that in my opinion the top brass of the Post Office should be removed. If he wants to shuffle them off to Buffalo or send them to the
Senate or promote them to the level of their incompetence, go right ahead. But I think these people have been abrasive in terms of human relation in the Post Office and ought to be removed. That is the only way we can create any sort of harmonious industrial climate in the Post Office. I make those suggestions to the minister in good faith. The minister has a golden opportunity to start again.
My last point concerns the question of the Crown corporation. I heard those phonies on the Liberal opposition benches asking the minister when he will bring in the Crown corporation bill. Those people had 16 years to do it. There were several recommendations by way of royal commissions recommending the establishment of a Crown corporation in the Post Office. When was the bill brought in for a Crown corporation in the Post Office? It was in the twilight months of Liberal office before the last election. So those people were not serious about the Crown corporation.
I say to the minister that it gives me some cause for concern when he says that the Crown corporation bill will be brought in after Christmas. He did not say which Christmas. I wish the minister would indicate which Christmas. Will it be the Christmas of 1980, the Christmas of 1981 or the Christmas of 1983? The workers themselves in the Post Office agreed to the suggestion that the Post Office ought to be made a Crown corporation.
There is one further thing that gives me some cause for concern. I asked the Postmaster General-and he is a fine chap-if he would hold firm because in his back benches he has a gentleman, now elected to this House from York East, who undertook a study for the Conservative party when it was in opposition with respect to the Post Office. Among his suggestions I find two of them which are totally odious and would indeed exacerbate conditions in the Post Office at this time. One suggestion he proposed-and I am speaking of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Ritchie), who I think has a following in those back benches-was the removal of the right to strike by postal workers. I cannot think of any action that would throw the Post Office into even more turmoil than we have experienced over the last 16 years than this one. I urge the minister to ignore that recommendation completely.
The second recommendation which gives us concern on this side of the House is the one that proposes that those sectors of the Post Office which are flexible or viable should be sheared off to the private sector-in other words, those parts of the Post Office which generate surplus so that we can cross-subsi-dize those parts of the Post Office that are predominately service. In effect, he is promoting privatization. I cannot think of anything more detrimental to the Post Office than shearing off the potentially profitable sectors of the postal service into private hands. In effect, what will happen is that the deficits in the Post Office will rise, Parliament will be asked to increase postal rates continually and, of course, it will discourage public usage. That is a dead end, a cul-de-sac. I suggest that the minister ignore those two particular recommendations of the Ritchie report completely because they are two of the most dangerous proposals in the report.

October 24, 1979

I do not know what can be done in this regard, although I think the Postmaster General recognizes the problems, but how the previous administration could have proceeded against the leader of CUPW, a very brave union leader in this country,
I cannot understand. The workers were given the right to remove their services, they were given the right to collective bargaining, but the minute they acted as a trade union, based on misinformation and miscalculation by Mr. Corkery, lo and behold, Parliament forced those workers back to work 24 hours after their strike began. That legal action by the previous administration has aggravated and created a festering sore for years to come. I urge the minister that if there is anything he can do to halt this whole process of Mr. Parrot going to jail to do so. I think it is unseeming that the power of Parliament was used to crush the leadership of 20,000 workers. All they were doing was acting in the manner which was consistent with good trade union leadership, and that was to represent their leader as vigorously as he was elected to be their leader.
1 do not know what can be done from a legal standpoint. I ask the minister to look at the possibilities as to what can be done. 1 see the minister rising, so 1 will resume my seat. Hopefully, he will have something to say.


John Allen Fraser: I take it that the hon. member has-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the minister rising to participate in the debate or to answer a question? It is not the practice for a member who has the floor to direct a question to another member. The minister will have an opportunity when closing the debate to answer questions. Otherwise we will have confusion. Is the minister rising on a point of order?


John Allen Fraser: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Certain questions have quite clearly been put to me in the hon. member's closing remarks. I am prepared to meet some of those directly at this time if it is the wish of the House that I do so. I will not be long. If it is not the wish of the House and Your Honour is ruling that I rise at the close of debate, that is what I will do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The minister has the right to reply at the end of the debate. He has already spoken. If another member seeks the floor, there may be like questions from other members and the minister would be standing up regularly. It would be like Committee of the Whole and that is not the normal procedure when the Speaker is in the chair.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I will not keep the minister long from replying to the very pertinent questions put to him. However, there are a few comments I wish to make in this debate. What the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) said may in the course of my remarks provide a very useful prelude.
I first want to congratulate Your Honour for sitting where you do. The wisdom of that has been shown by the remarkable perception you just showed in your comments on the point of order.
Postal Rates
This is a rather traumatic experience for me. I will be compelled during the course of this debate to say something complimentary to the minister. After 16 years in opposition, that is rather hard to do. During the 16 years I sat in opposition, I tried desperately to find ways and means to compliment ministers then sitting on this side. Unfortunately, they gave me little opportunity to do so. I want to put on record that I am not going to make a practice of this, that even on this side ministers will have to earn the right before I say things which are satisfactory and complimentary.
In this bill the minister has been wise to repair an omission which took place during the aegis of the former administration. He has also been wise as a lawyer to take a decision to regularize attempts made by the previous administration to fix postal rates by regulation and order in council under section 13(b) of the Financial Administration Act.
The government won the first round in the court of first instance, the Federal Court. I read the judgment and the reasons for judgment. Over the two or three years this has been an issue, I have examined the statutes and regulations. In my opinion, the government would have lost and deserved to have lost on appeal in connection with this particular trial.
Let me put on record very briefly the circumstances leading up to this amendment. The Postmaster General (Mr. Fraser) has already done that, but I would like to elaborate to some extent. The fixing of postal rates has, over the years, been the prerogative of Parliament. It so intimately and in such detail affects the lives of ordinary people that, to all intents and purposes, it is akin to a form of taxation. If there is one principle which should abide in this House, it is that taxation of the public and the taking of money from the public in the form of fixing of postal rates should not be done until there is an opportunity to redress grievances.
That is the crowning feature in the process of legislation and taxation by legislation. I am not going to go into the details of the problems we have had with the Post Office. They are there. No doubt they will be discussed and debated for some time and new legislation will be brought forward. However, there is no doubt that over the past three or four years, if the government had seen fit, as it should have, to bring in legislation to fix postal rates, as has been the custom since confederation, it would have provided an opportunity for members of this House, the public, the unions and consuming public to have ventilated their grievances. There would have been a fair chance from 1974 or 1975 on for bills to be brought into this House to increase postal rates and for representations to be made during the course of debate and committee hearings.
I am not naive enough to believe that this House has the magic cure for all problems. I recognize its virtues as well as the fact that it has warts and defects, but it does provide a forum in a situation of this kind. I suggest to members of this House and the government that they not neglect in future any opportunity to provide to the members of this House, representing the public, the opportunity to debate and discuss at length and in detail problems which arise. I have every reason

October 24, 1979
Postal Rates
to believe if that had been done, it would have alleviated or smoothed over some of the problems.
For many years I practised law in a small town. I had people come to me and say "Mr. Baldwin, 1 have a problem with my neighbour. If I get a good crop next year, I will pay you some money if you will sue him." I said I did not think they could sue because they would not win the case. They informed me that all they wanted was their day in court. The public which use the mails wanted their day in court through the medium of a committee of this House.
The unions could usefully have had a day in court five, six or seven years ago. I am by no means condoning some of the things the unions have done. However, if they would have had that opportunity, it might have been better. The management of the Post Office should have been before a committee of this House to explain and justify what was being done. I am not going to blame the last postmaster general. He received advice from officials in the Department of Justice. Anyone who reads the law reports will accept the fact there are many decisions in the courts that are against the government. That suggests that advice given by officials in the Department of Justice is not always right. I have a friend in Montreal, Peter Treu, who is a shining example of that fact.
In 1974, the then postmaster general, the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), said the following in response to a question:
Rates of postage for domestic letter mail are set out in section ten of the Post Office Act. Changes in those rates therefore are only possible by Act of Parliament. Any proposal for amending the Post Office Act will be announced in the government's legislative program at the appropriate time.
So there was a clear statement, a good statement, a proper statement, a legal statement by a member of this House who had responsibility for the Post Office, that the only proper legal way to fix postal rates was by coming to the House. But two years later we find the then postmaster general, Mr. Mackasey, I think, succeeded by others from time to time, saying: "We have found a new way; we can bypass Parliament, we can do it by regulation". And they proceeded to introduce a regulation under section 13 of the Financial Administration Act. Mr. Speaker, I say this as a warning to other ministers: that is a section of the act whose use is not justified in circumstances of this kind.
I have read the debates in 1968 and 1969 when the present section 13 of the Financial Administration Act was introduced. Mr. Drury, then president of treasury board, introduced this amendment and made it clear during the debate that there was no intention section 13 would ever be used for such a purpose as the fixing of postal rates. I took part in that debate. If his intention had been otherwise I would have had a lot more to say and the bill would not have carried as quickly as it did; a storm would have been raised in the House, and rightly so. However, the amendment was introduced. From 1968 to 1976 no attempt was made to use it. Suddenly, though, the government discovered it had a problem with regard to postal rates

and thought: here is an easy way of doing things; we can change postal rates without going to Parliament.
This is no small, piddling matter, Mr. Speaker. The estimates of the Post Office run in the neighbourhood of a billion dollars. The deficit is very substantial and that deficit is taken care of in part by income from postal charges. I say this to the minister: it may well be that having regularized by statute what I consider to be irregularities and possibly illegality in the actions of the previous government, the present administration might desire to go ahead and secure an amendment to the Post Office Act giving it the right to fix rates by order in council until such time as Parliament comes to a decision with regard to the possible setting up of a Crown corporation.
If that were the case I would have no objection to its being done, but I suggest to the minister that attached to any amendment to the Post Office Act giving the government the right to act by regulation there should be provision for a negative resolution so that this House and the other place would always have the authority to consider the feasibility and propriety of changes which may have been made. This House should never cut the umbilical cord of its responsibility to hold government accountable when it comes to changing the law to effect the imposition of taxation or the fixing of rates. When we give the government the right to act by order in council, there remains with us a responsibility to ensure that we have the authority to take another look at the situation if we wish.
I pause there for a moment. Mr. Speaker, I have been very impressed by the calibre of the new members of the House, though I retain my affection for the older ones as well. There are 157 new members. This is a minority Parliament; it appears that the people of Canada like minority Parliaments and are not prepared to give one government a massive majority enabling it to do whatever it likes.
I hope that in the course of the operations of this Parliament members on all sides will watch with great care the use made by the government of regulations and orders in council even though such a practice is probably a necessary part of our administration today, government having seen fit to intervene so massively in every aspect of human life. It would be literally impossible to legislate all the things it is thought desirable to legislate, bearing in mind the infinite variety of human circumstances affected. But when we give the government the right to act by order in council, it is up to us to see that it is used, not abused. It is a responsibility which rests with every member of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, like the speaker who was just preceded me I intend to intervene only very briefly. I am pleased to follow the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who now sits directly opposite me. Like him, I am happy to see so many new members and so many young members in this Thirty-first Parliament, and I join him in welcoming them to this very important institution and to a very significant experience. I might add it is also a pleasure for me to see some of the older
October 24, 1979

members of the calibre of the hon. member for Peace River back here to take part in the proceedings of this Parliament.
With respect to the measure now before us, the second reading of Bill C-ll, all I want to do is to bring a bit of perspective to the situation so that it will not appear that it is a case of the saints being over on the government side correcting what has been done by the sinners who now sit in the ranks of the official opposition. I would remind the government that not many years ago an almost identical thing happened, but in reverse. In that case it was the Tories who were the sinners and the Liberals who were the saints-it is hard to tell the difference between them.


Gerald William Baldwin: We have been absolved.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In any event, what has happened this year is that the Liberals, while in power, used the Financial Administration Act to increase postal rates, a practice which seems highly questionable-in fact, I think it is illegal. And the Tories, having come to power, are proposing to correct that situation by bringing in a statute to validate those rates. Incidentally, it is being done rather early in the game because of a court case.
Back in 1962, only a week after the election of that year, which was held on June 18, perhaps less than a week, the Conservative government of the day, led by the late Mr. Diefenbaker, brought in an order to raise certain import duties. As you know, Mr. Speaker, customs duties can only be raised by act of Parliament. But Mr. Diefenbaker and his cabinet found a way of doing it by using the Financial Administration Act. What they did was to use a provision in the customs tariff so as to transfer all rates of duty from one column to another. But that process produced higher rates than they wanted, so they forgave part of them by using the Financial Administration Act so as to bring in the amount of increase they wanted.
Throughout that Parliament the Liberals and New Democrats contended that this was an abuse of the powers granted by the Financial Administration Act. Mr. Diefenbaker and his Conservatives stood firm, however. They said the course they had taken was a correct one and they refused to budge. But in 1963 there was an election and the Liberals came to power. In the meantime, there was a court case just as there is now; persons affected by the higher rates were challenging the validity of the order in council which had been made. So the Liberals, when they came to power, brought in an act to correct the situation by validating the customs changes which had been made by the Tory government under the Financial Administration Act. So it is simply the case of the saints and the sinners having changed places. What surely is apparent by now is that any government must exercise extreme care about the use of the Financial Administration Act to bring about changes which ought to be brought about only by acts of Parliament.
Postal Rates
In that connection my friend, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), was quite within his right in drawing attention to some other things that might be done under the Financial Administration Act, particularly in terms of privatizing certain Crown corporations, and that this experience and the experience of 1962 and 1963 should underline the point that where there are things that are required to be done by an act of Parliament, no government should slither around that requirement by using unfairly and unjustifiably the provisions of the Financial Administration Act.
As I said, I simply wanted to add this bit of perspective and thus to point out that mistakes have been made on both sides, and in each case the other side has had to correct it. Let us hope that this is the last time the provisions of the Financial Administration Act are used improperly, as has been done in the instance I have cited, by both the Tories and the Liberals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to express my appreciation to the last two gentlemen who have preceded me in this debate and whom I have found very helpful in my new role as member of Parliament. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who assisted in the seminar for new members, had comments that were very useful, particularly the comment about setting some priority on our time. In my own party, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has been more than helpful-


Gerald William Baldwin: I commend to you the virtues of rebellion too.


Edward Allan Miller: -in allowing us to sort out some of the paper work which we are obliged to go through every day in our jobs.
I am particularly pleased today to make some comments on the bill before us. Bill C-ll. 1 found very quickly that usually we do not get a great deal of warning before having to rise to speak in the House. I have some comments to make which I thought would be useful to the minister who, I know, is sincere in trying to reorganize the postal service so that the community at large can have more confidence in it than it has had in the past.
I am also appreciative of the short comment which goes with this bill and explains the bill in terms that many of us can understand.
It states:
This bill would confirm the amendments to postage rates that were made by regulation.
This short statement allows us to find the germ of the idea in this bill. I think the public has some reservations about legislation, about legislatures and also about members who draw up that legislation. The public is somewhat confused about the laws and is searching for some simple way of regulating their lives around the kinds of regulations that are often imposed upon them.
574

October 24, 1979
Postal Rates
I think the minister should be given credit for bringing this bill before the House because it gives us an opportunity here to debate postal rate increases so that the public can have an idea of why they may be justified. Often the public is simply told that the postal rates are going to go up by two cents on first class mail, and really we in the House of Commons do not have an opportunity to debate the reasons for that increase nor to give the public, through the House, a justification for it.
1 think other ministers in the new government can also take note of the direction which the Postmaster General (Mr. Fraser) has given in the House. 1 think in particular of the area to which 1 have been assigned as critic, namely fisheries and oceans, and the amount of regulation that comes out of that department for people in the industry who are immediately affected by the regulations and who have no notification of them. Certainly any changes in the regulations do not receive great publicity. The Post Office Department is therefore setting an example to all other government departments.
Our party is in favour and supports the principle of bringing these postal rate increases before Parliament. We have no argument whatsoever with that and we hope that this practice will continue and that, as a result, the public will be better informed about the reasons for having to pay increased postage.
However, at a time when the public is expected to accept an increase in postal rates, they should continue to receive equal service, if not better service, for those increased rates. Unfortunately, the public is not getting that kind of service at present. The postal rates are going up but postal service does not improve.
Let me give an example. All members in the House, particularly those from the west coast, can appreciate the difficulties we have in responding to our constituents promptly when it takes seven or eight days for a letter to get from our constituencies to Ottawa. If it takes the same time for the response to reach our constituents, it takes at least a two-week period for a particular matter to be dealt with.
We hope the minister will receive the co-operation of the House when he starts negotiating with the Union of Postal Workers with the purpose of improving their morale and showing them that he is committed to improving postal service so that the public can get the same or better service.
Now I should like to deal with the concept of the privatization of some areas in the postal service. The business community is particularly concerned with getting efficient and rapid postal delivery, particularly of items that go by parcel post between businesses in this country and businesses abroad. There is an erosion of that service as a result of the inefficiency of the Canadian Post Office. The service providing delivery of packages is now being taken over by private enterprise. To some extent, it has been taken over by Air Canada and, I understand, there is an encroachment in that service by U.S. delivery firms which wish to get into the Canadian market. This party hopes that this will not be encouraged by the government.
We hope that the government will use the prospectively profitable parts of the postal service to support the less profitable ones, such as advertising brochures and first class mail for which we cannot afford to charge a sufficiently high rate to make it profitable. If we do not protect the consumer, the individual who is dependent on mail for personal correspondence and for mailing bills, if we do not protect community organizations and groups that are dependent on mail service for bulletins, brochures and communication with their members, the result will be a weakening of the community spirit and of the organizations that depend so much on keeping their members informed through mail. We urge this government to maintain and improve postal services which the community finds inadequate at present.
I am sure the minister is aware of some of the problems within the Post Office. We hope he will deal with them in such a way as to restore people's confidence, because at present people do not have confidence in the Post Office for many reasons. It may be strange for a New Democrat to be speaking about the business community in this House, but we do so often. In our speeches we refer often to what we would like to see for small businessmen. The small businessman in this country is suffering because the postal service is inadequate. In my community in Parksville, British Columbia, a rapidly growing community, many small businesses are dependent on the mail service. At the present time Parksville has been faced with a situation where for over a year and a half small businessmen and the general public have been unable to obtain post office boxes. In fact they are required to pick up their mail at general delivery points. There are over 250 names on a waiting list in Parksville. These people are hoping to obtain postal boxes so that they do not have to wait in line for their mail. It would require an expansion of post office facilities. Applications have been made but no positive response has been received from the Postmaster General at the present time.
What does this mean? It forces small businessmen to seek other ways of receiving deliveries or meeting deadlines for the delivery of mail. Small businessmen are not prepared to stand in line for 15 or 20 minutes, nor are they prepared to have their staffs do that. The postal services should meet the demands of small business and the growing public of Parksville who have been waiting very patiently for a good length of time.


An hon. Member:: It has been 16 years.


Edward Allan Miller: It could have been a lot longer if there had not been a change of government.


Mr. Benjamin:: We will see how much longer it will take.


Edward Allan Miller: Certainly we will look at that closely.


An hon. Member:: Do you want to come over to this side?

October 24, 1979


Edward Allan Miller: 1 have no intention of crossing the floor. Probably we will be over there soon as legitimate New Democrats in a new government.
I congratulate the Postmaster General on his appointment. 1 assure him that my party is prepared to co-operate in any way possible to improve a very crucial Canadian public service. The comments I have had from colleagues dealing with the Post Office and the Postmaster General indicate that there has been good access to information and that the Postmaster General is attempting to meet the needs of our community. I hope he will continue to do that. We will support him in his actions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to begin by echoing the remarks of my colleagues regarding the principle of the bill, the principle of parliamentary approval of increases in postal rates. Because 1 want to keep my remarks brief, 1 will not say anything more about that.
In my view, a bill respecting an increase in postal rates provides us with an opportunity to talk about the level of service which ought to accompany those increases. Also it provides us with an opportunity to suggest, at the very least, that services ought to be maintained, if not increased.
I have two concerns with regard to service that I wish to bring up at this time. As we move to approve rates already in place, we should reflect on the level of postal service available to Canadians at this time. These concerns may not seem to be of national importance, but I submit that in city after city, place after place, town after town, and business after business, an accumulation of inadequacies in postal service constitutes one of those problems that, although it does not receive national attention, relates very concretely and practically to the lives of many Canadians. It ought to receive attention in this House in the same manner that any other issue receives attention.
Specifically 1 am concerned about the latest efficiency program of the Post Office, an efficiency program which has led to the removal of many letter boxes in Winnipeg and in other major Canadian cities. Much attention has been paid to this issue in the local Winnipeg media, and rightly so, as many people, particularly senior citizens, have been affected and will be increasingly affected as winter comes on by the imposition of a greater distance between them and the location at which they mail their letters.
On this issue I must say that I have had negotiations with the Postmaster General. He indicated that some of the removed letter boxes in the riding of Winnipeg-Birds Hill will be replaced. I have submitted a list of the missing boxes brought to my attention by constituents to help him decide which ones should be put back, as I understand that the efficiency program is not to be abandoned entirely. I trust this will happen, that the letter boxes I submitted for reinstallation will go back up some time next week. So far the only ones reinstalled, with a few exceptions-and I mean a few-have
Postal Rates
not been in Winnipeg-Birds Hill or any other area in Winnipeg but those areas which are popularly recognized as ones in which the social and economic elite of Winnipeg live. This would be a situation, should it continue, that 1 hope the minister would find outrageous. At least, 1 know my constituents would find the situation outrageous. Therefore, 1 am confident that the letter boxes will be put back in place.
In my view, efficiency and rationalization must not obscure the fact that postal services exist for the people, not the other way around. The use of the postal service must not be discouraged by bad service. One almost sees a parallel here between what happened with regard to postal service and what is happening to services provided by Via Rail, for instance. The more people that use a service, particularly an energy efficient service, the better it will be for all of us in the long run. The gas saved by mail trucks not having to go to as many boxes as they used to will not compare with the energy and human effort which will have to be expended getting letters delivered for people who cannot do it themselves, people who otherwise would have mailed them independently.
This brings me to my second concern, and that is home delivery service to new areas. Winnipeg-Birds Hill has many new housing subdivisions which do not yet have home delivery postal service. Some of those areas have been around for a long time, yet they do not have home delivery. Bringing home delivery to these areas will not only bring to the people concerned the service they had the right to expect when they bought their homes in those new areas, but also it will create employment. I will have more to say on this at a later time, as I do not have the details at this time to put before the House. I will be watching to see what happens in this area. I recommend government action in respect to this concern.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, 1 will not be long either because I know the minister is anxious to close this debate. I should like to congratulate the Postmaster General (Mr. Fraser) on bringing this bill dealing with a retroactive increase in postal rates before the House. Also 1 congratulate him for the indication that future increases will be legislated in this House, rather than by orders in council as in the past.
1 am sure the minister is upset about the idea that we are now paying 17 cents to mail a letter, yet we are receiving poorer postal service than ever before. I suppose we are in the age of computers and high technology.


John R. Rodriguez: The age of Aquarius.


William Arnold Peters: I think we have passed the age of Aquarius. Much has been said, but I think we should look at what has been done in the Post Office. People in the Post Office have told us for a long time that it was necessary to accelerate the sorting, collection and delivery of mail. I should like to ask hon. members individually if in their own experience there is less first class mail today than ever before. Most people do not use mail services any more. They use the telephone. We have probably become the most wasteful telephone service any-

October 24, 1979
Postal Rates
where in the world. We make more telephone calls; we make more business telephone calls than ever was the case before. Certainly we are among the leaders in the world in respect of telephone service.
Not long ago the Post Office put out a beautiful brochure with a lot of b.s. in it indicating how well they were doing and how much mail they were handling-


An hon. Member:: What does "b.s." stand for?


William Arnold Peters: You can interpret it yourself in whatever language you use. That brochure contained a number of things. In the middle it showed sorting boxes as part of its operations. We operated in this country for years with only that part of the operation. Today we have boxes on the street that indicate that if you put your mail in that box at a certain time it will be picked up at a certain time. We have other boxes which indicate that if you put your mail in it will be picked up sooner or later, and 1 suppose we have other ones that just state "later".
I am sure the minister can remember when a former minister decided there was not going to be any first-class mail, except for postage purposes. All the mail, as indicated by this brochure, is automatically dumped in together with parcels, large brown envelopes, envelopes with little green markings on the side that indicate whether it is first-class, second-class or third-class, or some other kind of class, and occasionally with a few small first-class envelopes. If we were to take those envelopes out and handle them in the most appropriate way they could be delivered expeditiously. If we were to bypass the regional post office and all the terminal post offices we would have a decent first-class mail service in Canada again, one that would probably live up to the representation developed in years gone by by the Post Office Department in Canada.
I am sure other members of Parliament have carried out an investigation to determine the fastest possible way of sending mail. I have found that if you have a bunch of boxes, a bunch of Hansards or whatever else you want to send out and you put them in a bag with one first-class letter and mail the bag to yourself at your home address, you will get the mail quickly. I did this one Friday afternoon. When I arrived home by air on Saturday afternoon I picked that mail up off my porch where the mailman had delivered it.
Had I put that first-class letter through the post office in the normal way it would likely have gone from here to the main post office terminal and then through a lot of processes. Somebody would probably have looked at it, it would have been sorted four or five times, and someone would decide that if it should have a yellow dot on the front of it, they would send it to a different section. It might even have some typing on it which would involve something else. I ask hon. members if they have not found this to be true. Chances are it would take five days to reach a destination in northern Ontario. It may well take longer if the employees at the Post Office here decided to send it to the terminal in Toronto. That would
involve a week or perhaps two. We really do not have much mail any more of a first-class category. If we handled that mail on a first-class basis it could be delivered expeditiously, but it would have to be sorted.
I can remember talking to some postal workers who said that on Monday morning they had stacks of mail to deliver. It was noon before they got halfway through their walks. They took the remainder of that morning mail and put it back in the box. They picked up the afternoon mail and started again on their walks. Often it was Wednesday before they finished delivering both the morning and afternoon mail from the Monday.
The hon. member shakes his head. He has not been here very long and probably has not had much experience with the mailing service here, but he will learn. Mail service to a member of Parliament is damned important, and it is damned important to the businessman. Much of the business of this country is done by mail service. Much of that mail involves bills, orders and other kinds of letters, but it is all mail that businessmen want delivered in an expeditious manner.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


William Arnold Peters: What I am saying is that if we decide to provide real first-class service, then 17 cents is a reasonable cost.
For years in northern Ontario if a farmer wanted a part for an engine or some piece of machinery that he could not buy locally, he would phone Toronto or send a night letter. If the supplier had the part he could send it by mail. He could have it put on the train that night in Toronto at six or seven o'clock and that order would be back in northern Ontario at six o'clock the following morning and the farmer would get it at eight. That was an excellent way of doing business.
Today if you send a letter to Toronto ordering a part you might as well send it via Tokyo because you probably will not get that part back for two weeks. The delay may not be entirely the fault of the Post Office but certainly the shipper will say it is and most people would back him up.
The previous government privatized mail service a long time ago. I have a former postmaster general sitting very close to me and he represents a riding right next to mine. He has the district post office in his area. It was very interesting to see how his government privatized this service.
Not long ago a newspaper man asked all the government departments in North Bay how they sent their mail, and, with the exception of the Department of Veterans Affairs, everyone that wanted the mail delivered as first-class mail sent it by courier. That former government privatized mail services by allowing these couriers to become engaged in a post office operation. Even the Post Office sends its mail that way. The Unemployment Insurance Commission sends its mail that way.


An hon. Member:: Say that's not true, John.

October 24, 1979


William Arnold Peters: If hon. members think that is untrue I will let them have a copy of the Nugget. Perhaps the hon. member does not read his home newspaper. An article in that paper indicated that the only department in North Bay that did not use courier service was the Department of Veterans Affairs, and even employees in that department said they did not think they did; they had considered it and decided against it. We as veterans have always waited a long time so we have not really pushed for faster service. Business people have pushed for faster service and take advantage of courier service.
What I am saying is that I think most people in this country would not be opposed to paying 17 cents for the expeditious delivery of a letter. However, a first-class letter cannot be handled expeditiously if it is going to be included with parcels, third-class mail, flyers and all that junk mail that people receive. That junk mail is delivered as fast as first-class.
There was a time when all the mail in a district post office had to be dealt with on the day of receipt. What the employees did was take all the mail left over at night, bag it and send it to another distribution point in the same part of the country. That meant that the mail would perhaps go to North Bay for redistribution. If it was left over that night in North Bay it would perhaps be sent to Timmins. If they could not handle it they bagged it and sent it back to North Bay. Often it was the middle of the week before that mail was handled at the original district office.
If I can find a way to send a letter from Ottawa to northern Ontario within 15 hours, then why does the Post Office take so long? 1 think it is up to us. I think we have allowed them to put all of the junk mail together. This brochure points out that they are handling many hundreds of tons of mail a shift, but that is not first class mail. It is true many organizations send out their junk mail. That is part of their business procedure. However, they are not paying to send out first class mail, yet they have their junk mail delivered just as fast as any other mail.


John R. Rodriguez: What about the householders?


William Arnold Peters: There is nothing more important than householder mail for members of Parliament. I hope that it is always in white envelopes and mailed in the most expeditious way. I am afraid that it does not matter whether it is packaged mail or parcelled mail because there is no such thing as preferential treatment.
If the government wishes to improve the mail, it should not be misguided by Post Office officials. It should not be misguided by my friend or the workers in the Post Office. The government wants to make the Post Office a Crown corporation. I do not want it made a Crown corporation until it is cleaned up. 1 am of the opinion that if the Post Office is made a Crown corporation, with the mess it is in today it is merely transferring the problem and calling it something else. The Post Office must be cleaned up, and as a department of the government it would not be very difficult to clean it up.
Postal Rates
I know that the minister has been critical of the way the Post Office operates and of the staff, both union and managerial. These are things which can be corrected. The system can be adapted to where it is again sorting out mail so that those who are paying for first class mail will be guaranteed first class delivery. It is not for the Post Office to set up additional courier service to the 17 or 18 national courier services which are now in business. I know that the Post Office is contemplating this idea, and 1 believe they are experimenting with it.
I believe that we can design a system by using the means which are available to us in this very large country for moving mail expeditiously. If first class mail has a premium price, it should be given a premium position in the delivery system. If we can guarantee to businessmen that the post office will deliver the mail, it is a step in the right direction.
1 am sure that the present mail service affects all members of Parliament. How many members in this House have been faced with the problem of getting a passport to someone in a very short period of time? In the first place, you do not want them to send the information by mail because it will never get there, so an alternative means must be found, usually by air. To ship a passport by air to Toronto costs $25, and to send it by bus costs $2.75. Surely the Post Office can find a way of supplying that kind of service at a more reasonable price and with the same guarantee of delivery. That is what the Post Office is for.
1 am sure that all hon. members will remember as children hearing the saying "the mail must go through", and remember seeing the man on horseback delivering the mail. If we were still using that method the mail would probably still be getting there. It is not the fault of the employees. The Post Office has a very large network of employees, and not all of them are working in terminals. The employees working in the terminals are probably going crazy because they are dictated to by the machine which they are trying to operate.
Those people who deliver mail by truck, aeroplane or on the rural delivery systems all across this country make the effort. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, live in a rural area the same as I, and that you can say as well as I can that there are very few days in the year when the rural delivery man does not make every effort to drive on every back road on his route to deliver the mail. That employee makes the effort, and the government and members of government are not making the effort to provide that employee with the mail to be delivered in a reasonable period of time to the people for whom they are responsible.
Guaranteed mail delivery may have to cost more than 17 cents, but I am sure that it will not cost as much as what the bus company charges, and certainly not as much as what a courier service charges. I am also sure that the minister can do these things under the auspices of the Canadian postal service. It is something which the minister can aim for, and I will not oppose him, when he comes back in a few months-after he has had a chance to get rid of most of the bottleneck which occurs in the distribution centres-in his efforts to get first-

October 24, 1979
Postal Rates
class mail into a position where it can be delivered expeditiously and be guaranteed.
When the minister has achieved that, 1 think most members of the House and most people in this country who want guaranteed mail delivery will be very happy to have delivery shifted back to the Post Office and away from the little red courier service and Wells Fargo or whoever is travelling up and down the highway delivering that mail today. It is a challenge for the minister, and I am sure that the Canadian public will pay the price if the Post Office is able to provide the kind of delivery which people are asking for. We should not allow the Post Office to be substituted by a private mail system, as we have allowed in Canada under previous governments, if we do not have a solution to the problem of first class mail delivery in this country.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member who just had the floor made a comment-and 1 did not want to interrupt while he was speaking-relating to whether I read the North Bay Nugget. 1 can advise him that I read the North Bay Nugget religiously, and I can vouch for the comments which the hon. member made relating to the use of private couriers by the government as related in that paper.
My comments were across the aisle to the Postmaster General (Mr. Fraser), challenging him to indicate that the comments made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) were not true.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Scott, Victoria-Haliburton):: Order. At this time I must inform the House that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, 1 will be brief. I indicated earlier in the debate that I would deal directly with some questions raised by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). Before doing that, however, 1 want to thank all hon. members who took part in this debate and especially the new members, whom I want to compliment on their speeches, on how rapidly they have become accustomed to this House and on their contributions thus far. I also want to thank hon. members for the expressions of good will which I have received.
The problems in the Post Office are well known to all of us. They did not occur yesterday, they occurred from decisions taken some years back. It is my own estimate that in terms of recovery probably the corner was turned in a better direction about two years ago. But we have a long way to go yet. As Postmaster General I intend to be a champion for the people in the Post Office. There are 63,000 Canadians who are trying very hard to do their duty for the Post Office, and the vast majority of them have not had any commendation for a number of years now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: The general assumption is that somehow the problems in the Post Office are there because the people

working in the Post Office want them to be there. That is not true.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: I know that hon. members will remember that in our desire to improve the postal service there are 63,000 decent Canadians trying to do their very best. It is my intention to try to give them as much help as I can, and in that way serve the public interest.
I want to speak very briefly on a couple of points raised by my friend, the hon. member for Nickel Belt. I want to make it completely clear that I have no intention of bringing in a Crown corporation bill that removes the right to strike for workers who presently have that right to strike and are organized labour in this country.
I want also to tell the hon. member that I have no intention of taking the present Post office and hacking it up, taking its profitable parts and abandoning the essential service that the Post Office gives as a great Canadian institution.
I want also to say to the hon. member with respect to the grievances that he mentioned that the matter has been addressed although not resolved. The number of grievances is now much lower than the hon. member mentioned. I will be meeting with one of the union officials on Tuesday to discuss it further. 1 have already had discussions on that. I have had meetings with leaders of the unions and on November 7, under the aegis of the Canadian Labour Congress, there will be the first serious negotiating meetings for the structure of the Crown corporation. It is my hope that the bill we will present after those discussions have taken place will be more acceptable to both management and unions in the Post Office and 1 hope to this House, than was the previous bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: The hon. member for Nickel Belt made reference to bargaining in something other than good faith. I do not want to go into the past but I want to indicate that it is my determination that there be bargaining in good faith. As long as I am Postmaster General and can elicit any control whatsoever, that bargaining will be in good faith.
1 want to indicate to the hon. member-and some hon. members who were in the House the other day know this- that because this would be the last contract for most of the unions under the Public Service Staff Relations Act, I have offered to the unions a short contract of one year under that act. This would deal with a minimum number of matters and leave the substantive matters aside to be dealt with after the Crown corporation is created and they can bargain under the Canada Labour Code.
I have gone further, Mr. Speaker. If they want a shorter contract of six months, I am prepared to bring legislation into the House which would amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act for the specific purpose of giving them that short
October 24, 1979

contract. I am doing this to try to indicate that, as Postmaster General, 1 intend to deal in very good faith with the people who work in the Post Office.
i


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, this concludes my remarks, and I thank hon. members. 1 should like to move that the motion now before the House be amended to go through all stages of second reading and third reading at this time.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to delay the work of the House this afternoon. I only want to ask a question of the minister, if 1 may be allowed to do so at this stage.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the minister willing to answer a question asked by the hon. member for Outremont (Mr. Lalonde)?


John Allen Fraser: Of course I will answer the hon. member, Mr. Speaker.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I noted with great interest the commitment of the minister to keep the Post Office together as an integrated whole, and in particular his clear and categorical statement that there would be no question of selling off the profitable aspects of the Post office and keeping only the unprofitable and bad aspects of it, if you wish.
Can we count on the same positive attitude on his part vis-a-vis cabinet and his colleagues, when they are going to discuss the question of Petro-Canada-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Out of order.


Marc Lalonde: -and be sure that Petro-Canada will remain as an integrated whole, and that the same philosophy will be applied by the minister to Petro-Canada as the one he is stressing so strongly for the Post Office?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member does not expect me to get into a debate on Petro-Canada. We have before us a bill. It is a serious bill and I should like to get it through the House as quickly as possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a friendly point of order. I think it is very clear that the motion before us can hardly be amended as the Postmaster General suggested. But if he is, in effect, requesting the consent of the House that, following second reading, we go into committee of the whole and then on to third reading today, for our part we are prepared to give that consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) rising on the same point of order?


John R. Rodriguez: No, Mr. Speaker, a separate point.
Postal Rates


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think 1 should recognize him and settle the question of procedure afterwards.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to ask the minister if he would permit a question. I certainly appreciated the very strong statements and strong commitments he made to this House and the people of Canada and to the workers in the Post Office. I want to ask him one question although he did not deal with the other one I asked him.
Can he give the House the assurance that those in the top management of the Post Office who have really been an aggravation to good, healthy industrial relationships in the Post Office-the evidence of which we have presented to the minister and to the department-and 1 name two of them, Mr. Corkery and Mr. Pare, can be eased out of those positions as quickly as possible? 1 ask that in all seriousness.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, 1 recognize that the hon. member for Nickel Belt asks the question in all seriousness. 1 have to say that I have no intention at the moment of removing either of those gentlemen. So far as the relationship between management and union is concerned, as long as 1 am Postmaster General I will work for improvement and the bargaining will be in good faith.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. To come back to the request of the minister and the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I believe the minister is requesting leave for the bill to be proceeded with through all stages today and thus is asking the unanimous consent of the House to first, modify the motion which is in front of us so that it can be referred to committee of the whole and at the same time, by the same consent, permit the House to go through all stages in the completion of the consideration of this bill. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I had better read the motion to the House as changed.
Mr. Fraser, seconded by Mr. Mazankowski, moves:
That Bill C-l 1, an act respecting certain postal rates, be now read a second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Motion as amended, agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 1 carry?
On clause 1 -


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to know from the Postmaster General if he intends to do anything about the problem that has been created by the inability of the Post Office to meet the needs of the general public and the business community, resulting in the establishment of all these courier services travelling up and down our highways. I refer particularly to the fact that government departments use those couri-

October 24, 1979
Postal Rates
er services in Ottawa and from coast to coast. Does the minister intend to do anything about that?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I would say to the hon. member that all of these matters are very much under study. I have a much greater understanding of the difficulties the Post Office is facing, both through competition from the public and the private sector, than I had when I became Postmaster General. I am addressing my mind to many of the matters, in fact I would say to all the matters, the hon. member raised in his speech.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Chairman, I should like to pursue basically the same question. At the time when I had the privilege of occupying the position presently occupied by the hon. minister, we instituted a pilot project involving premium mail which was designed to remove as best we could some of the "bleeding" of our most remunerative mail through the private couriers. At that time an arrangement was made with certain government departments to have them act as part of the pilot project in terms of using premium mail to hasten the implementation of that program. Could the hon. gentleman indicate at this time whether the Post Office is in a position to use the experience it has gained through the pilot project in order to implement a national program?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, we have a priority post program under way which stems from the study which the hon. gentleman is referring to.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the minister a question about the location of post office boxes for the purpose of mailing letters. This matter has been raised by two or three of my colleagues.
Rather than having the Post Office make strict locations of post boxes according to distance, could the location of boxes be done more on a sociological basis or on a study of the make-up of the population? In Regina, for example, there are three or four areas where half to three-quarters of the population are senior citizens who now have a longer distance to walk through snow banks. Surely it would make more sense to have a higher concentration of mail boxes in an area such as that and a lower concentration in areas of high income.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, 1 understand exactly the point which the hon. member is alluding to. In the city of Winnipeg, as hon. members know, I have given orders for a number of post office boxes to be returned to places to meet that specific problem.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I regret to interrupt, but I have a point of order from the hon. member for Western Arctic.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps you can clarify a matter of order. I understand that we are now supposedly discussing clause 1 of Bill C-ll. Clause 1 is very specific. It deals with certain orders in council that were made. I see no

reference in clause 1 to the matter of post office boxes or any of the other matters that have been brought up by certain members. Could you direct us as to whether or not we are to actually debate only the specifics of clause 1 ?


Gérald Laniel: The practice in Committee of the Whole has been that, whatever the content of clause 1, we allow general discussion. Of course, it should remain within the confines of the Post Office, or the particular subject matter. The hon. member will recognize that it is not easy for the Chair always to be on its feet to request an hon. member to speak specifically to a bill. If we did that, half the time of the House would be lost in a dialogue between the Chair and the hon. member who perhaps would speak longer trying to make a case about how his mail boxes are related to something in the bill. By giving some latitude and by allowing this practice of general discussion which has developed over the years, it has proved to be the best way to get results.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Chairman, my question is for the minister. It concerns courier post, premium mail or, as he calls it, priority post. This system was also dependent on ongoing negotiations with the main unions relating to putting that program in place. If I recall correctly, a great deal of co-operation had been obtained from the Union of Letter Carriers and this co-operation has been most helpful in carrying through that priority post. Has CUPW also joined in in offering that sort of co-operation so that the system can operate smoothly?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I am not aware this afternoon of any particular difficulties with respect to any of the unions in the Post Office in that regard.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Chairman, the hon. gentleman, also in reply to a question from the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), was offering his support to his senior officials; at least, that is the interpretation I got from his answer. I welcome that support. It is well needed because I think all workers in the Post Office, including the administrators, have to receive the minister's support.
I ask the hon. gentleman whether he recognizes, having said that two years ago was approximately the time when the Post Office came around the corner and started to climb upward, that he did not recognize as well that that was the period of time when the two gentlemen mentioned by the hon. member for Nickel Belt were employed in their present capacities.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member would not want to pursue a question of particular individuals in the Post Office, whether they be in unions or in management. I agree with the hon. gentleman who has had experience in this area that it is the duty of the Postmaster General to stand by his employees whether they are in management or on the labour side, unless there are particular reasons why disciplinary action or other measures should be employed.


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Chairman, may I say that 1 do not think the minister has any position that he could take at the moment, when asked in public about a couple of names, other than to
October 24, 1979

defend those particular individuals. The minister has to defend his department whatever view he might hold privately. It is to be hoped that the minister will take a fresh look at the management and negotiating teams of the Post Office.
I reveal no particular confidence, because I do not intend to name anyone, but a number of years ago a former postmaster general revealed to me that his efforts to improve the Post Office and the management staff relationships within the Post Office were frustrated by appalling management attitudes and skills that existed at that time.
I recommend to the minister that, while I understand why he would choose, as he must, to defend two individual names, he look very thoroughly at some of the things relating to management skills, attitudes and negotiating attitudes that may have caused the kind of hostility, foot-dragging, entrenched positions, poor service, unhappiness and poor morale in the past. We must hope that in the future there will be a new attitude prevailing. In my view, most workers employed by the Post Office, regardless of their level, want to do a job for the public and are getting mighty tired of being the whipping boys for poor relations, business practices and working conditions about which they have little or no say.
May I conclude by saying that I welcome the sign that we have at least one minister on that side of the House who supports the addition of one more Crown corporation, rather than eliminating them right left and centre, which some of his colleagues seem dedicated to doing.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, may I say to my hon. friend that when so many are going, if one stays behind it will do no harm.
With respect to the hon. member's specific reference to the attitude of management in negotiating for a contract, let me assure all hon. members that, whatever the situation has been in the past, there is a very conscious awareness that the difficulties of the past were partly due, at least, to mistakes in judgment on the management side. There is a great consciousness of that, and 1 can assure all hon. members that I am satisfied that while we may not have developed all the skills necessary, the attitude is very much improving. I want to assure all hon. members again that 1 regard that improving attitude as a very essential ingredient of better relationships in the Post Office.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, 1 want to follow up on my first question to the minister. His response narrowed down to what he has done in Winnipeg. Can we take it that the principle for the action he has taken in Winnipeg will be applied generally across the country, that the whole move regarding the location of mail boxes will be reviewed and those errors that occurred will be corrected in the areas I mentioned?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, let me tell all hon. members that the Post Office has been operating under a very stern edict to operate as efficiently and effectively, from the point of
Postal Rates
view of cost, as possible. The consequence of that has been that where there were service functions that were not being utilized or were redundant, these were examined and studied. Steps were taken to cut them back or eliminate them altogether.
What happened in the city of Winnipeg was that a program was instituted to cut back on the number of boxes. What was found after that had been completed was brought to my attention by hon. members, originally by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine and the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, namely that too many boxes had been taken away. The consequence was that old age pensioners and older people were in a very difficult position.
I considered with care the representations brought before me. I am fully aware that this is a winter country and as a consequence I made changes. If the hon. member has a situation in his constituency or city which he thinks I should consider, I am prepared to do so. I am not prepared to say in this House that we are suddenly going to put back all of the post boxes taken away in a program designed to eliminate those not being used.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Just so we will not have to go through it all again, Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister can go through the correspondence he received from not only Winnipeg and Regina but other cities. If he looks at that, we will not have to do it all over again.


John Allen Fraser: I suggest the hon. member speak to me. I have heard a lot of complaints about postal service this afternoon. The complaints 1 have received from my colleagues in the cabinet, and from those outside the cabinet on the other side of the House since we have come back, are as to whether I can do anything to cut off the mail.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Chairman, I have six questions. I will begin with the sixth one. Very shortly CUPW and the Post Office employees will start negotiating a new contract, I believe in December. Rumours are going around that somehow or other the Department of Labour will take over the negotiations on behalf of the Post Office Department. Will the minister advise whether there has been any change in terms of persons who will be negotiating on behalf of the Post Office Department with the workers?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I can say to the hon. member that I will take every step to ensure that the most appropriate people are engaged in the bargaining.


John R. Rodriguez: 1 am not going to be brushed off that easily. There are rumours to the effect that moves are being made by the labour department to take over negotiations on behalf of the Post Office Department. Is that rumour true or untrue? If it is true, will the minister tell us what role Treasury Board will be playing and what role his negotiators will be playing? That is extremely important, or we will be back to square one again.


John Allen Fraser: The Department of Labour will not be taking
over the negotiations. With regard to the role of Treasury
582

October 24, 1979
Postal Rates
Board, we all understand that is one of the basic questions of contention. As I say, I have put to my friends in the union the short contract. I hope this will be a way of resolving the serious difficulties that have occurred in the past.
I assure the hon. member I am acutely aware of the problems that any negotiating team has under the present structure when it does not know whether what it says is a final offer is really a final offer at all. Always there is the shadow of Treasury Board behind the bargaining table.


John R. Rodriguez: I thank the minister for that precise answer. My next question relates to noise levels at Gateway in Toronto and other major terminals. Under the Public Service Staff Relations Act there is no part IV as there is in the Canada Labour Code. The minister is well aware of that because he was labour critic when he was in opposition. Has this very serious problem been brought to his attention? 1 know the minister is concerned about occupational health and safety in the work place. Will something be done with regard to studying very quickly what can be done to alleviate the noise levels?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I have to apologize to the hon. member. I cannot give a detailed answer. May I take the hon. member's question and return to him perhaps tomorrow or in the next few days with an adequate answer.


John R. Rodriguez: My next question deals with the trial of Jean-Claude Parrot. After having been found guilty and sentenced, he is appealing the sentence. I spoke with the minister informally. Other leaders were also charged with having breached the Criminal Code. Those charges can be dropped by the Crown if it so desires.
I say to the minister in all seriousness that those responsible for the security of this nation who did such serious things as burning down barns and stealing were not exposed to that kind of sentencing. In the minister's desire for a more harmonious relationship between the department and those who work for it, will he assure us he will look into the possibility of dropping charges against those who have not yet come to court?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, as Postmaster General I have not felt it my place to interfere with charges that are before the courts. That entire matter is one for the Department of Justice. The hon. member realizes that, with regard to Mr. Parrot's case, the sentence is under appeal. I understand the judges of the Court of Appeal have reserved and are considering this case. I do not want to say anything in this House that may be deemed to be interference in one way or the other with their deliberations.


John R. Rodriguez: My next question is with regard to something the minister is concerned about, the practice in the past. There is documented evidence of this. Certain middle management tend to run around the ends of the collective agreement, particularly the very contentious technological change clause. Will the minister assure us that a memorandum will go to all levels of management in the Post Office instructing them to

observe the collective agreement and not try to run around the ends of it, even though they may think it is in the best interests of the Post Office.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Chairman, I want to assure all hon. members that I believe collective agreements should be honoured. That applies equally to the union that enters into the agreement and the management side that enters into the agreement. My answer has to be that I will do everything I can to ensure that collective agreements that are made will be honoured.


John R. Rodriguez: The other question I have is with regard to grievances that are still pending. The history of these grievances shows that in many, many instances the cases were lost by management at all three stages, after which management appealed for adjudication. History has shown that on the eve of adjudication-and we have examples which I can provide- the Post Office withdraws its appeal for adjudication. The minister tells us that he will be meeting the leadership of one of the unions. Would he take a first step by seeing that these cases which the Post Office had lost at all three stages and appealed to adjudication, especially where the decision of an adjudicator had been given in a previous instance, will not be left hanging fire until the eve of an adjudication, that they will be dropped by the Post Office?


John Allen Fraser: As I told the hon. member, I have already met with representatives of one of the unions on this point and we shall be meeting again. I will take the hon. member's representations into account-they are similar to representations I have heard from union officials. This is certainly something I shall be looking into.


John R. Rodriguez: My last question deals with superannuation delays. Many postal employees have decided to take their pensions and have applied for superannuation. In some cases they find delays are running in excess of six months. Is the minister prepared to look into this problem and try to alleviate it-to speed up payments-in whatever way necessary?


John Allen Fraser: I can give the hon. member the assurance that I will look into the matter immediately. I am not sure, though, that any delay necessarily is the fault of the Post Office.


Mr. Oberle:: Mr. Chairman, I should like give the minister an opportunity to make a comment about an area of the Post Office which has traditionally not experienced much difficulty in management-labour relations, and that is the service dispensed by the Post Office in rural areas and the incredible anomalies and discrepancies which exist in the type of service the Post Office dispenses in rural communities by comparison with the type of service dispensed in the cities. For example a person living in the concrete jungle expects a postman to come to the door every day and complain if he does not arrive or if he is five minutes late.
I should like to draw a comparison with the service provided to a person living in mid-Canada or northern Canada in a small community where temperatures go to 40 below. These people have to start their automobiles to drive to the post
October 24, 1979

office to get their mail. When they get there they have to stand in line and often suffer the abuse and the hardships that are related to that kind of activity, and at the end of the year they get a bill for using the post office in that fashion, the bill, of course, being for the post office box. Obviously there is a serious discrepancy there.
I wonder if the minister wants to make a comment on this, whether the terms of reference that are to be issued to the new Crown corporation will recognize the needs of rural areas, whether thought is being given in the department to charging for the service that is dispensed in the cities commensurate with or similar to the service that people have to pay for in the rural areas.
All of us are painfully aware of the incredible cost of postal service in the country and all of us are committed to bringing these costs in line. But we cannot have it both ways. If the box rentals and the services that are provided in the rural areas continue to go up and if there is a continuation of eliminating many of those services, as has, of course, been the case in many of the northern areas of our country, then I suppose the people in the northern areas have a right to expect that people who live in cities will pay an equal share of maintaining this essential and proud service. 1 should like to give the minister an opportunity to comment and to assure us that he is cognizant of the situation.


John Allen Fraser: I want to thank the hon. member for raising this issue. He comes from a riding in which a great many people live in rural areas and he is cognizant of the situation he describes. I invite the hon. member and others to bring to my attention anomalies which come to their attention. 1 have noticed there is no hesitation on the part of hon. members to approach me directly with regard to problems in the Post Office.
I will say this: the cost of providing a national postal service is high. However, hon. members will be pleased to know that, as stated in the annual report-and 1 am generously giving some credit to the former postmaster general who is here with us in the House-the deficit is going down. It is down again by another $70 million or $80 million. The total deficit, if one includes the revenues the Post Office produces, is about $450 million. There are departments in the government which cost much more than that to operate. 1 am not saying the cost is not high; I am saying the cost is going down.
I can also tell hon. members that in some respects the service is actually increasing and getting better, though 1 know there are serious difficulties and some anomalies. 1 thank the hon. member for bringing them to my attention.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall the bill carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Bill reported.
Postal Rates


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? Now?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave.


John Allen Fraser: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


John R. Rodriguez: As the first speaker on third reading, 1 shall not delay the House but 1 do believe some closing remarks are in order before we pass this bill.
First, I want to say that the performance of the Postmaster General (Mr. Fraser) this afternoon augurs well for the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: I can only hope when they split his personality between Environment and the Post Office that common sense will prevail and that the powers that be will allow him to maintain his role as Postmaster General. I think he may have an easier time dealing with postal problems than with Inco.
The answers which the Postmaster General has given this afternoon were positive in tone, and I want to say that if this attitude is carried forward, then 1 think the people of Canada can expect an improvement in postal services. I was particularly impressed with the emphatic way in which he dealt with the question of keeping the Post Office together as an entity and his determination to transform the Post Office into a Crown corporation. Indeed, it was a welcome statement from the front benches these days which runs contrary to the neo-Conservative movement on the other side, according to which, instead of privatizing, we are now seeing a move toward Crown incorporating. That is indeed a most welcome statement.
It seems that the Postmaster General has come down firmly on the side of service. He recognizes that in a mixed economy there is a role for a' Crown corporation to play, a Crown corporation that has unitary management and that can indeed cross-subsidize from those operations that are profitable to those that are mainly providing a service, and hence will oftentimes run a deficit. That is indeed a welcome principle to be established.
One would only hope that his sweet voice of reason with respect to the Post Office can sway those neo-Conservative minds on the other side with regard to Petro-Canada, because, in the same way, one can see Petro-Canada as being a service to the people of Canada. Indeed, it is a very appropriate comparison. It can be readily compared to the securing of energy for the Canadian people, in the form of the very oil that lights our industry and that keeps this great country going. When one compares it to mail delivery, one recognizes that it is equally, if not more, important.
I was also very pleased with the minister's attitude, certainly a very open attitude, towards those who are unionized in the Post Office as well as toward postal workers who are not unionized. The minister has an openness of attitude toward

October 24, 1979
Postal Rates
the work place which is in contrast to what we saw in the revolving door policy of the previous government with respect to the position of the postmaster general. Indeed, how can one develop a meaningful relationship based on trust and communication when every six months the door is revolved and, lo and behold, a new joker jumps up and becomes postmaster general? In the space of eight years we saw six postmasters general. Before we even became accustomed to one postmaster general, lo and behold, he would be gone to run the RCMP while another postmaster general arrived to succeed him. It seems that this is vastly different from what we saw previously.
What I was also impressed with was the minister's decisiveness with which he intends to deal directly with the trade union movement in the Post Office. In the previous postmaster general we had an isolationist. He prided himself on having effectively run the Quebec City administration without a strike. That was easy because there was no trade union in the Quebec City administration. He believed slavishly every single thing his top bureaucrats told him. He was new to the position, he did not trust his own judgment, and he was not prepared to be open and speak out truthfully on the situation.
The answers given by the present minister today show us that there is hope that he at least will get to the bottom of the problem and seek the source of it, whether it be in management, whether it be one of the workers, or whether it be a technological problem. That is most helpful indeed.
The last point I want to make before sitting down is on the question of bringing an order in council under the Financial Administration Act so Parliament can have a say on it. That is extremely important when the government which sits on the other side has only 38 per cent of the vote.


An hon. Member:: No, 35 per cent.


An hon. Member:: No, 36 per cent.


John R. Rodriguez: I hear 36 per cent. I heard 35 per cent and 1 have also heard 38 per cent, so I will stay in the middle and keep to 36.5 per cent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How about 35.6 per cent?


John R. Rodriguez: Well, somewhere between 35 per cent and 38 per cent of the vote. It is a very important principle. We all recognize the limited mandate that this imposes, in effect. The principle that this bill establishes, which is the principle of Parliament having a say on orders in council made under the Financial Administration Act, is an extremely important principle as we move toward "privateering". I refer to privateering de Havilland and privateering Canadair.


An hon. Member:: "Buccaneering".


John R. Rodriguez: We know full well, and I bring this to the attention of hon. members and to people's attention, that the union leadership of de Havilland met with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) who, when asked whether he would bring the decision of privateering to Parliament, said no, he would not. 1 think that that would really be flying in the

face of the principle which this government has started with Bill C-l 1.
So I urge members on the other side-and note that I am being reasonable today-


An hon. Member:: You ought to see him on other days!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: It is very obvious that the Postmaster General brings out the best in me. That is more than I can say about the previous "Evel Knievel". Therefore, 1 would urge that principle upon members on the other side and ask that they remain constant with that principle which the bill envisages. Sure, the government might adopt the position of privateering, but there are others in the House who oppose it, and there are people in the country who may have another opinion. After all, all of them did not vote for this government. Therefore, that principle should be preserved and Parliament should be allowed to decide. Let the people's elected representatives decide. I wish the minister well and I want him to know that my services as Post Office critic on this side of the House are at his disposal. Should he ever require them, I will certainly be available at any time and will co-operate in trying to develop the Post Office as a useful and serviceable institution for the people of Canada.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, I will not delay the House very long but I want to commend the minister for what he has already done and express the hope that a great deal more will be done in order to get our mail moving the way we and the people of Canada expect it to move.
There are two points I would like to mention. My observations of the Post Office system since I have come here are, first, that there is not a definite chain of command throughout the Post Office. 1 find that there is authority at many of the local levels allowing the man in charge to make decisions and to have them carried out, but there has been so much red tape in the laws and regulations that have evolved over the last several years that it is not possible to hold a man responsible unless he is given authority to act, and if reference to Ottawa is required, which takes a period of three or four months, this does not lead to good administration at the local level or at any level, particularly at the regional level. These are able people, I believe, and if they are not, they should not be there.
I have been impressed with the ability of many people in the Post Office. If they were given the authority to deal with items at the local level, 1 think they could do so. Also, that chain of command has another effect. If something goes wrong, the minister or the deputy minister can put his finger on the responsible person. That person must hold that responsibility and rise up to it. If a change such as this was made, I believe we would see a tremendous improvement in our postal service almost overnight.
We should not expect the hon. minister to press a button and suddenly cure all the ills of the Post Office today. I
October 24, 1979

commend him for the manner in which he is looking at every problem in an attempt to solve them one by one. If the chain of command and responsibility at the local level are put together,
1 believe there will be a tremendous improvement in the Post Office in very short order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister and his department. 1 am pleased with his change of style in that he is attempting to respond fully to questions raised by various members, which I am sure the House appreciates. 1 should like him to know that.
My original intention was to say that the cabinet indicates that all the red Tories occupy the front benches and that all the prehistoric reactionary ones are in the back benches, but I realized that I was forgetting about the finance portfolio and could not make such a statement.
Some members urge an abandonment of the revolving door postmaster generalship and at the same time wish the minister greater longevity in his portfolio. That ignores the possibility when the Post Office is turned into a Crown corporation that there will not be the position of Postmaster General. Perhaps there will be someone in the House answering for Crown corporations, and the title "Postmaster General" will become part of our history. Members on this side will be pleased about that because we believe, as do the unions and other political parties, that perhaps the establishment of Crown corporations will result in a solution of some of the problems and will overcome the limitations in the current Public Service Staff Relations Act. Perhaps it will allow access to better breaks in terms of labour legislation and other matters. 1 am not debating that at the moment, but it is somewhat contradictory to wish the minister a long and happy life in his portfolio and to wish for an early start on Crown corporation legislation.
Someone mentioned the schizophrenia relating to the joint portfolios of Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment, but I think it was a very shrewd move on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). As Postmaster General the minister can be in charge of distributing all the litter, and as Minister of the Environment he has responsibility for cleaning it up.
Someone mentioned that essentially the Post Office is a service, and I think a lot of members would agree. Also I think the minister mentioned that he was proud of the reduction in the deficit.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The deficit is being reduced by a reduction of service.


Mark Willson Rose: The government is reducing the deficit by reducing not only services, but by increasing the first class letter rate. Perhaps it could be justified, but equivalent increases should be applied to the other classes of mail. Many of the second and third class pieces of mail are flyers that are distributed by businessmen.


John R. Rodriguez: And members of Parliament.
Postal Rates


Mark Willson Rose: Yes, members of Parliament. I am not suggesting that these classes should be cut. God knows, we are inundated daily with business flyers and the like. Perhaps they should be subsidized to some extent, because they provide people with an opportunity to comparison shop in their homes. But I think second and third class mails should bear their share of increases in an attempt to reduce the deficit. We should not restrain ourselves right out of the post office business. Second and third class mail should bear equivalent cost increases, depending on the proportion of the post office costs they represent. The first class rate has been increased on two occasions in the last year. Perhaps I am wrong in that comment, but that is my recollection.
In conclusion, I should like to indicate that someone seems to be in doubt about the exact percentage of votes accorded to the government in the election results of May 22. I think the government has done exceedingly well, because with 36 per cent of the vote it achieved nearly half the seats, whereas our party got 18 per cent of the votes and 9 per cent of the seats. If that is not a call for proportional representation in the House,
1 do not know what is.


Mr. Blenkarn:: There are too many of you as it is.


Mark Willson Rose: Someone is suggesting that there are too many of us. I hope that is not an example of Conservative arrogance. Regardless whether the hon. member opposite likes it or not, the people put us here.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: The people put me here as well.
[ Translation]


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Langelier):: Mr. Speaker, after spending a few hours listening to the remarks about the Postmaster General (Mr. Fraser) and, in the final analysis, the congratulations extended to the Messiah-minister, to the miracle worker Postmaster General, and also while waiting for my friend for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) to address us a few last words in French, probably to bring the debate to a close, I think I should merely like to say that 1 listened very closely to the advice the Postmaster General got from the New Democratic Party.
1 also took good note of the answers of the minister, and I can assure hon. members that they will be pinned up in my office; every time his intentions are transformed into actions and results, I shall be very pleased to cross them out, to show that the problem has been solved. 1 do not particularly want to congratulate the Postmaster General because, in a sense, that is his work, his responsibility and 1 know what responsibility that is; all I hope is that next year, when he tables his annual report for 1979-80, it will show that the year has been as efficient and productive as was the one of which we gave an account in our own last report.

Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.

October 24, 1979
Federal Business Development Bank


FEDERAL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BANK ACT
Hon. Ron Huntington (Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry) moved: that Bill C-4, to amend the Federal Business Development Bank Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I commence second reading debate on Bill C-4, a bill to amend the Federal Business Development Bank Act, 1 should like to start with a short summary of the bank's history. In 1974, the Federal Business Development Bank Act was passed by Parliament. It contained a section which provided for a maximum amount of paid-in capital to be provided by the government, $200 million. The act also provided a formula for the maximum lending commitment by the FBDB which effectively limits the bank's outstanding loan commitments to about $2.2 billion.
The FBDB Act provides that the bank can make loans where financing is not available under reasonable terms and conditions from private lenders.
Small business financing has been growing very rapidly in the past few years and this has been reflected in chartered bank loans and those of other private lenders. In addition, the strength in small business activity has been reflected in increasing amounts of funds being demanded from the FBDB by small and medium-sized businesses which cannot obtain the necessary term financing from private lenders.
As a result, the bank now has grown from approximately
24,000	customers on the books of the Industrial Development Bank, its predecessor, which had $1.2 billion outstanding at the time of the parliamentary consideration of the FBDB Act, to nearly 38,000 customers and $2.1 billion outstanding today.
Thus, after five years of operation since the passage of the FBDB Act, the bank is approaching the $2.2 billion lending ceiling. This is not surprising; in fact, it was almost traditional that such ceilings in the successive revisions of the Industrial Development Bank Act be set at a level which would cover about five years' operations, after which the bank's legislation would be reviewed.
A review of FBDB's objectives and policies is currently under way, but a housekeeping amendment is required in the interim in order to allow the FBDB to continue to service the financial requirements of small and medium-sized businesses. In any event, the government's position is that it is preferable to come to Parliament with the results of a thoroughgoing review of small business financing and the implications for the range of federal programs involved, rather than proposing extensive changes to the FBDB Act alone.
In summary, we have a Crown corporation for which some absolute financial limits were built into its legislation five years ago, and these are now being reached. While review and consultation on the future direction of federal intervention in business financing is timely and is being undertaken, there is
[Mr. Lamontagne.J
no reason to impair the corporation's current operation during this review process. Therefore, the government is recommending that Parliament adopt interim legislation to allow the corporation to continue to operate on a "business as usual" basis for an additional period of time, pending the broader review of federal programs in the business financing field including, of course, the Federal Business Development Bank.
The route proposed for increasing the lending authority of the FBDB is to increase the ratio of outstanding loans to paid-up capital. The advantage that this would have is that no additional federal budgetary expenditure for paid-in capital would be required. This would be in keeping with the general policy of restraint on federal expenditures.
The Federal Business Development Bank is currently lending $75 million per month on average. At an average of just over $50,000 per loan, this represents 1,500 Canadian businesses per month which get term loans approved by the bank. If this amendment is not passed, the FBDB will only be able to lend an amount equal to the repayment of existing loans. This would cause the FBDB loan approvals to drop to one-third of their current level so that only 500 rather than 1,500 small and medium-sized businesses would be assisted. This would be at variance with generally accepted policy at the federal level that government intervention should be designed to reduce obstacles for small businesses to obtain funding on reasonable terms and conditions.
The provisions of the proposed amending legislation would automatically raise the Federal Business Development Bank's maximum lending authority to $2.6 billion. Depending on both the level of the bank's loan authorizations in the coming months and the timing of the review of FBDB and other programs, this may or may not be sufficient to meet the bank's cash requirements until a more extensive revision to the legislation occurs. Should the bank's financial requirements exceed the $2.6 billion level during this review period, the current amendment would empower the governor in council to make a further upward adjustment.
Any limitation on the bank's ability to make loans would have adverse effects on the Canadian economy. The bank's financing is estimated to assist in the start-up of over 2,000 enterprises per year in Canada. In terms of employment, FBDB financing in 1978 was estimated to assist in the creation of some 20,000 new jobs the preservation of 16,000 existing jobs. To the degree that the bank's lending operations are restrained, its beneficial effects on the Canadian economy will be lessened. This would be particularly important in small towns and rural areas because the bank's penetration is higher in these areas which are not as well serviced by the private lenders as are the major metropolitan centres.
The bank's loans and equity investments have other beneficial economic effects. For example, there are positive trade balance effects when FBDB customers are successful in producing goods and services which replace imports or enter the export markets.
The bank has grown from four branches in the early 1950s to 25 branches in mid-1969, and now has some 100 branches
October 24, 1979

and sub-branches scattered across Canada. In contrast to other sources of financing, and in particular the chartered banks, over 66 per cent of the bank's branches are outside major metropolitan centres. This year the bank is opening branches in Clarenville, Newfoundland; St. George de Beauce, Quebec; Cornwall, Ontario; Yellowknife, N.W.T.; Fort St. John, British Columbia, and Whitehorse in the Yukon. Few of these locations can be regarded as "profit centres" in the conventional sense. They do, however, reflect the current developmental character of the bank. The bank also routinely conducts over
8,000	visits each year to bring its services to communities where it does not have a branch.
Looking at the ratio of FBDB customers to the number of businesses, the bank's penetration rates are highest in the coastal provinces and territories, Atlantic, Pacific and Arctic. For example, in Newfoundland and the Northwest Territories about one business in five uses the bank for part of its financing requirements. In the maritimes and British Columbia the ratio is about one in seven. Conversely, in the span of provinces running from Quebec to Saskatchewan, FBDB clients represent only about one out of every 18 firms. This is undoubtedly a reflection of the fact that the private
Business of the House
financial sector, including co-operatives and credit unions, is better developed in central Canada and, therefore, there has generally been less requirement in central Canada for the FBDB.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I should like to ask whoever is responsible for the business of the House what business we have for tomorrow.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, government orders for tomorrow will be Bills C-10, C-3, C-5 and C-14. If my colleague wishes me to give the names I will do so, but perhaps the numbers are sufficient.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They are sufficient.


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

Thursday, October 25, 1979