1979-03-08

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
This afternoon, the government of the province of Saskatchewan intends to announce that it will permit the deduction of mortgage interest expense from personal income taxes, thus repudiating the national Leader of the New Democratic Party who says that such a program is a sop to the rich and does nothing to help the poor.


Mr. Broadbent:: That is no good; you have your facts wrong.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu):
That this House directs the government to follow the precedent, set by at least some of their NDP brothers, reverse their previous wrong-headed policy, and recommends that the federal government introduce a similar program of mortgage interest deductibility together with property taxes deductibility for the benefit of all Canadian taxpayers.
I want to thank the Leader of the New Democratic Party for also agreeing.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion for debate would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: How do you feel about being repudiated, Ed? It is a divided party.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, this being International Women's Day, I believe that we should recognize and try to assist a group of women in this country who are trying to do something about one of the serious problems that faces all our people.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House calls on the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to make available to WARP, Women Against Rising Prices, the necessary funding and the assistance of nis department so that this movement, which is mobilizing Ontario consumers, can become a national organization and give leadership to consumers from coast to coast in the fight for fair prices.


Mr. Speaker:: According to Standing Order 43, such a motion can be presented for discussion at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MEASURES TO ENSURE ADEQUATE SUPPLY OF OIL TO EAST COAST REFINERIES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion.
Considering the scope of the recommendations in the report of the National Energy Board published on February 28 past; considering the precarious and uncertain situation of eastern Canada following reduced fuel supplies from Iran; considering the decision of Exxon Corporation to divert oil supplies meant for Canada to the United States, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau):
That the government seriously consider the possibility of extending the Sarnia-Montreal gas pipeline into eastern Canada so that the energy needs of that part of the country are met and that we are no longer dependent on multinationals and oil exportating countries.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such

March 8, 1979
5.0.	43
motion to be presented for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
On February 20, the Minister of National Health and Welfare sent out a news release announcing the Health Activities Summer Employment Program for Students, with an application deadline of February 28, 1979. It arrived at one of its destinations right here in Ottawa on March 2, 1979, three days past the deadline. This made it impossible for the sponsoring association to notify students nationally and students who would have benefited from this opportunity were not able to participate.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick):
That this House instruct the Minister of National Health and Welfare to extend the deadline of the Health Activities Summer Employment Program for Students-HASEPS-to the end of March so that sufFicient time is available for applications to be made.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



COST OF EXTENDING TV COVERAGE OF PROCEEDINGS TO MONCTON AND OTHER AREAS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
Whereas special arrangements have been made to carry the televised proceedings of the House of Commons, commencing Monday, March 12, 1979, to various parts of Canada, including an arrangement with the Moncton cable station; whereas the exact arrangements and agreements across Canada have not been revealed; and whereas these areas have gone without

such programming for some time now, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That this House commends this venture and requests that a full disclosure be made as to the arrangements, agreements and costs, particularly in light of the fact that the Moncton cable station bears no cost and the timing almost appears to be politically oriented.


Mr. Speaker:: 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.



LABOUR DISPUTES


Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to seek the unanimous consent of the House for my motion.
In view of the fact that 11,600 workers are on strike against Inco Ltd., and in view of the fact that the recent revelation under the Election Expenses Act shows that for 1977 Inco Ltd. gave to the Liberal party of Canada, $20,500 and $20,000 to the Conservative party of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House instructs the Liberal government to meet with their friends in the boardroom of Inco Ltd. and press upon them the need to bargain in good faith with local 6500, USWA, whose members have been on strike for six months because of the arrogance and intransigence of this multinational giant.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
The new eligibility requirement respecting a 20-hour work week imposed by the unemployment insurance regulations has undermined the marine work force and threatens the shipping industry in eastern Canada. Accordingly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. Muir):
March 8, 1979

That this House direct the Minister of Employment and Immigration to present to the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission an amendment removing the 20-hour requirement in the case of longshoremen and marine workers to protect the viability of the eastern shipping industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented at this time, pursuant to the Standing Order, only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ADMIRAL HARRY D. TRAIN

Mr. Speaker:: Before we begin question period, may I ask all our colleagues to join with me in signalling the presence in our gallery of a very distinguished visitor in the person of Admiral Harry D. Train, Supreme Allied Commander of our forces in the Atlantic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday, in an interview with Canadian Press-a news agency that is known for its integrity and accuracy-the minister is quoted as having said that the government is about to bring in measures to increase production quotas for federal and provincial marketing agencies and to bring in new incentives to fishermen and farmers to increase production.
My question to the minister is, has he satisfied himself that present quotas are not sufficient to meet consumer demand? Can he also tell the House if this matter has been agreed to by the various provincial governments?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the stories were incorrect.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You and Marc Lalonde.


Mr. Stevens:: Were they four-fifths right?
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: O-o-o-h! It is like a Greek tragedy, Mr. Speaker. 1 explained to the reporter what the supply policies were. I stated that production quotas had been increased by several marketing boards for the 1979 calendar year, and in fact the government had increased the beef quota by seven million pounds for this year, but it was too early yet to know what the effects of those increased production quotas would be.
I said that the government was looking at other alternatives, but they would be announced by the Minister of Agriculture or by the boards in due course; and that is all I said.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, under the rules of this House I have to accept the minister's word, but Canadian Press is under no such restraint and I leave the minister to the Canadian Press.
1 ask the minister this: Was he accurately quoted in a story on March 1 when he referred to the fact that the government would be bringing in measures to deal with supply shortages, and was he accurately quoted on February 22 when he also alluded to this in an interview outside the House? If he was not accurately quoted, perhaps he would tell the House exactly what he did say on March 1.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I did say that we were examining supply policies and I did say that marketing boards under the government had increased their supply or production quotas for this year. I said it was too early yet to know what the results would be. I also said that those boards have the flexibility to change their quotas from time to time, but if they did so, that would be announced as the year went on.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, this morning in the Standing Committee on Agriculture, the Minister of Agriculture expressed the fact that he had not been consulted by his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
Did the minister consult with the Minister of Agriculture when he came to the conclusion that quotas were insufficient at the present time to meet consumer demand, notwithstanding the fact that in the case of chicken, for example-on which the minister was confronted with questions regarding profiteering and price gouging-he replied that this was as a result of increased consumer demand, whereas his colleague said there is a surplus of four million pounds of chicken on hand? It would seem to me that this minister is going around like a chicken with his head cut off: he does not know what he is doing.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture was reacting to the press story which was incorrect. By the way, the headlines were even worse; they in no way reflected the story written by the reporter. The Minister of Agriculture had no chance to talk to me before he was asked to comment on those stories. I spoke to him afterwards. He told me he said in committee that several of the marketing boards did increase their quotas for 1979 and that we did increase our beef import quotas. So far as I know, we are together on that.
3938

March 8, 1979
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON INCREASING FOOD IMPORTS
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who has become the leading spokesman on behalf of the government for the development of agriculture and food policy.
He has denied the CP story, but he cannot deny the fact that he indicated inside and outside the House that he is considering several options and several proposals. That minister should recognize that the major contributing factor to food prices is really the record of this government and its policies- high interest rates, high inflation-


An hon. Member:: Order.


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


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Wise: Does the minister agree with the concept of increasing imports and increasing the value of imported foods? Does he agree that that concept is the proper answer to today's food prices?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is well informed, I think, in many instances-maybe not in all-on what the marketing policies are for our marketing boards that have control of poultry products. They have a pricing formula that they use for increased production of poultry as the provincial boards have set for meat. What they are going to do is not under a full-fledged agency at this time.
There is a sizeable increase. For the month of January, I believe it shows a 20 per cent increase in slaughter. It shows a big increase in the amount of poultry. It does not necessarily mean that because you are going to increase import quotas of any products, the consumers are going to get any benefit. Some history shows just the opposite of that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same minister. I would ask him to put aside his usual barnyard verbiage and answer my question. Does he agree with the concept that if we increase import quotas, that is the answer to the food crisis? Just a "Yes" or "No" would be quite sufficient.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows my philosophy on import quotas. As he is as closely associated with the barnyard as I am, I am sure he is familiar with barnyard language. At least, he claims to be when he is on the hustings.

The production of poultry in Canada has, as he knows, the greatest efficiency in the history of our poultry production. We have the know-how and the means. He also knows that because of our agreements with our trading partners, when we go into a supply-management system we have to negotiate the quota for the imports of that product from our trading partners, those with whom we normally do business. We are doing this with the United States at the present time. Therefore, it does not necessarily mean it will have any effect on prices if you increase import quotas because, as I said, there is ample poultry in stock.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


EMPLOYMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. A secret cabinet document dated December 21, 1978, a copy of which I have here, in a reference to the National Plan of Action on the Status of Women refers to the need of counselling programs for hard-to-place clients such as women. It states, on page 57, "Staff training programs and counselling techniques should be developed for such women".
Considering that Women's Career Counselling Service here in Ottawa performs precisely this function now, and was informed just yesterday of a 45 per cent cut in its budget, and given the commitment made in this cabinet document, is the government prepared to practice what it preaches and completely restore this budget?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if I have my figures right, that particular project was sponsored to the extent of close to $280,000 for the past four or five years. The program was looked at very carefully, both in discussion with people in the program and the people that they assisted. We looked at it very carefully and determined that the cost for placement that they were involved in was very, very expensive-something like $324 per placement, as opposed to much lower figures for other placements. On that basis, it was determined that some of the functions they are performing are necessary and are being done in an efficient and effective way, so that program will continue, but with reduced financing.


John Edward Broadbent: The minister knows, as well, that this program in this city as well as in London, Toronto, Saskatoon and a number of other cities has either been cut back or eliminated. They were outperforming the department of manpower precisely because they were set up to do that. He is now cutting back.
I now would like to go to the minister responsible for the status of women, the Minister of Justice. Yesterday, the minister tabled in this House a National Plan of Action on the
March 8, 1979

Status of Women which recommends study in 21 areas, research in 15, examination in 10, reviews in 6, but action now in no areas at all.
Considering that his colleague, the Minister of Labour, has not replaced the head of the women's bureau in his own department-the vacancy has existed for two years-and considering the budget of the women's bureau has been cut from $200,000 to $29,000 will the minister, who is advocating all these studies and research programs for the future, commit himself to some action by urging his colleague to reappoint the head of the women's bureau and reinstate its budget?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Justice):: The hon. member is as wrong in the second part of his question as he was in the first part making allegations against the Department of Employment and Immigration. He has got his figures all wrong, and all I can advise him to do is go back and read the National Plan of Action and he will find out.
As far as the general and argumentative introduction to the hon. member's question is concerned, he is wrong-and that is nothing new for him.
As to the specific question he asked, I want to advise him that a number of the functions which had been assigned to the Department of Labour have been assumed by the Minister of Employment and Immigration. For instance, the whole area of contract compliance and the development of Affirmative Action programs has been taken over by the Department of Employment and Immigration. It is, therefore, understandable and normal that some of the functions which have been transferred should appear in the budget of the Department of Employment and Immigration. So I suggest the hon. member should get his facts straight with regard to all the questions he has raised. I believe he will then think twice.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I shall be rising at three o'clock on a question of privilege. The minister, without any validation, has said I was misinforming the House. I want him to document that accusation at three o'clock, or withdraw it.


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


John Edward Broadbent: The government admits in this cabinet document on the National Plan of Action on the Status of Women-on page 3-that it has been referring to women as secondary wage earners. Since 40 per cent of our labour force is female, and since this rate has changed by less than 1 per cent a year over the past decade-there has been no significant change, contrary to what the government likes to suggest-will the minister assure the House that this highly phoney and false description of women in the economy will not be used in government publications in the future?


Marc Lalonde: We have not been using the expression "secondary wage earner" in the National Plan of Action or in any of the statements made by ministers for a long while
Oral Questions
except when quoting some economists in certain circumstances. The government's policy has been stated and restated constantly over the last few years: that women are in the work force because they want to be there and because they need to be.
We welcome the increased participation of women in the work force. We believe women should have complete freedom of choice and opportunity in the field of work, whether they want to work at home or outside the home. All our policies are oriented in that direction. As to the statistics given by the hon. member about the participation rate, I fail to see how he can pretend there has been no increase in the participation rate of women over the last while.

[ Translation]


NATURAL GAS SURPLUSES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology.
The National Energy Board noted in its recent report that a possible surplus of 2,000 billion cubic feet of gas could be exported to the United States, adding in the same breath that there could be a gas shortage in Canada by 1992. Can the minister explain how he intends to approach and reconcile, during the talks on the issue of new gas export permits, the obvious contradiction in what the National Energy Board said, namely that Canada can export that surplus gas over the short term but that, over the long term, it will have to face a shortage of gas?
[DOT] (M30)


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, the National Energy Board made it quite clear that there has been a significant increase in our supplies, some 4.7 trillion cubic feet, and that the prospects for additional supplies are very good. There has been record activity and growth.
The board also indicated that it set aside substantial reserves for Canadians and particularly for eastern Canadians. In addition to that and in addition to a simple reserves test, the board introduced two additional tests to protect Canadians with respect to future gas supplies. Those two tests are based on deliverability of current reserves and of current reserves plus expected additions. Those two additional tests provide an additional measure of security for Canadians.
[ Translation]


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I feel there is an obvious contradiction here, for the minister surely knows that, if

March 8, 1979
Oral Questions
Canada now seems to have surplus gas, it is because the National Energy Board used another formula to arrive at those figures. Canada, to my mind, has no more surpluses today than it had before the report was published. The data were manipulated, that is all. How then can the minister consider selling a surplus, which in fact does not exist if one bears in mind the new formula for arriving at surplus figures, and the eventual shortage of gas?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member reads my answer to his first question, he will see that there has been a substantial increase in reserves since the last report of the National Energy Board. I indicated that the increase in the reserves is 4.7 trillion cubic feet. That is a very substantial additional volume of gas. I also indicated that the surplus as calculated by the National Energy Board-surplus to Canadian needs and therefore exportable-is based on a formula which provides for 2 trillion cubic feet. Those 2 trillion cubic feet are subject to the two additional tests introduced by the National Energy Board which I mentioned.


REQUEST PIPELINE BE EXTENDED FROM SARNIA TO EASTERN CANADA VIA MONTREAL
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, considering the minister's answer, can he tell us whether his department is taking steps to extend the Sarnia-Montreal gas pipeline from Montreal to eastern Canada?


Mr. Guay:: And to Levis.


Léonel Beaudoin: And to Levis, as the hon. n mber says. [English]


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated that the government welcomes the additional reserves and the exportable surplus. I have indicated that I felt that there should be a linkage between exports which might be authorized and the building and development of a pipeline which would serve Canadians east through Quebec and into the Atlantic regions of Canada. That exportable surplus could be linked in a way which would make an otherwise uneconomic line economic.


TOURISM
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in connection with the huge deficit in our current account and the international balance of payments of $5.29 billion in goods and services which is mostly accounted for by the services

trade deficit of over $8 billion. Of that amount, $1.72 billion was the net outflow of tourism in 1978.
I want to ask the minister to explain this. Why was that the result, when he stated in February of 1978 to the great Liberal policy-making convention that Canada would come, and I quote, "awfully close to balancing its tourism budget this year after two years' deficits". Was Statistics Canada's figure wrong? Was the minister wrong? What happened? Is $1.7 billion "awfully close" to balancing? It is the worst deficit we have ever had in tourism in our history.
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member would like at the same time to suggest that our deficit in tourism would go to $2 billion. Certainly, I was wrong in thinking that the great efforts this government made last year to convince Canadians to travel in Canada and to see Canada first would curtail a desire to travel outside Canada. I was wrong in believing that would happen.
The economy was so strong that the Canadian people felt a desire to spend money outside Canada and pay no heed to the reduced value of the Canadian dollar. That did not seem to deter Canadians at all. They travelled a great deal outside Canada and it was not the intention of the Canadian government to stop them. However, I felt I could encourage them to see Canada first, and I can say that a great many Canadians did travel extensively across Canada before they travelled outside Canada.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, what the minister is saying is that his jawboning was the jawboning of an ass.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: My supplementary is this: The U.S. travel service predicts that fewer Americans will visit Canada this year than last year, and they predict that spending in the U.S. by Canadian business will be up 9 per cent, to $2.5 billion this year. Is this the reason the minister stated on February 23 that he thinks it is sinful for Canadians to go south to ski in the winter, and that they should see Canada first? Has he pointed this out to the Prime Minister, who went to Colorado at Christmas and went there the year before?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: How about you?


John Carnell Crosbie: Is the Prime Minister now repenting his sin, and will the minister apologize for the Prime Minister?


Mr. Horner:: Mr. Speaker, in answering the hon. member's question, one could rightly say that I am jawboning with an ass.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: With regard to skiing and having to go south to ski in the winter, what is sinful about it is that we in Canada
March 8, 1979

have not developed enough ski resorts in Canada to accommodate all those people who want to ski.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Hon. members opposite can laugh, but I have not noticed them taking any side on the further development of ski resorts at Lake Louise. A long time ago I advocated more facilities at our national parks for Canadians to ski. That is a little bit risky politically, 1 suppose, so we have not heard from the hon. member who is supposed to be representing that area on that question in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Clark:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Statistics Canada recently announced that exports have increased by about 5.8 per cent on a seasonally adjusted basis and, most importantly, that there is a higher labour content in manufactured products. I wonder if the minister has had an opportunity to analyse how many new jobs this might represent and what percentage increase in plant capacity this will represent.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have not had time to analyse the number of jobs this situation has created, but in the month of January there was a trade surplus of $100 million more than January of last year.
I would like to report to the House that utilization of industrial capacity in Canada has increased in the last 12 months from 83 per cent to 89.2 per cent, well above the average of the last 15 years and even higher than utilization in the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL PARKS
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister responsible for national parks. Was the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce expressing government policy when he said it was his position and the position of the government that skiing facilities in Canada's national parks should be substantially expanded? Is that the
Oral Questions
position of the government, or is it the position of only one-fifth of the government as represented by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr Speaker, I am surprised at the question-


An hon. Member:: I'll bet you are.


James Hugh Faulkner: -because, as the hon. member should know, two weeks ago in Calgary I announced an expansion at Lake Louise, and that is precisely what my colleague was referring to.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Where were you, Joe?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will wait until hon. members opposite cahn down a little.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce indicated clearly that he has been making very strong representations regarding dramatic expansion, I presume beyond the present state. The Minister or Indian Affairs and Northern Development correctly referred to his announcement two weeks ago regarding Lake Louise. Is it the intention of the Government of Canada to expand significantly, beyond the present state, skiing facilities in national parks?
At the same time, the minister might also tell us whether it remains the position of the Government of Canada that the primary purpose of Canadian national parks is conservation, or whether the representations of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce have detracted from that purpose.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out a moment ago, there have been expansions proposed in Lake Louise and there have been expansions agreed to in Sunshine.
My view is that there should be a limit to the expansions, and that expansions should take place outside the parks. I think that is totally consistent with what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has said. He is saying there should be expansion in parks, it is allowed, but there should be development of skiing facilities outside the parks as well; and Kananaskis is a development, Golden is a development, and near Revelstoke there is a development. I think we can achieve the conservation objective and still have restraint with respect to the parks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 8, 1979
Oral Questions INDUSTRY


DEFICIT IN AUTOMOBILE TRADE WITH UNITED STATES- ACTION TO CORRECT
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Statistics Canada report an $89 million defict in the auto trade with the United States for the month of January. Noting that automotive parts appear to be a large portion of this deficit, and noting as well that there is a good deal of controversy surrounding the automotive figures published monthly by Statistics Canada, can the minister advise us whether his officials have checked into the authenticity and accuracy of this deficit and, if they have, what is he doing to bring it in balance, as he said he is going to do?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, I think the first thing I should point out in answer to the hon. member's question is that Statistics Canada in their release suggest quite clearly that it is a preliminary estimate, and so one should judge it as a preliminary estimate. It is as large as it is because automotive exports for the month of January amounted to $986 million. In January of 1977, automotive exports were $764 million. So we exported approximately $200 million in automobiles. Naturally, in order to manufacture these automobiles we had to import more parts and that is why the parts deficit appears to have increased in relation to our total exports.


William James Kempling: That is fine, Mr. Speaker; we know that there are many figures relating to imported parts which come in as imported parts for production and are exported but are not shown as exports, and that is what I am getting at.
Let me ask the minister the following question: Several recommendations have been made for a comprehensive annual report on the automotive industry by the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in the Reisman report and by numerous other organizations. Can the minister tell us what progress has been made in this area and what progress is being made to correlate the figures in that report with those in the U.S. report, so they will have relevance?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: This whole question has received a great deal of attention from the cabinet. We studied the Reisman report and early next week I intend to make a full statement on the government's reply to the Reisman report. I can assure the hon. member that the recommendation was in the Reisman report and I will be dealing with it extensively next week.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received a request from one of the national railway companies to have its
(Mr. Faulkner.]
express service operations exempted from the provisions of the Ontario motor vehicles' transport act and brought, instead, under part three of the National Transportation Act, such request presumably being prompted by concern over the validity of express operations with respect to provincial licensing requirements?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, that issue and that possibility has been raised with me and my officials have examined it. I do not know whether I could characterize the nature of the message to me as "resquest-ed"-I want to look back at the original letter-but certainly the issue and the problem that might be created by the particular position of the express operations of that railway company has been brought to my attention.


William Herbert Jarvis: The minister is aware of the serious implications of having express operations, on the one hand, possibly brought under federal jurisdiction whereas the great majority of trucking operations, on the other hand, are controlled by the provincial jurisdiction. Indeed, the attitude of provincial governments with respect to the use of part three of the federal act has heretofore, as 1 understand it, been directed toward the trucking industry. Can the minister indicate, at least, his attitude toward a situation where express operations of the national railway company might be exempted from provincial jurisdiction and brought under part three of the federal act?


Otto Emil Lang: I would like to make sure that I would not speculate on that happening. I would not put it beyond the range of possibility that such an exemption might be needed in one case or another within the whole range of the trucking industry. We found it necessary on one occasion in relation to buses, for instance, so it could happen in other cases. But certainly I would not speculate on the possibility or probability of it happening in any specific case in advance of having fully examined the implications.
I can assure the hon. member that from our consultations with the provinces they will know very well that we prefer to have the trucking regulations administered by provincial boards and under their rules and so have delegated the matter to them. Of course, we want to ensure uniformity and consistency and, therefore, the really free movement of goods across the country, so we pay close attention to the matter but, as the hon. member suggests, it would be by way of a very special exception if any action were taken.


THE SEAL HUNT
Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and it concerns the seal hunt off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador which is to begin later this week.
March 8, 1979

On Monday of this week, this House unanimously passed a resolution endorsing the seal hunt off the coast of Newfoundland. In view of the fact that the protest ship Sea Shepherd is at this very moment sailing toward the Front area carrying protesters with the expressed intention of disrupting and interfering with the seal hunt, in complete defiance of Canadian law, what steps is the minister prepared to take to prevent this ship from entering the hunt area?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check. The latest information I have is that the Sea Shepherd is moving in the Gulf, but I have to say to the hon. member that the right of innocent passage must be presumed until such time as violations occur. There are clear regulations for non-interference with the legitimate activities as approved by the House.
We have sufficient personnel in Fisheries and in our police forces to deal with violators if and when there are incidents. Frankly, I hope that those who are involved in these protest movements will act as responsibly as we ourselves are trying to act.


Alphonsus Faour: Mr. Speaker, the minister seems to forget the old adage that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. As the minister is aware, these protest groups have as their avowed intention the complete ending of the hunt off Newfoundland, which would have a disastrous result for Newfoundland both economically and environmentally, yet the minister refuses at this stage to bring in any measures to prevent such a disruption.
My supplementary question is whether he will consider asking the Department of National Defence to provide a destroyer escort, or perhaps a coastguard escort, to ensure that these protesters do not disrupt the hunt this year.


Roméo LeBlanc: There are already coastguard vessels in the area. I have searched the Fisheries Act very carefully and found that there is no way the act would give me the power to stop a vessel from sailing on the Gulf of St. Lawrence or in other areas in the 200-mile zone. What the personnel on that vessel do, and how they act, falls under the regulations and I would certainly not hesitate to pursue them if and when they do violate the rules which have been clearly spelled out.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. B. Keith Penner (Thunder Bay):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


B. Keith Penner: I would like to ask the minister whether he has any reasons for reconsidering the ban which has been recommended against those batteries which are used to power emergency locator transmitters-ELTs. These lithium sulphur-dioxide batteries are considered by many to be an important factor in finding "downed" aircraft and we in northern Ontario are very concerned about this problem. Would the minister tell us whether these batteries are going to be reinstated?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are making progress with alternative batteries, but it certainly is not our intention to allow lithium-powered batteries to be replaced in aircraft. Indeed, I should tell the hon. member-and I am sure the hon. member for St. John's West will want to apologize to me for all the things he has said about this issue-that the United States administration has just ordered the removal of the lithium batteries from private aircraft in the United States, reporting that they have now reports of 500 incidents of explosions or other events having happened with them and, therefore, as a safety measure they must immediately be taken out.
They hope that within the next six months they can follow us in finding alternatives. I would like, therefore, to point out to the hon. member, particularly the hon. member for St. John's West, that once again we were about a year and a half ahead and he was a light age behind.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


CBC-TV ITEM ON MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT CROSSING THE FLOOR
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Secretary of State, who reports to this chamber on matters connected with the CBC.
Yesterday there was a most interesting, revealing and historic occasion when an hon. member walked across the floor of the House but did not appear on CBC last evening. It was explained by Mike Duffy, a most reputable announcer at all times-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: That was not an advertisement for Mike Duffy, but it is certainly appreciated nonetheless.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: He said, and hon. members had better wait for a moment to hear what he did say, "We're not able to show you everything that happened because the House of Commons ... staff... was instructed not to show Stewart's dramatic walk or cheering opposition MPs".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 8, 1979
Oral Questions


John George Diefenbaker: You can laugh, but I ask the hon. gentleman this: Were the CBC afraid that the finer pre-election susceptibilities of Liberals would be exacerbated if this were shown? Who gave this instruction?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House should know, of course, that the capacity of the CBC to carry film is only as limited as the film that is taken in the House. These cameras are under my direction, and instructions for the operations of the cameras were issued by me and remain the same instructions that were taken from the special committee which was struck to establish the policy in respect of these cameras, on which committee, of course, all parties were represented.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not question Your Honour, because I cannot, but there should be no selectivity on the part of anyone to determine what the Canadian people should see.


ANNUAL DEFICIT IN FULLY MANUFACTURED PRODUCTS
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Would the minister advise the House what steps he intends to take to deal with a very serious situation which was outlined in the February edition of the government's publication "Forging the Links", which stated:
The Canadian economy is faced with a serious crisis which is manifest in high unemployment, persistent trade imbalances, and a falling currency. These immediate problems reflect a deeper crisis in the structure of Canadian industry, and in particular, manufacturing, which precedes the recent recession in the western economies.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, that publication was brought to my attention. I did not read it in detail. I did note the paragraph the hon. member has read to the House. In my perusal of the book, I noted that it was dealing with 1975 and perhaps 1976 figures.
If one made a careful analysis of the economy as was set out in a paper prepared by, for example, the Royal Bank, if one wanted a neutral opinion, away from politics, and using the figures for 1975 as a base for our productivity being 100, that graph suggests that our productivity now, based on 1975 figures being equal to 100, has gone up to 120. One can take from that that we have made substantial improvements in our productivity in manufacturing since 1975, to 1978 and into 1979. If one reads that book and understands that it is based on 1975 and 1976 statistics, one will realize that it is hardly a gauge worthy of mentioning in comparison to 1978 and 1979 figures.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, if everything today is going along as well as the minister would like us to believe, would he explain to the House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: You had better wait for it, boys.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Would this minister explain to the House why it is that this country is suffering from an annual trade deficit of more than $ 12 billion in fully manufactured products, the area that produces jobs, and why this deficit is increasing steadily at a rate in excess of 10 per cent each year? In view of this, would the minister please get down to the facts and answer my question, and stop handing me so much of that commodity which is a by-product of his cattle ranch?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is pretty good at handling that by-product of a cattle ranch, and if he is ever looking for a job I am sure one of my sons would be able to hire him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say, with regard to the question of manufacturing in Canada, looking at total manufacturing, and the hon. member likes to refer to end products-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: You have to be pretty good with a fork, I guess. I really think that in order to assess Canada's ability to meet competition in the world one has to include as manufactured products steel, cement, lumber and paper. It is pretty difficult for a Canadian outfit to print the New York Times here in Canada. That would be an end product. We can send them the paper, which is a manufactured product.
If one takes a look at total manufactured goods, he will see that our deficit last year was $2.1 billion in total manufactured goods and a substantial lessening of that deficit occurred last year. It will continue to lessen in the years ahead. When I look at the utilization capacity of manufacturing today in Canada, I see it has gone from about 81 per cent to 97 per cent. In fact, in the steel industry it is up as high as 94.7 per cent of utilization-nearly maximum capacity, really-in the steel industry.


George Harris Hees: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Dauphin.


George Harris Hees: I've got a dandy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, please, please!
March 8, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. As the new chairman of the National Commission on Inflation will be Mr. Renouf, who will be bringing with him many members of the disbanded Anti-Inflation Board, is the Prime Minister preparing for the reimposition of wage and price controls, particularly in view of the fact that he suggested last night the economy was zig-zagging?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: No, Mr. Speaker.


REPORTS SUBMITTED BY NATIONAL COMMISSION ON INFLATION
William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I would direct this question to the Minister of Finance. Will the new NCI be making its reports directly to the government, or to the public, as the now defunct CSIP did so the government could be aware of what its reports contained before communication to the public?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, according to the terms of reference of the commission, it is their decision and they may make the report public if they so desire.


LOTO CANADA
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). I am sure that the minister regretted not being able to table the report yesterday and having to renege on the promise which she made some time ago.
Would she now explain to the House whether or not Loto Canada has instituted a new policy which is a departure from the policy of the government? Why did Loto Canada require some 50 people who lost their jobs to sign a note of secrecy, and a non-disclosure agreement before they could pick up one cent of their termination pay?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, so far as I have learned from the people in charge of personnel policy at Loto Canada, this
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
approach was undertaken because of the technological adjunct of the equipment that was to be used by them in their jobs.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) gave me an indication during the question period that he would rise at three o'clock, and I see that he is rising now. The hon. member indicated that he would be raising a question of privilege because the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lalonde) had said that he had misled the House. According to my recollection-and I have no notes to which I can refer- the minister, in answering the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby, said that the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby was wrong and that he should get his facts straight, or something to that effect.
I would indicate that a member is not entitled to enter into a dispute of this kind in this chamber. The minister did not say that the hon. member was misleading the House, nor that the hon. member had uttered a falsehood or anything of that nature which could lead us into some difficulty.
It seems to me that what has been said would provoke a debate between the two ministers. If the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby intends to develop a question of privilege, I would hope that it will be something more than simply challenging the minister about whether or not the hon. member was in error. Perhaps the hon. member will want to restudy his facts and check the record before carrying the matter further.
I will now hear the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I do not need to check the record, but I will certainly respect your ruling. I would, very briefly, like to make my case.
I am sure that all members on this side have had encounters with the minister in which he has responded to questions in a way that the hon. member asking the question has no opportunity to reply. The minister leaves a clear impression that one is lying and that one is misleading the House by saying that the information which the hon. member has given in a question is false or wrong. Is the minister saying unequivocally that I am misleading the House, or would he, in support of his accusation, document very briefly his own case?
Politics ought to be about the application of certain principles. There should not be disagreement about the honesty of members in certain situations. If there is one member who is implying that the integrity of another member is not to be accepted, I think that that member should prove his case, and if he is wrong then he should be big enough to withdraw. If it is pointed out that I am incorrect, I will unequivocally admit that the minister is right, if he makes his case.
I was referring to three sets of figures. I used one set of figures in a question to the Minister of Employment and
800S0-36

March 8, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
Immigration (Mr. Cullen) in which I said that the budget for Women's Career Counselling Service in Ottawa had to be reduced by 45 per cent. That is a straightforward claim, and it is my understanding that that is the case. If that is not so, however, I would like the minister to say that that is not so.
The other figures to which I referred were taken from the minister's own document which he tabled in the House yesterday. It is the document which pertains to the National Plan of Action on the Status of Women. I said that there were 21 areas which were referred to for study, 15 for research, ten for examination and six for review. There were no figures for action. I would like to know if they are false figures.
Finally, the third set of figures which I used pertain to the women's bureau in the Department of Labour. I said that the budget had been reduced from $200,000 two years ago to $29,000. If the minister wants to quibble I can be more precise and say that the figure is $29,250. That is the other figure to which I referred.
I would like the minister to point out which of those figures is inaccurate, because I conscientiously used those figures. They were doublechecked and they were used in good faith, and I think they stand up. I would like to hear from the minister.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be as brief as the hon. member. I stated that he was wrong on several counts. I can think of one in particular, which he did not repeat in his question of privilege, when he said that placement in the voluntary sector was being conducted at a cheaper cost than in the public sector by the Employment and Immigration Commission. For the record, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the specific case which he has brought before the House has an average placement cost of $324, that the average cost for placement per Outreach program is $112, and that unemployment and immigration placement costs $50. So the statement of the hon. member is completely wrong, completely erroneous. Whether or not he misled the House is a matter I will leave to him to decide. I say that he was wrong, and the facts that I have indicate that.
The hon. member then said that in the National Plan of Action there is no action now. I would like to point out to him for the record that the three changes which the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) announced would take place are already in motion under this plan. With regard to unemployment insurance, supplementary unemployment benefit plans are extended to include plans covering unemployment costs as a result of maternity, paid maternity leave during the two-week waiting period would not affect UI benefits, payment of maternity benefits will be made outside Canada. We are working out the details of implementing this program.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, there is now before the House on the order paper a notice to introduce a bill amending the Criminal Code with regard to sexual offences. I have already indicated to the House the substance and the nature of those

changes which are being proposed. We are ready to move in these areas.
I could cite a number of other examples. We have announced that there will be a greater trades training program for women in non-traditional occupations right away. There will be greater accessibility to language training for immigrant women right away. There will be a greater amount of money allocated for research and information with regard to health and environmental issues particularly dealing with women. There will be priorities in these sectors. There will be a redirection of grants to labour organizations that will take place right away so as to encourage the support of women in the labour movement.
In terms of action which is presently taking place, I could go on. We are not talking about studies, reviews or anything of that nature, although, contrary to what the hon. member said, I do believe that a lot of issues need to be studied and examined. We do not necessarily have to decide policy by the seat of our pants, as the honourable member often does.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think that we are back where we started. I do not believe that the hon. minister accused the hon. member of misleading the House or that he used unparliamentary terminology in his answers.
The minister has now defended his position, as the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby had defended his position, and I am sure that both members will recognize that they are locked in disagreement, which is quite legitimate in the circumstances. However, it does not extend into procedural grounds.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the government House leader the government business which he contemplates to be called today, tomorrow and perhaps into next week. While he is doing so, would he indicate whether or not next Wednesday will be designated as an allotted day in accordance with our discussion?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, the order of business for today, as we have already discussed, is, firstly, the bill dealing with the independence of parliament, followed by the Northwest Territories bill, followed by the government organization bill and the shipping conference exemptions and dangerous goods and non-profit corporations. That would be the order in which we would call items today if we make very rapid progress.
Tomorrow it is my intention to call the housing bill subject to the conclusions and understandings that are already being worked on among the parties. If the energy supply bill comes out of committee before the end of the week, it would be my intention to call that bill on Monday; and probably after that,
March 8, 1979

if the referendum bill comes out I will call that, followed by the excise and the income tax bills.
Of course, 1 readily agree to designating next Wednesday as an allotted day.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to hear about the income tax bill and the excise tax bill because there has been some concern expressed in the communities generally about the fact that these bills have not been brought forward and about what the effect of not bringing them forward might be.
I wonder if the government House leader could enlighten me with respect to the commodity tax review. I have asked him whether he would refer it to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. We have indicated, and 1 will indicate again, that we are prepared to have that reference go without debate. It becomes particularly important in view of the fact that the government's answers to the paper that he and I discussed some time ago seemed to imply that it had already been referred to the committee. We are anxious to have it referred and I presume the committee is also anxious. If that could be done I would be very grateful.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will seem as though I am playing a record I have played many times, but that does not bother me; I should like to get action. Now that the government House leader is placing before us not just three or four items, as though time was ending, but is placing before us quite a few things, as though we have a few months to go yet, why is it not possible for him and the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) to get together and put at least one piece of legislation regarding veterans affairs on the order paper?
While I am on my feet, may I ask the government House leader a question with respect to one other issue. There have been a number of discussions about legislation respecting economic boycotts. I believe there was some discussion at one time that we would deal with the matter quickly. In this party we indicated our readiness to do so. Is there any prospect of that legislation being placed before us at an early date? Could I have an answer to those two questions.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, on February 6 this House unanimously passed concurrence in the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. This contained a recommendation that the House expand the terms of reference of that committee in order to reconstitute the subcommittee on penitentiaries. For three weeks I have been asking the government House leader whether he has consulted with his colleague the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais) to bring that resolution before the House in order to expand those terms of reference to reconstitute the subcommittee on penitentiaries and enable it to get to work, and perhaps defuse the increasingly tense situation in the penitentiaries system in the country.
Business of the House


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition concerning the business of the House, I would like to know whether the government House leader is in a position to tell the House whether the committee to which Bill C-12 was referred is proceeding normally with the study of that bill and whether the House will soon receive its report which deals with retirement funds, the armed forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the public service. If the bill comes back from committee during the week, does the government intend to call it before the House at the report stage, and then for third reading, of course?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) will have noticed that I have placed a motion on the order paper providing for the commodity tax to be reviewed by the standing committee. It is my intention to call that matter as soon as there is some indication that the committee will be ready to deal with it. 1 should like to reserve that decision a little bit longer. I understand that the standing committee is still dealing with the Bank Act and that it has the estimates before it, so this might not be the most opportune or timely moment to get an additional reference. It is my intention, as is indicated on the order paper, to have that reference go to the committee.
I take note of the representations of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on the question of veterans. Certainly it will be the intention of the government to continue to assist the veterans in the way it has asked parliament to do in the past.
The hon. member asked about the international economic boycott bill. I did say that I would be prepared to bring that bill in if we could secure agreement to deal with it in all its stages in one day. I am glad to receive the reaction of the hon. member and will await reactions from other parties in the House.
The hon. member has asked about Bill C-12. As I understand it, the standing committee is still hearing witnesses on that particular bill. When the bill comes before committee we will try to deal with it as quickly as possible because it is quite an important bill that we would like to get passed in all its stages.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) spoke about the motions that came out of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which really asked the House, or the government, to consider the advisability of amplifying and enlarging its said reference. I am in somewhat of a difficulty as to how to discharge the concurrence of the House asking the House to consider the advisability of amplifying and enlarging the said reference.
Quite apart from that particular difficulty, it is my intention to try to get an enlarged reference to that committee. I have not moved on it because each time the hon. member has raised the question the Solicitor General has not been in the House. I

March 8, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
should like to have him here to register either his assent or disapproval in regard to making that reference.


PRIVILEGE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on what I think is perhaps one of the most basic questions of privilege that could ever be raised in this House. It is based on the fact that this institution is being used to create a false impression through the government's continued refusal or hesitation to make a reference to the appropriate committee of this House of the commodity tax review matter.
The reason I rise now is that, as I understand the government House leader's comments, he is now saying that while it is his intention to make a reference to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs with respect to this matter, he intends to delay it until the committee indicates that it is, in effect, ready for that reference.
The reason I rise on this question of privilege is that I feel there was a very important representation made in February to this House by the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers (Mr. Andras) when he gave 46 responses to the recommendations put forth by the so-called second tier committee dealing with task force reviews of various sectors of our industry.
Recommendation No. 6 of the second tier report dealt specifically with the federal sales tax matter. I should like to read verbatim the response of the government, which was as follows:
The Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs has already received a large number of submissions on the report of the Commodity Tax Review Group. It is expected that the committee, after it has finished its review, will make recommendations on the structure of Canada's commodity tax system.
The important fact is that that committee has no reference. The commodity tax review group study is not before us. For months as members of that committee and in this House we have asked that the reference be made. I think it is important that the members of this House recognize that the government has represented to the outside world that a committee of this House is actively reviewing that study and will be, to use their words, making "recommendations on the structure of Canada's commodity tax system." It is doubly important when we bear in mind that we have just experienced the largest current account deficit in our history of $5.2 billion-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would like to rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was never sure that the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) had a procedural matter before us. He had an answer today given through his

House leader from the government House leader as to his intentions in this respect. He may not like the answer but I would have great difficulty in translating that into a question of privilege. In any case, the hon. member has now departed from the question of privilege aspect and is beginning to debate the merits of the need for this reference, which would be quite improper.
He has made his point. I do not know whether the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) wants to answer the suggestion that has been made up to this point, but it seems to me that some answer was made as to the intentions of considering that matter and making the reference. I did not understand that it would necessarily come after the committee had completed its work. There was some reference to the fact that the committee is now busy with two other matters. In any event, while that may not be the answer which the hon. member for York-Simcoe wants, it is very difficult for me to translate that into a question of privilege.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the reason that I referred to the import question is that this aspect has been raised in some 60 odd submissions when the commodity tax review group was inviting submissions. It has been raised as one of the fundamental aspects of our commodity tax that imports are being favoured at the cost of Canadian jobs. The point I am trying to make in my basic question of privilege-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue?


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member for York-Simcoe is to continue, he will have to establish some procedural ground. He is continuing to argue that there is some real importance why the committee ought to consider this matter. That may very well be, but it has nothing to do with procedure and nothing to do with privilege. I have to be persuaded that the hon. member has some procedural grounds for the point he is trying to make. Up to this point I have not heard any.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my procedural ground is the simple fact that the government, in February, represented in their action for the industrial growth continuing dialogue brochure as follows:
It is expected that the committee, after it has finished its review, will make recommendations on the structure of Canada's commodity tax system.
The committee referred to is the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
My question of privilege is simply based on the fact that there is no reference. There is no review going on in a committee of this House. It is totally wrong that the government should be permitted to create that impression, as they have done in this document. It is not enough for the House leader to stand up and say that they are still thinking about making the reference. The fact that he says that confirms it. He knows there is no reference, and yet they have held out to the world that the committee is actively reviewing this matter.
March 8, 1979

I do not feel that we in this House should tolerate that type of misrepresentation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made three speeches but has not established any basis for a question of privilege. There is no basis in this House for a member to get up on a question of privilege and complain that he has not got a reference to a committee. If that is permitted, any hon member can get up and complain that his particular pet reference has not gone to committee. The plain fact of the matter is that the committee itself has not asked for a reference from the House of Commons.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: We cannot.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The standing committee is empowered to report to the House, if it wishes, and ask for a reference.
Some hon. Membtrs: Oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The standing committee has not asked for a reference. I understand the steering committee has not agreed to ask for a reference.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Because your members say no.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member says that the majority say no. He might understand that under the British North America Act the House of Commons and its committees operate on a majority. Perhaps it is an unpalatable fact for hon. members opposite to have to live under that provision of the British North America Act.
We had a debate with the hon. member for Grenville-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker) as to the meaning of the report. The hon. member is either very thick in the head or he is perverse when he attempts to argue that those particular references say that the standing committee has a reference. All the words say is that the committee has received submissions-


An hon. Member:: A con job.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and when it finishes its review-


An hon. Member:: It doesn't have any review.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member ought to enlarge his mind a bit and understand that when the committee gets a reference it will commence a review, and upon completion of that review it will make recommendations. That is all the report says. The hon. member seems incapable of enlarging his mind to understand ordinary, plain words, and is attempting through bogus questions of privilege to delay the work of the House and to create false indignation about a case which is really quite plain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I indicated at the outset, the matter remains a disagreement. I hope the hon. member is not suggesting that if at any time in March it appears a February
Publicity Arrangements
commitment has not been fulfilled, it will give rise to a question of privilege because I think we would be swamped with questions of that nature. We ought to refrain and stay on the rather strong procedural grounds on which a question of privilege now rests.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that I have received the following communication:
Government House Ottawa
March 8, 1979 Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Louis-Philippe Pigeon, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 8th day of March, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to table under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) copies in both official languages of correspondence between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Premier of Prince Edward Island concerning publicity arrangements between the Government of Canada and the province of Prince Edward Island.

March 8, 1979
Order Paper Questions SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBER ACT


MEASURE TO REGULATE USE OF SOCIAL INSURANCE NUMBERS
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: for leave to introduce Bill C-464, respecting the use of social insurance numbers.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, two days ago the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) challenged me to set forth my views on what restrictions should be put on the use of social insurance numbers. Naturally I accept that challenge with great pleasure.
The purpose of this bill is to ensure that the use of social insurance numbers will not be expanded out of the original area for which they were brought in without first having prior consultation and full discussion in parliament on the subject, so that Canadians can have full participation and parliament can deal with this most important abuse in terms of individual privacy and human rights.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions.
March 6, 1979-The Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council:
That the Report of the Commodity Tax Review Group and any evidence adduced thereon in the Third Session of the Thirtieth Parliament be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
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 at the next sitting of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 405, 790, 1,033 and 1,198.

[ Text]


Mr. Roy (Laval): During the past ten years, did CMHC participate in the Assisted Home Ownership Programme and, if so, in how many cases and for what amount and, in each case, what was the (a) number (b) amount (c) interest rate of the subsidies granted?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised as follows by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
(a) and (b) See list below.
(c) 1970-Initial assistance for home ownership began under section 58 of the National Housing Act, progressively extending the term for home ownership loans from 25 to 40 years, and progressively reducing the interest rate from 9'/2 per cent to 77/s per cent, to bring home ownership within the financial capabilities of families in the $4,000 to $7,000 income ranges.
1973-With the introduction of section 34.15 to the NHA assistance was provided in accordance with a graduated scale of adjusted family incomes, beginning with interest rate adjustments down to 8 per cent, followed by a maximum grant of $300 per annum. This grant was increased to $600 in June 1974, and to $1,200 in August 1975.
1976-The grant was replaced by an interest reduction loan, which was interest free for five years, the principal amount being progressively reduced by one-fifth each year, with repayment to begin after five years. Direct subsidies continued to be available to families with children, up to $750 during the first year, to help reduce monthly payments to 25 per cent of income.
1978-A payment reduction loan secured by an interestbearing second mortgage, was provided, the first mortgage being obtained from an approved lender and the second mortgage from CMHC.
NHA Loans Approved for Assisted Home-Ownership*1)
City of Laval, P.Q., 1968-1977*2)
Approved Lenders	CMHC
Year	Loans	Section 6 Units	$000	Section 58 Loans Units		$000	Section 34.15 Loans Units $000		
1968									
1969									
1970	-	-	-	8,807	9,775	129,863	-	-	-1971	-	-	-	7,382	7,538	99,545	-	-	-1972	-	-	-	4,828	4,893	69,743	-	-	-1973	-	-	-	-58D)	35	179	6,854	6,854	133,0431974	-	-	-	-153	-153	-807U) 17,980	17,985	428,8721975	12,321	12,322	417,090	-1	-1	-22<3)	16,276	16,279	458,8151976	38,109	38,142 1,321,873	-	-	-	2,464	2,464	77,8071977	31,059	31,081	1,136,536	-	-	-	1,010	1,010	32,761
H) New and existing housing.
*2) Data for 1968-75 are net; data for 1976-77 are gross.
D) Cancellation of loans initially approved in an earlier year.
March 8, 1979


Mr. Howie: For the fiscal year ended March 31, 1978, did the Department of Public Works hire outside consultants and, if so, how many and what was the total amount paid for their services?


André Ouellet: Public Works Canada hired 735 outside consultants during the fiscal year 1977-78, expenditures totalling $34,895,000.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How many beds were guaranteed to veterans under the agreement covering the transfer of Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto to the provincial government?
2.	How many beds were occupied at Sunnybrook by veterans on (a) January 1, 1977 (b) July 1, 1977 (c) January 1, 1978 (d) July 1, 1978 (e) October 1, 1978 and, how many were for (i) extended (ii) intermediate (iii) acute care?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1.	The Sunnybrook Hospital Transfer Agreement provided 1,200 beds for priority use by veterans, including 630 beds for acute care, and 570 beds for extended and intermediate care.
2.	Beds occupied at Sunnybrook Medical Centre on the dates indicated are as follows:
Acute	Extended	Intermediate(a)	Jan. 1, 1977	10	374	148(b)	July 1, 1977	6	379	153(c)	Jan. I, 1978	10	374	144(d)	July I, 1978	5	383	144(e)	Oct. 1, 1978	9	373	145


Mr. Epp: 1.	Did the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations open an office in Winnipeg on behalf of the government and, if so (a) in what location (b) what is the telephone number (c) for what purpose?
2.	What is the expected expenditure for 1979-80?
3.	What are the authorized man-years for the office?
4.	How often does the Minister attend the Winnipeg office?


Hon. John M. Reid (Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations):: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Not applicable.


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


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?
Some bon. Members: Agreed.
Independence of Parliament



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-6, respecting the independence of Parliament and conflicts of interest of Senators and Members of the House of Commons and to amend certain other acts in relation thereto or in consequence thereof be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this bill represents extensive consultation with parliamentarians extending back more than five years. In July, 1973 I tabled a green paper entitled "Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest". The proposals in that document received study by a committee of the House which reported in July of 1975, and by a committee of the Senate which reported in June of 1976.
The recommendations in those committee reports were given close consideration within the government, and in June of last year I introduced a bill entitled the Independence of Parliament Act and tabled a document setting out related proposals for changes to the rules of the Senate and the Standing Orders of the House. A bill incorporating some minor amendments has been reintroduced as Bill C-6, and the proposed Standing Orders have been again tabled without change. All members have now had the opportunity to review this bill and the proposed Standing Orders. I expect that hon. members would wish to give the bill second reading so that it would receive detailed consideration in the standing committee.
The principles underlying the proposed policy are straightforward, and the committees of both the House and the other place were in broad agreement with them. They are indeed the same principles that underscore statutes relating to standards of conduct of parliamentarians that date back to before confederation. As the title of the bill indicates, the main objective is to ensure that the independence of parliamentarians in the performance of their public duties is not affected by their private financial or professional interests. Members and senators are trustees of public confidence who must perform, and appear to perform, their duties in a manner reflecting the highest degree of concern for the public interest.
Both the public and parliamentarians, therefore, have an interest in a set of well defined standards. For the public, the conflict of interest rules will provide a clear assurance that the highest standards do prevail. For parliamentarians, the rules will make it easier to ensure that their activities conform to the ethical principles that the public has a right to demand.
Obviously setting clear standards is a complicated task. The rules must deal carefully and precisely with complex situations. There must be a fair balance between the requirements of sound conflict of interest provisions and the right of parliamentarians to manage their private affairs in ways that involve no threat to the public interest. The rules must be

March 8, 1979
Independence of Parliament
strong enough to merit public confidence without being so rigid and restrictive as to be unfair or to deter capable individuals from seeking public office.
It is also important to develop rules that do not unduly disadvantage any particular group. Members have very diverse professional backgrounds and financial interests; what would be an innocuous rule for one member could have very serious implications for another.
The proposed policy meets these challenges by combining the two basic approaches to dealing with potential conflicts of interest-disclosure and avoidance-and by providing the mechanisms through which parliamentarians can seek authoritative advice on the application of the policy. Much has been said about the respective merits of disclosure and avoidance. Each mechanism is apt in different circumstances and in meeting different needs.
Public disclosure of financial interests is a method of allowing members to continue managing their financial interests while at the same time making abuse of office less likely by allowing the public to judge their conduct in full knowledge of the facts. To put it another way, by allowing the public to know the facts the member is assured that what he does is subject to public scrutiny. Avoidance provisions are designed to prohibit parliamentarians from holding offices and managing financial assets which involve a conflict of interest or appear to create such a clear conflict.
Throughout the consultations and preparation of the policy, there has always been agreement that we should include both disclosure provisions and avoidance provisions. The strength of the policy lies in the way the two elements have been combined.
The bill requires parliamentarians to make very broad public disclosure of their assets, interests and activities. They will also have to make certain disclosures concerning interests of their spouses. Disclosure will be made annually through a registrar who will be an official of the House of Commons. It will include such major items as certain government contracts and grants; outside employment; gifts received by the parliamentarian or his or her spouse of a value greater than S100; honoraria; sponsored travel of the parliamentarian or his or her spouse outside Canada; real property of the parliamentarian or his or her spouse; shares and bonds of the parliamentarian or his or her spouse; unsecured debts over $5,000; trusts; and other sources of income worth more than $1,000. These are very significant disclosure requirements for members and also for the spouses.
The partial applicability to spouses reflects the need for another balance between conflicting objectives. On the one hand, there is the important principle that parliamentarians should not circumvent the rules through the activity of spouses. On the other hand, it is important not to restrict the ability of spouses to pursue independent careers. The bill resolves this quandary by requiring certain disclosures by spouses while exempting them from avoidance prohibitions. It is made clear, however, that parliamentarians may not escape

the avoidance provisions by asking their spouses to undertake prohibited activities on their behalf.
Another important feature of the disclosure provisions is that members and senators will be required to disclose any personal pecuniary interest they have in a matter when they are communicating with government bodies, public servants or other parliamentarians. This is to ensure that potential for a conflict of interest will be easily recognized by persons who may be in a position to make decisions affecting the interests of a parliamentarian.
The disclosure provisions simply require that a parliamentarian make public certain interests and activities. The avoidance provisions are more restrictive because they prohibit activities that either involve direct conflicts of interest or appear to involve conflicts. The prohibitions can be grouped under three main headings: prohibited fees; prohibited contracts and licences; and prohibited offices.
In the case of fees, parliamentarians will be prohibited from accepting compensation of any sort for interceding with other parliamentarians, public servants or government tribunals. They will also be prohibited from representing before these individuals and tribunals firms of which they are a director or officer. Finally, they will not be allowed to accept compensation for representing clients in court cases where the Crown in right of Canada is a party.
One of the most prominent areas for potential conflicts of interest is that of participation by parliamentarians in government contracts. The bill prohibits members and senators from being officers, directors, legal counsel, financial auditors or consultants for corporations that contract with or receive licences from the government. It also prohibits parliamentarians from holding significant share interests in such corporations.
The prohibitions should not restrict activity where there is little threat of a conflict between a parliamentarian's public duties and his or her private interests. For that reason, the bill contains a number of exemptions to the prohibition against participation in government contracts. 1 believe these exemptions will make good sense to both members and the public.
Parliamentarians will be permitted:
1.	To purchase government bonds or property, and to acquire permits where the terms are standard for all citizens;
2.	To hold publicly traded shares of corporations where he or she owns less than 5 per cent of $15,000 worth of voting shares;
3.	To participate in contracts authorized by the Government of Canada or parliament;
4.	To participate in government contracts where the aggregate amount is less than $1,000 in a given year.
Members will also be allowed to place their assets in trust if they do not wish to dispose of assets which might put them in
March 8, 1979

violation of the provisions of the act relating to prohibited contracts and regulated activities.
Thus, there will be a balance struck in the area of government contracts and licences. Contracts and interests will not be allowed where there is a recognizable potential for a conflict of interest, but they will be allowed where the potential for conflict is small. In the ordinary course of life members of parliament, like other citizens, will find it necessary to enter into contracts with the Government of Canada in ways which are not exactly obvious until one examines the question of government contracts more deeply.
The distinctions in the area of incompatible offices have been easier to draw. The bill states that parliamentarians will not be permitted to hold foreign, provincial or municipal offices, with few exceptions, or remunerated federal offices.
I need not describe in detail the administrative aspects of the bill. The basic approach is to place responsibility for the administration of the act in the Senate and the House of Commons. That responsibility will be exercised through standing committees of the Senate and the House and their registrars. Of course, the bill empowers only the courts to impose financial penalties for violations of the statute. The fact that a standing committee, for example, of this House can be established and will be involved in exercising the responsibility of carrying out the rules is not only an assurance that the standards will be maintained but also a protection to hon. members that, once having received the blessing or approval of certain activities or certain difficult borderline cases which might be dealt with by the committee, they need have no fear of legitimate public criticism of their activities.
It is my view, therefore, that although the introduction of a conflict of interest regime for members of parliament may appear demanding-and it is demanding-it is also a very desirable protection for them against unwarranted and unjustified criticism which may arise from time to time about their activities. They will, in a sense, be able to fall back on the prestige and authority of a standing committee of the House which will have the responsibility for the administration of the act.
As I said before, the conflict of interest policy proposed in this bill is a demanding one. However, it cannot and does not purport to deal with all ethical aspects of a parliamentarian's responsibility. To do this would lead to a code so detailed and complex that it would be unworkable and probably would obscure the main purpose of the policy. Certain principles cannot be codified into rules. Others need hardly be stated, such as a member's responsibility for the conduct of his staff and for the proper administration of the financial and other resources made available to him.
I would say that when hon. members begin to examine in detail the provisions of the bill they can undoubtedly point to various theoretical cases which could arise, and often it is difficult to devise precise guidelines for every foreseeable case. If we attempted to do so I think our task would be difficult indeed. But I think it is important that we have clear rules in
Independence of Parliament
order to maintain public confidence and for the protection of members from unfair criticism.
When discussing the question of conflict of interest, I have always said that while the rules, the legislation, the standards and the codes may be important, the fundamentally important matter is the moral commitment of members of the House of Commons.
It is my conclusion that the moral commitment of members of the House of Commons, by and large, is very high indeed and that in the pursuit of their activities they have been generally scrupulous in avoiding conflicts of interest; but while that may be the case, there will now be a code in operation which will make their obligations even clearer than they have been in the past. That is in a sense a benefit to members of parliament.
I believe we would all agree that the public has a right to expect the highest ethical standards of its representatives in parliament, and therefore we have a duty as members to leave the least possible doubt in that area. I believe this particular bill is a considerable attempt both to provide necessary guidelines for members of parliament and to provide them with protection against unjustified criticism. It will also be a considerable step in providing additional assurance to the public that members of parliament are conducting their affairs or their business with the public interest in mind and that their personal, professional and financial interests are not standing in the way of the carrying out of their public duties. That really is the purpose of this legislation.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my colleague the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mac-Eachen), particularly to the last part of his speech when he went beyond the details or the framework of the bill and talked about the spirit of this legislation, and I want to assure him that that approach is also ours with respect to this legislation. That is why I think we all welcome the opportunity, after some period of time, to debate this legislation.
If we recall the time, the gestation period for this legislation is something like the gestation period leading to the birth of an elephant. It has been an extremely long period of time, especially when there has been such wide agreement on the necessity for legislation of this kind.
The green paper was tabled in July of 1973, almost six years ago. It was studied extensively by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections and a substantial report was made on June 10, 1975. The proposals were also examined in the Senate in July of 1975 and, a year later, in July of 1976. Last June 26, as the minister has said, Bill C-62 was introduced, far too late to be passed in that session but perhaps not too late to be brought out if there was an election as evidence of the good intentions of the government.
Now we have Bill C-6, one of the first bills to be introduced in this session of parliament. I realize that time is always a

March 8, 1979
Independence of Parliament
consideration, and in the normal event this will likely be one of the last bills to be brought forward in this parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Purely coincidental.


Walter David Baker: I think we are entitled to ask not whether this trip is really necessary but whether this trip is really being made. That is the question we have to put in terms of timing. We are expecting an election call daily. It may be put off a week or so, but we are expecting an election call within a matter of days.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Or a month.


Walter David Baker: Constitutionally, it could be a month or perhaps two.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: October.


Walter David Baker: Everyone's last expected date for an election call is really the Easter break, and that is what we are talking about, about mid-April. That seems to be the appropriate time. 1 cannot look into the mind of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) any more than can the Deputy Prime Minister. Unless the Prime Minister has taken leave of his senses, we will be into an election before any serious examination of this bill can be completed at all stages.
Today's debate will be brief. I will be the only speaker from this party. However, the committee discussions cannot be brief. Despite the agreement on principle which exists in the House, there are too many complex issues to be examined. Can we possibly cover all these issues adequately and appropriately in the spirit which was mentioned by the Deputy Prime Minister in the next three weeks, carry a report stage and third reading and then get the bill through the Senate, which has a great and legitimate interest in its provisions? I suspect not. Even if we could, the question is, can the Chief Electoral Officer put into place the sections on declarations to returning officers?
It is not hard to conclude that this bill is being dragged out for the second time on the eve of an election as a campaign ploy and that this debate is all fanfare and no parade. If the government really wanted this bill through and in place on the statute books, it would have proceeded with it back in October, November or perhaps December.
I must also express my disappointment that the codification of conflict of interest laws has not been done comprehensively to include cabinet ministers as a separate category, and public servants as well. It seems that members of parliament, who are generally perceived as the least powerful element in the governmental process-nonentities, or "nobodies" in the words of the Prime Minister-are singled out first so that they do not abuse the power this government has never let them have. I think we have our priorities mixed in terms of where the legislative structure on conflict of interest should begin. I think it would have been more appropriate to spell out conflict of interest rules for members of parliament in the first part of the

bill and then to add a second part with even stricter rules for cabinet ministers and public servants.
Be that as it may, conflict of interest rules are necessary and welcome, and if this bill is not passed before the election is called a Progressive Conservative government will bring in one at least as strong.
The reasons for this bill are fairly clear. As government- lamentably in some instances-extends its control over all types of business and other activities in this country, the possibility that a member of parliament or a group of members of parliament may be affected directly by an item of legislation, a regulation or some other government action brought before the House increases. We have to recognize that, and we have to ensure that discussions are undertaken to determine what is in the national interest, without distortions caused by conflict of interest in the House itself. Members have to draw a line between, on the one hand, representing their communities or interests with which they are familiar and, on the other hand, representing themselves. I suppose that is the nub of the problem which this bill seeks to address. I do believe that this is not yet a frequent occurence, as the Deputy Prime Minister said. We are, rather, anticipating and meeting a danger which has not yet reached the critical point.
More important for the moment than clear and present instances among members of parliament of conflict of interests is a strong public perception that the danger is not in the future but in the present. We have to take cognizance of that public perception. It is a feature of our national political environment that we do not function in isolation from events in other jurisdictions. The common political gossip of our news media is drawn from the entire democratic world. If an American senator appears to have misappropriated public funds or succumbed to a bribe, that is on our front pages in Canada and it reflects on all of us who are in the legislative function.
When a British member of parliament goes for a swim in Florida and reappears in Australia-and we had an instance of that-we are as fascinated by that as are his own electors. The word "Watergate" conveys almost as rich and varied a meaning to us in Canada as it does to the Americans when they consider their own jurisdiction. These events, however little they may be drawn from our own experience, are a part of our environment and the climate of distrust which appears to go automatically with democratic politics, particularly in those societies which began their political systems when the country was an underdeveloped frontier area.
Sadly, not all blame for the poor image of politicians can be shifted to other countries. We are not free of clear instances of unwarranted use of influence on the part of politicians and their close associates. In the recent past, three of our colleagues have, regrettably, been involved with the courts on charges not reflecting on the dignity or propriety of this House. If we wish to be free of all suspicion, we must be clear of all charges. If we wish to establish and to continue the trust
March 8, 1979

we feel we deserve, there is absolutely no alternative to the passage of strict conflict of interest rules as quickly as possible.
In examining Bill C-6 we must remember that nothing in a political system happens in isolation, and I think this is the point which the Deputy Prime Minister was trying to make. We are all aware that nothing worth while can be accomplished without significant consequences, both intended and unintended. We want to make sure that anyone who is elected to this House is encouraged to uphold its reputation for impartiality. Equally, we do not want to turn away people who should be here. Every decision we make in the House about salary, staff and rules of behaviour affects the type of membership we will have.
Conflict of interest rules must be carefully designed to fulfil their purpose without the unwarranted side effect of discouraging from public duty anyone who has been successful in his career as an independent businessman, a professional, a skilled tradesman or a farmer. It will be of little utility to the reputation and representative quality of this House if it were to be filled entirely with former salaried employees. This will be the challenge of the committee study-to ensure that this bill is clear, fair and enforceable, without making it a barrier over which the most talented in our society cannot leap.
To retain its full vigour and relevance we must continue to attract to the House of Commons men and women at the peak of their energy and creativity. We must remember too that not everyone elected to the House is able to remain as long as he or she might wish.
I hope that when this bill goes to committee we will be given a clear idea of the type of regulations contemplated for it. As well, it would be useful to hear a little more about clause 2(2), which seems to contemplate "any decision, order, rule or regulation" being overturned by the House, without spelling out exactly how this is to be done. To leave it too vague is to put the procedure for even initiating such a reconsideration entirely at the discretion of the cabinet, and none of us wants that to happen regardless of the political stripe of the cabinet.
Several of the provisions of this bill have been designed-I say this with some regret-without sufficient consideration of the fact that the House is a political forum, the actions of which in many cases are in fact the actions of the majority only. For this reason, they seem to me to provide insufficient protection for the minority opposition parties in the House.
When a candidate is running for election, he or she must make a statement to the deputy returning officer, who happens to be a government appointment, whatever the government is, and partisan favouritism has been known to be a factor. The registrar described in the bill is appointed by the cabinet. Everyone knows that this government would never appoint a Liberal partisan to such a position-we know they do not do that kind of thing, especially in the case of a position for which he might be entirely unsuited-but some future government might, and we must guard against the actions of future governments.
Independence of Parliament
I am glad to see members on the other side and perhaps to my left, when contemplating a future government, looking to this side of the House. I think that is very encouraging. Pity the poor opposition spokesman-and my friend might very well have to consider that situation-who has had to bare his soul to a local government appointee, fly to Ottawa on "Air Mackasey," and then put himself at the mercy of a government appointed registrar. If a member is appealing for some sort of exemption or judgment before the committee established by the draft Standing Orders which will be sent to the standing committee for consideration with this bill, he would undoubtedly feel slightly uncomfortable laying out his case before a committee that happens to be controlled by his opponents.
The situation is a difficult one. Would it not be tempting in some situations to knock off a few troublesome opposition members of parliament by making life unusually difficult for them under the conflict of interest rules and by refusing normal and reasonable exemptions? That is a possibility which we have to consider.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It may be very shortsighted.


Walter David Baker: I do not want to be partisan with respect to this matter, but this government and other governments have been known to do things from time to time that are very shortsighted. I call them lapses of judgment, but they do lessen the opportunities for the House to be as representative as possible; and with the possibility of that happening-I think we should be on our guard and devise ways of getting around it. It is a situation which I think deserves the best from all of us.
The whole set-up is itself a conflict of interest between the obligation to treat all members alike and the demands and emotions of partisan competition. That is why I think it would not be unreasonable for the committee to consider some changes, perhaps one where candidates should make declarations to the Chief Electoral Officer rather than to the returning officer in each of the ridings. That would remove it from the passionate political atmosphere. The registrar should be appointed after consultation with and approval by all parties- that is not in the bill but it would be an improvement to the legislation-and after passage of a debatable motion in the House. The position of registrar is so important to the working of the bill that it should not be merely left to the judgment of the cabinet. I think it should be left at least to the judgment of and consideration by the House in the way in which I suggest.
Any committee that is established should not operate on the basis of a simple majority. That is built into the bill now. There is a potential for unfairness. We should consider other methods of getting around that so that the committee can function on some basis other than a simple majority. Because it is a unique committee and may require unique ground rules. Perhaps in doing that we should consider whether some special protection for minority party members of parliament should be built into that structure. Those are matters to which we would like to have attention directed.

March 8, 1979
Independence of Parliament
1 remind hon. members that until the passage of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act the setting of boundaries for redistribution was under the control of the House itself. The situation led us directly to abuses and a new system had to be introduced. In respect of the matter I have been speaking about, there are in this bill many features that smack of the worst abuses of the old redistribution mechanism which I think should be removed or tempered. I do not think we ought to put ourselves in the position with this important bill where we have to re-learn a lot of old lessons which I think are better behind us than in front of us.
Many features of the bill are quite satisfactory and I am pleased to see the comprehensive nature of the disclosure which must be made. We have regarded in the past and are continuing to regard in the future such things as speaking engagements as part of our public duty. As MPs we are all supposed to discuss political issues with the public and to hear their views. This duty should not be regarded as an opportunity for profit. I think disclosure will help prevent that.
So far this temptation has not been too strong for members of this House, and it is not likely to become strong because I do not think we are seen by the public as entertaining personalities to the extent that perhaps some of our friends in the free world are seen as entertaining personalities, people who are paid huge honorariums for speaking. Indeed, the United States is one of those jurisdictions where that has taken place and the congress there has moved against it. They have used their methods, and this is one way that we are considering in moving against that kind of thing in this country.
The touchier issue of foreign travel is also included. We have in the past in this House left this to individual consciences and justification. What I am talking about when I refer to foreign travel is travel by a member of parliament at the expense of a foreign government. My own party has actively discouraged the acceptance of such foreign-paid trips. There is no doubt that foreign countries offer such trips to members of parliament to influence them, and our position is not strong if we are reduced to arguing whether these generous hosts receive value for the money. It is not an argument we ought to enter into. It is a good thing that this bill lays it out clearly that this is a matter to be disclosed.
Another provision the committee will have to look at, and which bothers me a good bit, is clause 23 which specifies that the Statutory Instruments Act does not apply to regulations made by the designating committee under this act. I happen to be a member of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), who is in the House today, is co-chairman of that committee. We are developing and have developed guidelines by that statute for a review of statutory instruments such as orders in council and other things, work that I consider to be quite important. As time goes on that work will grow in importance, in an era when the government seems to step more and more into areas where it heretofore had not trodden. I do not see why that act ought not to apply to statutory instru-

ments which arise from this statute. I know it may not be desirable to have one committee reviewing the work of another, but I think we should retain this control over the possibility of abuse of regulatory power.
I have tried to be brief, but I want to say in conclusion to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleague the government House leader, that we approve of the principle of this bill and most of its detail. I am sorry there is not more of it and that it did not come sooner so the committee would have the realistic hope of finishing its work. The government should have given us a bill that covered all possible instances of conflict of interest. Indeed, there has been time for that over the period of years about which I spoke earlier, but the government has chosen not to do that. It has chosen this first step at the beginning to give us a bill in areas which so far have caused us the least trouble.
I have indicated that we favour the principle of the bill and there will be no other speaker from our party for that reason. We are anxious to get this bill to the committee because it is important not only that this House operates appropriately, not only that members conduct themselves appropriately, but that this parliament-not just this House but as well the other chamber-appear to operate and act appropriately, and that the respective members of each of our Houses appear to act the same way.
It is in that spirit that we accept this bill for the purpose of getting it to the committee where it can be dealt with, and we are anxious to deal as expeditiously as we can in the circumstances with all its detail. We shall be suggesting some changes to strengthen the bill along the lines proposed by the government.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons we on this side of the House-and I am speaking of all three parties over here-were willing to agree to a one speaker per party debate on second reading was that we would still like to see this legislation put in place before this parliament comes to an end. There are some other things like veterans legislation which I regard as more important, and the government House leader knows that, but this is also an important piece of legislation.
As my friend the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) has indicated, and as the very number of the bill, C-6, indicates, it has been before us for a long time during this session. It came as no surprise that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton appeared to be a bit sceptical of the motive in bringing in the bill at this time. He seems to think there is an election coming and that just before an election governments do interesting things. Our hope is that we can get the bill off to the committee this afternoon, that the committee can go into the details of the bill and possibly get it back before we are dissolved.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hear, hear!
March 8, 1979


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear the government House leader saying "hear, hear" so there is more agreement here this afternoon than one might expect.


An hon. Member:: If we get it back, will he call it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I imagine quite a few of us listened with interest to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he was interviewed last evening on the CBC by Patrick Watson. I am sure that any of us who were listening perked up our ears particularly when he got to the question of the possible length of this parliament. He was acting as prime ministers do in that situation, talking without giving any precise answer.
I believe the Prime Minister made one thing very clear, and that is that he does not intend to exceed the length of time set by two procedents, and he referred by name to Prime Minister Bennett and Prime Minister Mackenzie King. We know in the case of Prime Minister Bennett that he called the election in 1935 for a date that was five years and three months after the one that had been held in 1930. We know in the case of Prime Minister Mackenzie King that he called the election in 1945, so that it was held five years and three months after the one that had been held in 1940. Whatever else the present Prime Minister said last night, he made it pretty clear that he would not exceed those precedents. That means that there could be not just a few days or a few weeks but a month or two yet in which to get legislation through before dissolution.


Walter David Baker: What date are you betting on, Stan?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am still predicting election day on my birthday. The last time there was an election held on my birthday was in 1962. I found it delightful to use as my slogan throughout the campaign these words, "All I want for my birthday is many happy returns." I would be happy to use that slogan again if the Prime Minister decides to call the election for that day.


An hon. Member:: When is it?


Stanley Howard Knowles: June 18.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Did you save the posters?


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: It would make Charlie Lynch happy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, it would make Charles Lynch happy because he is predicting that date also. I was asked if I saved the posters. I did not save those posters because that was quite a while ago. We saved the posters in Winnipeg North Centre from the last election but, of course, that will be a problem this time because under the new Canada Election Expenses Act we must declare their value in the coming election campaign.
Independence of Parliament


Mr. Peters:: They have one in antiquity though.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It will not have any commercial value; therefore it will not be an election expense.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At any rate, Mr. Speaker, this little by-play in which we are indulging is intended to underline the fact that there could be time, not just for today's second reading debate but for this piece of legislation, to be dealt with in committee, reported back to the House and for the government House leader to call it. It is an important piece of legislation dealing with a very important subject.
This is not the first time that we have had legislation dealing with the independence of parliament. There are a number of sections in the Senate and House of Commons Act, sections 10 to 24 inclusive, which have the general heading, "Independence of Parliament", and there are also three sections- sections 3, 4 and 5-in the House of Commons Act which relate to the independence of parliament.
A great deal has happened in society and things have become a great deal more complex and much more involved than they were in the days when those pieces of legislation were passed, however, and it is certainly time that our conflict of interest legislation as it affects members of parliament should be brought up to date. That is the purpose of this legislation.
As the government House leader pointed out, the matter has been discussed previously in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, and there was general agreement in that committee on the main outlines of the bill which is now before us. I think that it is reasonable to hope, if the committee has a bit of time to deal with the bill, that it might make a few amendments, some of which I think are desirable, and that it get the bill back in time to be passed before this session ends.
My friend from Grenville-Carleton wondered what the Chief Electoral Officer would do if a bill which includes amendments to the Canada Elections Act were passed very close to the election. I would point out to him, of course, that even the passing of the bill would not put it into effect. It comes into effect at a date to be fixed by proclamation. Even if we had the bill on the statute books, the government could delay proclamation until after the election. Then, of course, it would be up to whatever group of men and women who form the government at that time to decide what to do about the matter.
I think that most of us agreed with the general principles that were outlined by the Deputy Prime Minister when he made his statement introducing the bill today, and it is not necessary to go over that ground. The Deputy Prime Minister made reference to the fact that any bill-and this bill is one in point-that lays down rules regarding one's holdings, investments or connections can be awkward for some persons either in this House or in the other place. There is no use denying that. But I make again the point, which I think my hon. friend across the way made and which the hon member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) made, namely, that the public interest

March 8, 1979
Independence of Parliament
comes first. If it is a bit awkward for some members to have to declare their holdings and their interest, the fact that the public interest comes first overrides that awkwardness.
I appreciate the fact that the legislation deals with two main areas. There is the area of avoidance which informs members of parliament and senators of the kinds of things they must avoid. The other area is disclosure. The bill does not say that a member cannot have investments, resources or what have you, but the heart of the legislation is that there shall be full and complete disclosure. I hope that there are no loopholes in this bill that would make it possible for members of parliament or senators to avoid that requirement of complete disclosure. Sometimes I wonder about this business of a blind trust. I think that the committe had better take another look at that. One wonders at times whether that is not a means of avoiding the real intent of legislation.
1 would like to support the point made by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton with regard to the registrar. We already have certain officers who are regarded as officers of parliament. 1 refer to the Chief Electoral Officer, the Auditor General and the Commissioner of Official Languages. There may be one or two others, but certainly those three are regarded as officers of parliament. It may be that the government makes the choice and the nomination, but at least the matter must come before parliament and be the subject of a resolution of the House of Commons.
It would seem to me that that type of position ought to apply in the case of the registrar for both Houses or one registrar for each House. I suppose that I might go so far as to let the senators in the other place have a say about their registrar. I am not sure though; it is someting that I will have to think about.


William Arnold Peters: Now, don't get carried away!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I feel that it does make a difference and is more than just so many words for an officer to be appointed by a resolution of this House rather than by the governor in council. The governor in council appointment means that it is cabinet appointment exclusively, and that we learn about the appointment afterwards. If it were to be an officer approved by the House of Commons, at least we would be told in advance and at least there would be some consultation and assurance that the person proposed is acceptable to all parties in the House. I would urge that that change at least be made in the bill when it gets into the hands of the committee.
There is one aspect of this whole situation that still worries some of us. I am referring to the special position of cabinet ministers. I know that the government's argument in presenting this legislation is that by laying down rules that apply equally to all members of parliament, whichever House they are in, cover cabinet ministers because cabinet ministers are either in this House or over in the other place.
However, cabinet ministers have a special position in that they know what is going on more than some of the rest of us. They are involved in deals and contracts of one kind or

another. I do not wish to make reference to any names, but it does concern us at times when a person who has been a cabinet minister leaves this place and in the course of a very short time turns up on the board of directors of some giant corporation which, in turn, deals with the government. That kind of situation ought to be covered somewhere in the legislation.
I know that even before this bill was presented, the Prime Minister established a kind of voluntary registry for cabinet ministers, and under certain conditions one can find the information therein, but there is no legislation requiring such disclosure. There are certain rules of conduct or guidelines about what ministers can do within a period of time after they leave a cabinet post, but they are only guidelines. They do not have the force of legislation. I think they should and I think they ought to be in this particular act that is before us now. I urge that when the committee is dealing with this bill clause by clause it consider this point.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton had quite a bit to say about the public's view of politicians. Whatever happens to a politician anywhere in the world, and certainly in the democratic world, seems to reflect on us in this country. That puts a pretty heavy responsibility on us to be above reproach in every possible respect. I suggest that means we have to think very carefully about the things we do, not only with respect to legislation, contracts and all the rest, but about the things we do for ourselves.
I am not going to get into a long speech on a subject about which I feel very strongly, but I hope that in the next parliament we will think very carefully about what we do with respect to pay, allowances, trips, perquisites and all the rest for members of parliament. I do not think it would hurt us to have to struggle a bit to do our job instead of taking the position that we have to be well taken care of. That is not something to be put into this kind of legislation, but if we want to convince the people out there that we mean it when we say we require integrity, honesty and dependability on the part of members of parliament, we should go all the way with it.
I indicated at the start that on this side of the House we gave our agreement that there would be a short debate-one speaker per party-to let the bill go to committee. With that there was also a commitment that our speeches would not be long. I am happy to say that we are prepared to give this bill second reading this afternoon. We hope the government House leader will show that it is not just a piece of window-dressing, but that he is serious about it and will put it pretty close to the top of the list-right up there with veterans affairs as something to be dealt with before this session ends.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
March 8, 1979


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

William Warren Allmand: that Bill C-28, to amend the Northwest Territories Act, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
William Warren Allmand: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


M. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief on third reading of this bill. As the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) indicated on second reading on February 16, we, of course, had urged the government to bring this particular motion before the House. Indeed, we indicated we would proceed with quick passage at all stages on that date.
It is important that we understand the urgency of this bill and frankly, as Your Honour will recall, the bill is in response to representations from the Territorial Council simply asking for additional representation in the Northwest Territories. The reason it is urgent is that the council has passed an ordinance on October 27 indicating that they wanted to increase their representation from 15 to 22. In addition, the second part of the bill, which is brief, indicated it would be retroactive in terms of that particular ordinance. I would simply bring to the attention of the House that the deadline is March 31 this year, which shows a degree of urgency to pass the bill. We agree with that particular principle.
I think it is important to point out, as my colleague did on second reading, that this bill does not prejudice the important issue of comprehensive land claims in the north. We must recognize in addition, as my colleague pointed out so eloquently on second reading debate, that it does not represent progress in terms of political evolution in the north. It is a simple measure to increase representation at this time in the Northwest Territories for the obvious reasons of geographical size and the necessity to have additional representatives on the Territorial Council that they feel are absolutely essential.
I hope that the brevity of my remarks will influence others in the House and that we can see speedy passage of this bill on third reading.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Government Organization GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION ACT, 1978


DEPARTMENTS AND AGENCIES
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-35, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-35, an act respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto.
As members of the House are aware, when this bill was introduced for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, speakers on this side indicated that we were in agreement with the government's proposal to set up a department of fisheries and a separate department of the environment. In our opinion the government should not have divided the two responsibilities in 1970. It was not long after the change was made that the government realized that it had made yet another blunder and it has taken approximately nine years to right the wrong that was committed in 1970.
During second reading debate we also suggested the bill be sent to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry rather than to the miscellaneous estimates committee. The government accepted this proposal. The fact that the bill is back in the House this afternoon is indicative that we made a sound recommendation. It is unfortunate the government does not follow the sound advice we give it more often.
Quite frankly, the bill would have been returned to the House at an earlier date if the minister and government supporters had been more co-operative. When the bill was under discussion in committee we raised no objections to the minister reading a lengthy statement dealing with it and other matters pertaining to the over-all fishing industry. However, this co-operation unfortunately was not in evidence when members of the opposition asked relevant questions relating to policies of the new department. It was only after members of the opposition, following an hour and a half of stonewall tactics, walked out of the committee-the minister laughs, Mr. Speaker. These are the facts as I recall them. The minister sat there and said nothing. All he had to do at that time was say- and he was surrounded by his officials-that he had no objection to members of the opposition asking questions. However, that reasonable course was not followed, and it was only after we walked out of the committee en masse that they relented, which resulted in the bill finally being passed. But the government's actions did delay study of the bill.

March 8, 1979
Government Organization
When making this strict ruling initially we wondered what the government had to hide. This soon became evident. It had given windfall profits to certain fish companies and processors by allocating quotas to them which they could in turn sell to foreigners. According to statements made by the minister and the government's supporters, this policy did cost Canada some jobs. It also became clear that Canada has been out-negotiated by the United States in the quota allocations on Georges Bank.
In addition, as has happened in so many other areas, the government appears to have adopted a policy which we on this side put forth, namely that of licensing at least five freezer trawlers over a five-year period to catch species which Canadians have not generally fished. This is evident in the decision to allow Canadians to catch loligo squid in the U.S. fishing limit zone. I point out to the House that squid has to be frozen almost immediately it is brought in from the ocean so as to retain its quality.
During our examination of the bill a number of government amendments were moved, primarily to improve the French text. It is a matter of some regret, however, that I say to you, sir, and inform the House that an amendment moved by the official opposition to strengthen the proposed fisheries and oceans research advisory council was rejected by government supporters. As the bill reads at present, the government proposes to set up an advisory council under the control of the minister which shall consist of a chairman and not more than 24 other members. It is proposed that members of the council shall include persons from departments, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada.
At that point it was proposed by supporters of the official opposition that the advisory council also contain members representing governments of consenting provinces, for example, those that have a specialized interest in the marine sciences. Unfortunately, this worth-while proposal, which we believe would have served to give the provinces a sense of belonging, a sense of making a contribution, a feeling of unity and of participation in helping solve some of the very basic problems troubling the fishing industry on both coasts, was rejected by government supporters.
Undoubtedly there are times when it is necessary to be partisan, but there are other times when I believe a government should be conciliatory and not reject a worth-while proposal just because it comes from supporters of the official opposition. In my view, this was one of those occasions when the government should have considered some provincial representation on the research advisory council. Such a move would have strengthened the work of the council, and though we in the opposition believe that the over-all management of our fisheries resources must remain in the hands of the federal government, we also believe that there is a greater need for consultation with provincial fisheries ministers concerning the manner in which quotas are established and the manner in which these quotas are allocated to the provinces concerned and to foreign countries fishing within our 200-mile zone.
We in the official opposition believe that the role of the province must be strengthened so they can assist in upgrading

the present processing facilities within their borders. Still more emphasis must be placed on upgrading the quality of our fisheries products if we hope to make further inroads into the American market. This is equally true, sir, if we hope to make a dent in the European Economic Community.
At the present time there is great uncertainty within the industry over our future prospects in Europe due, in no small measure, to this government's close-mouthed approach to the GATT negotiations. Since 1974 the industry has submitted three briefs to the Canadian trade and tariffs committee. However, there has been little by way of communication between the government and the industry about progress in the negotiations. At one time, prior to Britain joining the European Economic Community, Canada had free entry of canned salmon, shrimp and lobster into the British market. Now the tariffs on these products range from 17 per cent to 18 per cent, despite the fact that these tariffs are not protecting any European product. The same tariff walls apply to groundfish where exports to the Common Market face a tariff of some 15 per cent to 18 per cent, whereas the Common Market tariff against Norwegian groundfish exports is something like 3 per cent, and I believe Iceland exports its groundfish into the European Economic Community duty free.
The Canadian fishing industry in particular seeks only equal treatment with its two main competitors. It continues to ask just what is going on with the GATT negotiations. I ask the government, what does it have to hide? Why is the government so secretive about the progress, or perhaps I should say the lack of progress, that is being made behind closed doors? I submit you could get more information about the GATT negotiations from the Kremlin than from this government. It is high time that our negotiators and representatives pointed out to these countries that Canada is still granting licences allowing them to fish within our waters. Surely one favour deserves another.
Last year-the minister can correct me if I am wrong but I obtained these figures from the minister's officials in Halifax and I presume them to be correct-we licensed some 300 foreign freezer trawlers and some 190 foreign factory ships which enabled them to carry out fishing operations within our 200-mile limit. Surely this is worth something in the way of a negotiating tool when one sits down with European friends and discusses trade. The fishing industry is not asking for special concessions; it is asking for an equal opportunity when trying to make sales to the European Economic Community.
We asked that the provinces be represented on the advisory council, for we believe they should have the right to make a greater input into the field of fisheries research. The minister has cut down on the number of scientists employed on the east and west coast. I will not quibble with him over the numbers but my information is that some 34 scientists have been laid off, some 23 on the east coast and 11 on the west coast. These men will no longer be employed in the department. All of this is happening at a time when we have declared a 200-mile limit, when the need for specialized research in the fishing industry was never greater.
March 8, 1979

The provincial arm in this field should be strengthened. In fact, that was the interpretation I took from the minister's remarks when we discussed this issue on previous occasions. In my opinion and the opinion of my party, the place to start this form of meaningful discussion would be with the fisheries and oceans research advisory council. We also believe that the provinces should be represented on the advisory council, which is Part II of Bill C-35, because the province should have their hands strangthened in the field of fisheries education.
There are vast changes taking place in the fishing industry today. New species are being utilized; the catching of capeling, although the stocks are declining, the catching of squid, silver hake, round-nosed grenadier, to name but a few. These are all specialized species, fish that we have not previously utilized because the regular groundfish species, namely cod, haddock, hake and pollack, to name but a few, were in plentiful supply. Now we are aware that some countries look upon some of these species as a delicacy. Squid in particular are considered a delicacy by Japanese interests. Therefore, we believe that new emphasis must be placed on the scientific as well as the educational end of the fishing industry. Our fishermen must be trained in these new techniques.
In the view of the official opposition, this should be the role filled by the provinces. The provincial administrations are closer to the resource, certainly closer than is Ottawa. They are more aware of the species and the methods that must be used in catching them.
These are at least three fields where greater authority can be vested in the provinces. We believe that if this course is followed, our fishermen, whether they be inshore, mid-water or offshore, will enjoy even greater opportunities in this important primary industry.
There is room for hope as evidenced in clause 6 of the bill, which states that the minister of fisheries and oceans may enter into agreements with the government of any province or any agency thereof respecting the carrying out of programs for which the minister is responsible.
This section raises a number of important questions. For example, on February 14 the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. LeBlanc) made a statement outside the House which was really a carbon copy of the releases made by his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), dealing with the agreement reached between Canada and the United States for the Atlantic coast fisheries and boundaries disputes.
In the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs we are told that the two treaties, the one on the third party settlement of the boundary and the other on fisheries arrangements, will be completed and ready for signature, if possible, by the beginning of March. I would like to know whether these treaties have been signed. Why were these statements made outside the House? Who determined these quotas and the species to be caught in various areas? What
Government Organization
fisheries groups were consulted prior to these decisions being taken by our Canadian negotiator?
Were the provincial fisheries ministers consulted on this matter? Will there be any opportunity provided for members of parliament from all parties for an in depth study and debate on this important matter? Speaking of boundaries, where do we stand in our negotiations with France over the fisheries and boundaries claims put forth by France around the small islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon?
When speaking about agreements with the provinces as outlined in Bill C-35, I cannot help but ask what happened to federal-provincial negotiations when the minister recently awarded contracts for the catching of 12,000 tons of codfish off the coast of Labrador. The manner in which the minister awarded each of the five eastern provinces a share of this catch has created considerable concern in all areas, especially among Canadian fishermen. To help clear up this confusion, I believe it would be beneficial if the minister informed us about the method he used to determine the foreign countries that would be licensed to catch these fish, the method used for determining the quotas to be awarded to each province and the final disposition of the processed product. Just what are the terms of the contract he arranged with two communist countries, East Germany and Poland, and how much provincial input was obtained prior to making these decisions so vital to the people of Atlantic Canada?
According to all reports, inshore fishermen are dissatisfied with the government's policy as it applies to class A lobster licences. They claim that present regulations are defeating the idea of a multipurpose inshore fishery. This is especially true in the Northumberland Strait area where a recent meeting was held between the district protection officer and some 70 fishermen who stated that class A licence holders should be allowed to fish for anything available.
These same fishermen have stated that they are also unhappy with the present government's policy on scallop licences. Current regulations state that only those who took scallop during the last two years will be eligible for a licence this year. In addition, the area manager for fisheries has also stated that anyone who has not been active in the groundfish industry will get a licence this year.
Here we have three distinct problems all dealing with licences, licences of lobsters, scallop and groundfish which are requested by our inshore fishermen. I hope the minister will explain the rationale behind his present policies which are obviously creating mistrust and frustration among the inshore fishery of this area.
When we raise these issues, government supporters often ask what we would do. They say it is easy for us to criticize. There are at least 18 different species of clawed lobsters in the Atlantic ocean and another 12 from the Indian and Pacific oceans. Since all clawed lobster species other than Canadian, American and European live in relatively deep water, there has been little commercial development except for the Norway lobster whose current landings exceed the combined catch of European and Canadian and American lobsters.

March 8, 1979
Adjournment Motion
In the Atlantic ocean clawed lobsters occur from Greenland and Iceland south to the waters southeast of the Falkland Islands and the southern tip of South America. One species has been reported from deep water off New Jersey down through the Caribbean with additional species also in the Gulf of Mexico.
Although most clawed lobsters are much smaller than the Canadian-American and European lobsters, many of them compare in size with the canning lobsters of the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence, approximately two and three quarter inches in carapace length.
It is my understanding that Norwegian clawed lobsters prefer colder temperatures than the European or Canadian-American lobster. Has the minister ever considered conducting experiments which might lead to establishing the Norway lobsters in our own habitat, closer to the Atlantic coast, which would be beneficial to our inshore fishermen?
In another field, Holland and Germany import more than $1 million worth of eels annually from the United States. Eels breed in the ocean and they come up our rivers to lay their eggs. What steps have been taken to improve and develop a Canadian eeling industry for export to Europe where they are smoked and considered a delicacy?
Finally, I would like to know-and this is under the minister's responsibility-what progress has been made in opening up the Canadian swordfish market in the United States. Now that an acceptable level of mercury in swordfish has been established in the United States, swordfish catches are showing up on the docks of Gloucester, South Carolina, Georgia and Florida. This is a multimillion dollar industry. I recently held discussions with the Japanese ambassador concerning the potential for swordfish in his country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-The Canadian Economy-Measures to reduce current account deficit; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Post Office-Overnight intercity courier service- Alleged secrecy respecting program; the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie)-Energy-Inquiry whether DREE represented in Maritime Energy Corporation.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) would like to complete his remarks

within the next few minutes, I am sure the House would be agreeable. At least, I would ask if the House would be agreeable, particularly the hon. member whose bill we will be dealing with, to consent being given the hon. member to continue until he completes his remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Hon. members have heard the request of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen). Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is so ordered.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
OO)

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen (for Mr. Trudeau) that Bill C-35, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the third time and do pass.
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister and the House. Only recently I discussed with the Japanese ambassador the possibility of opening up the swordfish market. At that time I pointed out to him that the market in his country for tuna which are taken in the St. Margaret's Bay area and put into a corral and fed until they are fat enough to satisfy the Japanese was a very profitable one for the people of Nova Scotia, and I suggested some steps might be taken to open up and expand the swordfish industry. The ambassador appeared to be very interested and I pass this information along to the minister in the hope that his officials will follow up the matter and bring us up to date not only with regard to the swordfish industry but with respect to all the other items I have raised in the course of my address.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is the House ready for the question? The hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) on a point of order?


Mr. Howie:: Mr. Speaker, I was intending to speak. I was trying to catch your eye.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the situation, there was time allowed in order to permit the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) to finish his remarks. I understand that the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie) also wishes to take part in the debate. As far as I know, he is the last speaker in the debate so I presume we shall be dealing with this matter to complete it finally at eight o'clock.
March 8, 1979


Mr. Railton:: Do 1 understand we shall not now be talking about this fisheries bill? We have agreed to allow the bill to be completed at this time but we did not leave it open for further speeches. It was due to the courtesy of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) that this extension of time was allowed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I gather, then, that there is not unanimous consent that we should proceed. Therefore, we have to call private members' business.


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, if it is intended to continue with the government bill, I am quite willing to give that consent.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Hon. members have heard the intervention of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). Is that agreed to?


Walter David Baker: Agreed.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, my remarks are largely confined to Part VII, having to do with the National Research Council. According to the 1977-78 report of the president, the National Research Council is to "undertake, assist or promote scientific and engineering research to further Canada's economic and social development".
Since 1917 the NRC has been the premier research agency in Canada. The government has modified the functions and altered some objectives of the NRC in recent years in its effort to co-ordinate scientific effort in Canada. It is beyond question that the policies of the government have greatly altered the operation of the NRC. It is certainly questionable whether the co-ordination of the Canadian science effort has been effective. Until recently, NRC had three operations programs, namely the engineering and natural sciences research program, the scientific and technical information program, and the scholarships and grants in aid of research program.
In 1974-75 the principal research activities of the NRC were modified so that the highest priorities were accorded to the following two activities. Firstly, top priority was given to research on long-term projects of national concern. This research is directed toward the solution of problems in such areas as energy, food, transportation, building and construction. Second priority was assigned to research in direct support of industrial innovation and development. This category includes research on promising areas of new technology, effective methods of technology transferred to industry and technical and financial assistance to industry to carry out specific research and development projects to the point of industrial innovation.
In 1977-78 technology transfer and utilization of research results was accorded a separate priority status reflecting the growing concern for the dismal state of Canada's secondary manufacturing industries and the low level of innovative high technology industry in this country.
It is important to note, however, that the NRC has not abandoned its basic and exploratory research which composes
Government Organization
about 25 per cent of its intramural research effort, a field that has won world-wide respect for the council.
In 1972, the special Senate Committee on Science Policy recommended that the NRC be transformed into "an academy devoting all its activities to basic research and long-term applied research with no specific objective, that most of the intramural basic research be concentrated in this institution, and that a substantial portion of its work be performed at the request of government agencies and private firms on a fee basis."
At the same time, the granting function of the NRC would be given to a "new foundation for the physical sciences". This proposal has been converted into reality with the creation by parliament in 1977 of the natural sciences and engineering research council. Beginning in 1977-78, NSERC has assumed the administration and operation of the NRC's program of scholarships and grants in aid of research in the natural sciences and engineering.
The Senate committee also envisaged the creation of a new institution to be called the Canadian Industrial Laboratories Corporation, primarily to carry out intramural research and development programs designed to serve the needs of manufacturing industries. To date the government has not acted on this proposal.
Finally, the Ministry of State for Science and Technology was intended by the science committee to be the central government ministry charged with the task of reviewing and assessing the proposed science programs of the other departments and agencies of the federal government. To date, the Ministry of State for Science and Technology has not been able to discharge this simple duty.
I want to consider for a moment the effect of the creation of the NSERC and the loss of this granting function by the NRC. In the past the NRC has spun off certain major functions as these have grown to independent status of their own. Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, the Defence Research Board and the Medical Research Council are cases in point. These three organizations are different in nature from the NRC's granting function. To refer back to the National Research Council of Canada report of the president, 1977-78, at page 18, Dr. Schneider comments:
The separation of the university grants function which has been one of the cornerstones of NRC's broader science role in Canada represents a more fundamental change. In fact, the development and nurturing of scientific research in Canada and the provision of the necessary infrastructure for science has been an ongoing NRC responsibility since its was established some 62 years ago. There is no doubt that the interaction with the university sector which this role engendered has been highly beneficial to NRC in carrying out its own research mission, and the close contact it has had with all three sectors, university, industry and government, has greatly facilitated the co-ordination of research programs in Canada. In order to retain some of these advantages in future, it will be essential for NRC to endeavour to maintain active liaison with a new council and the university sector.
In the future, because of the creation of the NSERC the role of the NRC will be less involved in the general development of science in Canada, particularly at the university level. Rather, NRC's future role will be more mission oriented and, according to the same report:

March 8, 1979
Government Organization
... largely centred around its laboratory programs together with extramural research projects strongly coupled so as to reinforce, extend or exploit laboratory programs. Additionally special emphasis will continue to be given to promoting industrial research and development and to supporting promising research projects in industry.
The granting function represented a major program for NRC, amounting to almost $110 million in 1978-79. Whether the separation of the two bodies will affect the relationship between NRC and the university basic research program remains to be seen. In addition to the fear that the creation of the NSERC will have a detrimental effect on the general development of science in Canada is the concern that the appointment of a non-scientist to the presidency of the new council has not been well received by the scientific community.
The formation of a Canadian industrial laboratories corporation proposed by the special Senate committee has not been accomplished. The committee felt that CILC was necessary because the NRC could not, in the committee's view, excel in the fields of basic research and industrial research. It is perhaps appropriate to question the accuracy of this conclusion since NRC has the right to claim considerable success in both areas. During the last five years 80 patents resulted from research carried out in NRC laboratories and, of these, 42 have thus far been successfully licensed to industries in Canada.
Under NRC's industrial research assistance program 255 projects were supported during 1977-78 for a total value of $15.6 million, which supported 744 research scientists and 507 technicians on industrial research projects. As a partial measure of benefits arriving from successful completion of IRAP projects, a sample survey of ten companies showed that previous IRAP support of $3,619 million subsequently led to the creation of 410 new permanent jobs in these industries or one job per $8,800 of IRAP funds invested. These figures do not include indirect employment in associated construction, subcontracts and services. Contracts completed, currently in place and under negotiation under NRC's program for industry laboratory projects, PILP, which will cost approximately $25 million are projected to give rise to about $1.5 billion in product sales and about 3,000 jobs.
In addition, the NRC claims that it has established an effective program of technology transfer to industry and that it also has an effective publication and technical information transfer capability. These propositions are demonstrated in the report of the NRC president which I quoted earlier and are illustrated at page 12.
I suggest that this clearly demonstrates the tremendous effectiveness that research and development can have on developing industrial production and marketing capability and creating good jobs in Canada for Canadians. It is my feeling that the creation of the CILC as a spin-off of the NRC is now due and that the specialization we require in this field will be a dynamic to improve Canada's research and development capability in years to come.

Finally, we have to consider the performance of MOSST. With the partial dismantlement of the NRC by the removal of its granting function to the NSERC, Canadian science, in the view of some, no longer has institutional leadership. Certainly, NRC exercised leadership over many years. It is abundantly clear that MOSST does not exercise leadership in science mainly because it has no control over the science program of other federal departments and agencies. Also, the rapid turnover in ministers has inhibited the development of a strong voice in cabinet. One is left to conclude that the government has not effected a comprehensive science policy for Canada. Granted, some of the recommendations of the Senate science committee have been enacted, the NSERC and MOSST, but other recommendations have not been pursued.
Caught in the middle, the NRC has lost its major function as a central power in Canadian science, but no other body has been established to pick up the mantle. It appears to be a question of incomplete planning and inappropriate half actions. In the field of science Canada has lost more in reorganization that it has gained.
Canada's research and development effort is dismal compared with that of other industrialized nations. At present Canada's annual gross expenditure on research and development stands at about .92 per cent of gross national product. In 1970 the figure was 1.21 per cent. In 1975 when Canada's gross expenditure on research and development was 1 per cent, comparable figures for the other nations were: United States, 2.35 per cent; Germany, 2.16 per cent; Japan, 2 per cent; France, 1.86 per cent; Sweden, 1.59 per cent. From 1970 to 1978 the real value of federal government research and development expenditures measured in constant dollars declined, although current dollar expenditures rose each year. Further, regarding the federal government's research and development effort as measured by the ratio of total government research and development, total government spending declined steadily from 3.55 per cent in 1970 to 2.02 per cent in 1976. In 1977-78 there was a slight recovery, with the level on effort measuring 2.1 per cent in 1978.
By the most objective measurements, then, it must be concluded that the present government has not been notably outstanding in its support of science and technology. What is particularly ironic in this situation is the fact that few countries, particularly in the last decade, have devoted as much study, analysis and creative energy to science policy as Canada has.
In 1978 the government made some serious attempts to stimulate research and development both through increased federal funding and through tax incentives. A major goal announced by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) in June was an increase in gross expenditure for research and development to 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product-not gross national product, as reported by many observers and commentators-by 1983. Critics pointed out that to attain this goal, research and development expenditures in industry would have to grow by an average 19 per cent each year and government and university expenditures by 12 per
March 8, 1979

cent or 13 per cent annually. These were seen as possibly unrealistic targets, and it was suggested by some that the total package of incentives announced in June of 1978 was motivated, at least in part, by the anticipated federal election.
In August of 1978, however, the government launched an austerity drive and announced plans to reduce federal spending. Science and technology, including various research and development programs, were affected in some areas. The government proposed to reduce the fisheries program by closing down the main Halifax laboratories and cutting back on the work done at facilities in Vancouver, Winnipeg, St. Andrews, New Brunswick, and St. John's, Newfoundland. The purpose of the cuts was to effect a $2 million saving in the federal budget.
At the same time the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand) proposed to eliminate the Petawawa forest experimental station north of Ottawa, a 60-year old enterprise which represents a $100 million Canadian investment in forestry research. The Globe and Mail described the action as being initiated "for the sake of a paltry cut in government spending which is in fact not a cut at all but a bookkeeping exercise to scrape up funds for other spending programs". A loud public outcry ultimately persuaded the government to reconsider its decision.
Agriculture Canada announced at the same time that the Canfarm program, a computer based financial management service to farmers, would be closed out. The program also had a significant research component, particularly in the field of farm management, but also in communications and business administration. The net saving was set at $5.5 million.
Then in his budget speech on November 16, 1978 the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) announced new tax incentives for industries performing research and development.
The picture which emerges over the past year is rather confusing. On the one hand, the government announces increased funding and tax incentives to stimulate Canadian research and development; on the other hand, it abruptly terminates important government research programs. The Globe and Mail commented on the confusing activities of the government in the following way:
If science and technology of which research is the cutting edge are important enough to have a minister of their own they are surely important enough to have a policy of their own. But the manner in which they are left scattered in shreds and patches, $2 million here, $5.5 million there to be cut at the whim of any minister or any department makes it evident that the only policy to which they are subject is that of short-term opportunism and that the only minister responsible for defending them would rather keep his portfolio than fight for it.
A prophetic comment! The minister was promoted. It is at least arguable that the present government, although it has belatedly recognized the importance of research and development both in industry and elsewhere, has not yet evolved an effective and coherent national science policy.
Basic to an effective research and development effort in secondary manufacturing is a national industrial policy. Canada's industrial research and development effort is strangely out of step in the industrialized world in which Canadian products
Government Organization
must compete. The business sector in Canada provides only about one third of research and development expenditures, compared with figures of 40 per cent to 50 per cent for most industrialized countries.
Further, the business sector in Canada performs about 40 per cent of R and D compared to 50 to 65 per cent for business sectors in most advanced countries. In Canada also, for every scientist and engineer engaged in R and D in the government sector there is slightly more than one in the business sector. In 1975 the ratio was actually about 1.2, and 30 per cent of the national scientific and engineering manpower was in universities. In contrast, in the United States, Japan, Germany and Sweden there are approximately five scientists and engineers in the business sector to every one in government or industry.
A factor of major importance in industrial R and D is a very high proportion of foreign ownership of Canadian secondary manufacturing industry. In June of 1978 the Financial Post quoted a science ministry official as stating that Canadian owned firms do proportionately more R and D than do foreign subsidiaries. Thus, until a coherent and effective industrial and foreign investment policy is put in place in Canada it is illogical to expect that effective R and D and significant innovative high technology industry will be developed in Canada.
The forest industry by any standard is a major enterprise in Canada contributing $6 billion to a favourable balance of trade and providing direct or indirect employment for nearly one million people. The industry is in trouble, however, because Canada's share of world markets for forest products has declined over the past 20 years from 31 per cent to 19 per cent, while the United States share has increased from less than 9 per cent to more than 12 per cent. Canada has 13 per cent of the world's soft wood resources but produces only 11 per cent of the world's harvest in soft woods. In contrast, the United States with only 11 per cent of the same resource harvests 22 per cent of the world's total. General productivity in the Canadian wood products industry is about 15 per cent less than in the United States. As a specific example, British Columbia saw mills recovered 25 per cent less lumber from a given log volume than mills in the United States Pacific northwest.
The present state of forest products research and development in Canada is lagging as it is in most areas. But the situation in forestry may be worse than the national average. Federally funded R and D in Canada is about $7 million as compared to $14 million in the United States. Industrially funded R and D in Canada is only $20 million compared to $180 million in the United States. Among the 20 leading industrial sectors in Canada, wood processing ranks last in R and D expenditures.
The Canadian forestry service is only poorly supported by the federal government. Although forestry once enjoyed the status of a separate department, the federal effort has been consistently reduced over the years. In the last decade the

March 8, 1979
Government Organization
Canadian forest service has lost more than 50 per cent of its man-years, a time period when significant manpower growth has occurred in almost every other area of the federal public service. The budget of the Canada forest service is only one quarter that of the federal science and technology expenditures for fisheries, energy, mines and resources, and agriculture. Forestry is noted to contribute $6 billion to Canada's trade balance, which is comparable to the net contribution of fuels and minerals and much greater than the $1 billion created by agriculture and the $0.3 billion from fisheries.
The budget of the Canada forest service will be slashed by a further $5.3 million, or 15 per cent, in 1979. Both the eastern and western forest products laboratories are to be handed over to the private sector and will face an effective budget cut of more than 45 per cent as of April 1, 1979.
Again, the government actions in cutting forestry in R and D is puzzling, considering the stated intention to stimulate industrial related R and D in Canada. The forest enterprise is already seriously underfinanced at the federal level and the proposed cuts can hardly be justified. One might suggest that these moves represent another symptom of the lack of a coherent federal science policy.
Consider the recent government program to assist in the modernization of our pulp and paper industry over the next three years. It has a pleasant sound but the sound is distorted when we look at the government's performance. On June 1 of last year the government earmarked $2 million for the creation of five regional university based industrial research innovation centres, to be spent over the next five years in consultation with the provinces. Where are they? They are non-existent.
The centres of excellence was another excellent program announced last June. The province of New Brunswick in good faith proposed a forestry complex for the University of New Brunswick to assist the forest industry which is so important to Atlantic Canada. Last fall I asked the minister of science when the announcements would be made and he indicated that many interesting proposals have been received and were being reviewed; and, Mr. Speaker, they are still being reviewed. Where are they?
Another proposal to expand the NRC's program of industry laboratory projects is an excellent development but there is a dearth of information regarding its implementation. There is also great disappointment that it was not extended to include university laboratories. The research experience that inhouse university scientists or engineers have must be combined to assist the industrial development of marketable products. I believe too that Canada's scientific and technological associations are capable of making a major contribution in the process of developing the appropriate marketing and management skills necessary to effect transfer of technology to the private sector.
I remain deeply concerned that the government has not yet devised a long-term policy for the funding of university based scientific research. Three to five-year budget projections for the granting councils updated annually would confer a much

needed stability to the Canadian university research effort and eliminate cost-ineffective on and off funding planning.
The government's procurement policy announced last June is still not before us and a new and important role for FIRA is still mystery. The government announced new programs which are not implemented, dismantled old programs, does complete about-faces in terms of industrial incentives for research and development, and sets small national goals which it seems to hope to achieve by some form of magic or levitation. Our science policy seems comparable to the man who jumped on a horse and drove off in all directions. In real terms we are making a great effort and going nowhere.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It being after five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, private bills, public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Harold Thomas Herbert: That an order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings and other communications relating to the decentralization of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the province of Prince Edward Island.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken on this motion on previous occasions and will not repeat my comments, which are already on the record. Suffice it to say that I have asked for these papers because concerns are still being expressed about the move of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Prince Edward Island.
Let me put on the record that I am not speaking against decentralization but only hoping that enough information can be produced to convince everyone that the move is a wise one. In that regard, all I want to do this afternoon is to put on the record some of the latest concerns that have been expressed, and I will do that by reading an extract from a letter which has been sent to me, and possibly to other members of the House, dated February 2 from the Royal Canadian Legion. It reads in part:
The Royal Canadian Legion is convinced that the inclusion of the Canadian Pension Commission in the move of the Department of Veterans Affairs to Prince Edward Island is a grave error. We had serious reservations in 1976 when the decentralization plan was first announced and told the minister so. We believed then and we do so even more strongly today that it would be impossible to move the commission without serious impairment of that organization's ability to serve disability pensioners, prospective pensioners and their dependants.
We are in sympathy with the plan to create jobs in Prince Edward Island, but not at the expense of disabled war veterans.
March 8, 1979

In the attachment to the letter one can read as follows:
The Royal Canadian Legion opposes this move for it is convinced, after careful evaluation of the position, that such a move will have a very harmful effect on the commission's ability to serve veterans. It is the Legion's view that it will impair efficiency, reduce productivity and involve substantial delays in adjudication for a period of three to five years.
The commission employs many specialists, both in medical and other categories. These people are vital to the maintenance of a fair and efficient adjudicating process. It takes years of experience and training as members of the commission staff before the majority are proficient to a point where they can process pension claims according to the high standards which we have come to expect as proper. For example, it normally takes two years or so for a doctor to be fully versed in the specialized pension work. The number of such specialists who have indicated that they would be willing to move to Prince Edward Island is pitifully small. For example, four doctors on the medical advisory staff out of twenty-five seem likely to move!
Many of the medical/clerical specialists who now work for the commission are married women whose family ties will make it impossible for them to move to Prince Edward Island. It is not easy to recruit suitable people for this work in Ottawa, where there is a considerable pool of prospective candidates. We believe it would be very difficult to recruit and train people for employment in Prince Edward Island, without a serious deterioration in the speed of processing claims, and the standards of adjudication.
A percentage of pension claims has to be processed in French. The reluctance of French-speaking persons to move from the province of Quebec to Ottawa is a known fact. This is so despite excellent educational and cultural activities in the French tongue which the Ottawa area can provide. We believe that the task of recruiting properly trained French-speaking people to fulfil the commission's requirements in Charlottetown will be a difficult one.
The relative isolation of Charlottetown also gives cause for concern. Despite official claims to the contrary, this cannot help but make for delays. As is well known, these occur now, despite the fact that Ottawa is more or less in the centre of things. With the exception of entitlement boards, almost all of the commission's business is transacted by correspondence. Eight per cent only of the veteran population lives in the Atlantic region, within easy reach of Charlottetown.
The isolation of Charlottetown will also complicate the travel arrangements of the pension commissioners who must move around the country to hold personal hearings. The extra travel time required for journeys to western Canada will mean a reduction in the number of cases to be heard each trip, unless travel on Saturdays and Sundays becomes the norm.
The Royal Canadian Legion has continued to press for the retention of the Pension Commission in Ottawa since the move was first announced.
I put those comments of the Royal Canadian Legion on the record as I think they express these concerns in just as good terms as possibly I could use. I have asked for the documentation and papers supporting the move on the assumption the department has already looked into these questions. I should like to know what answers it came up with, and that is why I have asked for the production of these papers. I think this recent letter of just last month from the Royal Canadian Legion is a clear indication of the continuing concerns that have been expressed by many groups, and it is for that reason I ask again that there be more disclosure of the investigation carried out prior to the decision to make this move.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the parliamentary secretary on his motion as I think it is important, and I should like to show him that he has struck a responsive chord on this side. I understand this is the third time going through the proper channels that he has attempted within a month to have parliament demand that papers be made available. He has been supported each time by someone
Veterans Affairs
from this side. The hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis) has participated in the debate on each occasion.
It is particularly difficult for us to understand why these papers are not made available to a parliamentary secretary. It would be difficult enough to understand if he were a backbencher, but you will know, Mr. Speaker, that since 1974 parliamentary secretaries have been considered to be nearly part of the cabinet, for when ministers are absent they speak for them in the House of Commons. Yet here is a parliamentary secretary who asks for simple, innocuous papers, and cannot get them. He cannot get them from this minister, who once again is not in the House to hear the representations of the parliamentary secretary. The last time I heard this minister advance anything in the House was about three weeks ago when he advanced D-Day by about three and a half months so he could make his eulogy before the dissolution of the House. That must have provided one of the more funnier viewings for the TV audience in recent months.
I should like to commend the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for his persistence in this matter. On looking back through Hansard I found that a year ago yesterday he was speaking in the same vein. He has tried, faithfully and with all the proper decorum, to get what should be the right of every member of parliament. The government will not give anything to the opposition, and now it turns out it will not give its own members information, information which they want for purely practical purposes.
I would like to point out what the parliamentary secretary said a year ago. As reported at page 3725 of Hansard for March 7, 1977, some two years ago, the hon. member had this to say:
The recent announcement that many of the branches of the department would be transferred en bloc to Prince Edward Island met with anything but a favourable reaction among employees. A release issued by employees of the department gives expression to this concern and draws attention to the disruption of family life, the main reason given by the overwhelming majority of departmental employees for rejecting the transfer to Charlottetown. According to answers given by employees of the department responding to a Public Service Alliance circular, many members of the veterans affairs component last November rejected the idea of a transfer by some 90 per cent; only 5 per cent favoured the move, and the remainder claimed they were undecided at that time because of lack of information as to the government's intentions.
That is a very clear indication of what is going to happen to the Department of Veterans Affairs which, let us remember, is here for the benefit of veterans, not for the benefit of government, not for the benefit of the mayor of Charlottetown, and not for the benefit of the minister. It is in existence for the benefit of veterans.
Veterans have the right to be treated well and efficiently by the department. This is a department noted for being behind in its business. Every time a question is asked in the House or by letter to the department about a pension application, a pension readjustment or a pension hearing, we hear that there is a backlog of thousands of applications. Yet at this precise time the minister decided to shatter the department and send the pieces that survived to Charlottetown. God only knows how many thousands of cases they will be behind as a result of such a move. It really boggles the imagination that these people

March 8, 1979
Veterans Affairs
should come up with the idea of doing this at this particular time.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs, read from a letter from the Legion. 1 should like to read from an editorial that appeared a few days ago, which I think sums up the whole problem in respect of this move. It is not that people are against decentralization, but they are against anything that turns the administration into a shambles, particularly when there is one element that is vitally affected by a decision made by the Canadian Pension Commission. The editorial is headed, "They Have Done it Again" and it reads:
The problem began October 28, 1976, when Veterans Affairs minister... dropped a bombshell: his department would be moving from Ottawa to Prince Edward Island as part of the federal government's decentralization program.
On October 29, 1976, Douglas McDonald, then dominion president, announced that the Legion realized the need to create jobs in Prince Edward Island, but was opposed to the move because there was "bound to be a deterioration in the service to veterans and their dependents."
A relocation task force was set up to carry out the political order and the 1977 survey of DVA's headquarters staff showed that only 20.5 per cent of respondents wanted to move. The minister insisted that this group would form a sufficient core to ensure continuity and maintain the level of service.
It just does not stand the test of practicality that you can take one fifth of a group that is always behind in the review of pension requirements and pension claims, and say that that one fifth will be able to keep up the service.
The editorial continues:
On January 27, 1978, Mr. MacDonald announced that a 11.9-acre waterfront site in Charlottetown had been selected and he praised its suitability.
The editorial goes on discussing the hilarious fiasco that then went on to the effect that they had chosen this site but the people who own the property had never heard that the department was even looking at it or thinking of it. The latest story is that the department will be decentralized within Charlottetown in various bits of rental accommodation here and there. The story goes on and on, and it does not get any better the more one reads of it.
I would like to refer to a speech made by the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. Wood) the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, on March 16, 1978 one year ago. How is it that these things always seem to come up in March?


Mr. Parent:: Beware the ides of March.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Yes, beware the ides of March. Somebody ought to get assassinated over this matter. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion pointed out some of the things which were going on with regard to this move and the care that they were taking. As reported at page 3852 of Hansard he said:
Officials of the Department of Veterans Affairs have worked with Treasury Board secretariat task force on decentralization for more than a year to determine which units and functions can be relocated. They also developed

details of operation, cost and other factors which would permit cabinet to decide which units can best be relocated.
This is exactly the kind of information which the hon. member for Vaudreuil is seeking. The hon. member would like to know why they are doing this, but the minister will not tell him and the government will not let him look at the reasons for making its decisions. Will the world crack apart if someone finds out what is causing this government to move in the irrational way which it frequently does? The studies were done, the task force met, they kept minutes, they prepared notes and made recommendations. One would think that we are in a time of war and that these are great state secrets which might lead to the defeat of the nation if they were made public. The government will not only not allow them to be made public, they will not allow their own advisers to see the information. There is paranoia about the matter of secrecy in this government.
The parliamentary secretary went on to say:
In preparation for location, the Department of Veterans Affairs, in conjunction with the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and the Department of Urban Affairs, together with representatives of the province of Prince Edward Island and of the city of Charlottetown have formed a trilevel committee to address itself to all aspects involved in the relocation.
What is the matter with us finding out what these people decided? What is the matter with us finding out about what they were considering when they decided to move this department at that time?
The parliamentary secretary went on to say:
Also included in the advance planning team is Dr. John Glendenning, president of Holland College in Charlottetown, with whom the department might soon be working to develop curricula to provide islanders with skill training for possible recruitment to the Department of Veterans Affairs.
What is so tragic if a parliamentary secretary finds out what they were thinking about? Will it cost an election or something? Is there anything that this government is willing to tell anybody about?


Gilbert Parent: That is what I am going to do.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I will not hold my breath waiting for you to do it.
Here is another quotation from the parliamentary secretary's speech:
When the committee addresses itself to all aspects of the relocation and a great many different subjects, among the committee's concerns will be the effect of the move of employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs and their families on the medical, health, cultural and educational facilities in P.E.I.
Why can we not get that information? The hon. member keeps asking for it, and he is a parliamentary secretary. I would think that at some point he should have a chance of obtaining this information.
I do not want to take up too much time or be accused of talking this particular motion cut. As I said before, I rose to speak so that the hon. member on that side would know that he has friends on this side, even if he does not seem to have any sympathetic souls on that side. Why is there not a civilized compromise on this matter?
March 8, 1979

I had the same problem a couple of years ago with one of the ministers, one who is not quite as bullheaded as the Minister of Veterans Affairs. I needed information that was being supplied by a company under contract to the government, and the particular minister did not think that I should have that information. We had a little chat, and he said, "You can't have that, and you can't have that", and I said, "Well, I want that and if you'll give me that one, I'll give up on the other one." We came to an amicable arrangement and he provided the information that 1 needed to do my job as a member of parliament. I suggest that that is all the parliamentary secretary wants to do is his job and represent his constituents. Yet the government will not give him the slightest bit of assistance. It just closes the door and lets him fret outside.
We saw an example yesterday of what happens when the government gets too autocratic with its own supporters when the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) took about the only solution available. I would like to welcome anyone else who would care to participate in the same trip.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have a chance to remind my honourable colleague of what happened a few years ago when someone was dissatisfied with his party and crossed the floor to this side. You win a few and you lose a few.


Walter David Baker: You've regretted it ever since, haven't you? We got the best of the deal.


Gilbert Parent: I would like to deal with the strategy and the impact of this very important move. I think that addressing ourselves to this matter is what we should be doing. I would be more than willing to present this type of information. For example, in preparation for the relocation in Prince Edward Island, the Department of Veterans Affairs in conjunction with the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion, Public Works, and Urban Affairs formed a tri-level committee which collectively addressed itself to all aspects of the move. This is what the hon. member was talking about.
Among his concerns was the availability of medical, health, cultural and educational facilities on Prince Edward Island and, also, everything from French classes at the schools, colleges and universities, to cultural and recreational resources. I would like to add here, however, that the extent of the requirement of the French language training will not be known until it is determined how many French speaking employees will choose to locate in Prince Edward Island. Considering the current trend in Canada, one would expect greater availability of education in the French language by 1981, and this is when the move is contemplated to be made.
This tri-level planning committee is not only a group of federal officials, but it involves the participation of people from the federal, provincial, and municipal governments. Many times we are charged with taking the position that we do not want to discuss such matters with other people. Just the
Veterans Affairs
opposite is true. We are doing all we can to bring all levels of government in on the situation.
I agree with the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) when he states that the most important thing in this matter is that we take care of our veterans. Is the hon. member saying though that by moving to Prince Edward Island the veterans will not get the services to which they are entitled? I would remind him that there are many offices-and I will refer to this topic a little later-right across this land where our Canadian veterans can get services. Surely Ottawa is not the only place in Canada to get whatever problems that exist straightened out. Surely there will be enough talented, trained, educated people in Prince Edward Island to solve these problems as they come up.
There may be more federal officials on the committee than officials from the provincial and municipal governments, but this is because there is a lot to be done with respect to the work which is to be carried out by the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion, Urban Affairs, and Public Works.
One might ask who will be relocating when the department moves. I agree that many federal employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs will be unable to relocate. Some of them are two income families with either the husband or wife employed outside government, and so may choose not to move. There is, however, evidence that some federal employees look forward to becoming members of the Prince Edward Island community. It is one of the most beautiful islands and provinces in Canada. Some of the federal employees in the national capital region are orginally from the maritimes and, because they joined the federal governement, they had to leave Prince Edward Island and the other Atlantic provinces to work in Ottawa.
For years the opposition parties have harped on decentralization. They want to spread everything out. Now that we are doing it, they do not want it. They cannot make up their minds whether they are coming or going.
With the government's over-all decentralization program a variety of federal departments and agencies are being brought closer to the people of Canada. Why should all the agencies be in Ottawa? Surely the people of Canada deserve to have some of them located in their communities. More maritimers now find they can work for the federal government without having to live in Ottawa. This is one of the major aspects of government policy on decentralization.
There will be many who do not wish to or cannot relocate. My colleague behind me who is from New Brunswick knows of the employment problems they have in that area and we hope to alleviate the situation by locating a government department down there. A large number of positions will be filled by people living in the Atlantic region-


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The motion is for the production of papers. We are not criticizing decentralization per se.
3970

March 8, 1979
Royal Assent


Gilbert Parent: My chubby friend over here says I do not know whether I am coming or going. I do not think that it is exactly what he wants to say. In response to my colleague from Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) who wanted papers produced, I hope to share with him some of the information we were able to get from our very able Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Macdonald).
Most of the correspondence received by the Department of Veterans Affairs comes from veterans' organizations and primarily from the Royal Canadian Legion. There are three main areas of concern. First is the effect on our services to veterans and their dependants, and the loss of experienced and trained personnel who will choose not to relocate. This is a very important factor. Second is the department headquarters' relationship with the national offices of veterans' organizations in Ottawa. Third, is the over-all cost of relocation during a time of financial restraint. Mr. Speaker, I think someone is here for my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
a (1800)



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, it is the desire of the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General that this honourable House attend him immediately in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
[Stage Direction]
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the honour to inform the House that the Honourable Deputy Governor General has been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-43, an act to amend the Judges Act, to amend an act to amend the Judges Act and to amend certain other acts in respect of the reconstitution of the courts in New Brunswick, Alberta and Saskatchewan.-Chapter No. 11.
Bill C-2, an act to amend the Health Resources Fund Act.-Chapter No. 12.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being past six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6.02 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Hon. Monique Begin (for the Minister of Transport) moved: that Bill S-6, to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the main object of this bill is to exempt certain practices of shipping conferences from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. In anticipation of the expiry of legislation currently in force this year, the government has considered the question whether or not to continue to exempt conferences from the provision of the act. The government has concluded that conferences continue to serve the public interest in providing stable services for Canadian shippers at reasonable cost. This was also the almost unanimous view of the private sector as reflected in the responses to inquiries carried out last year by the Canadian Transport Commission in connection with the review of the effectiveness of the current legislation.
The main features of the present legislation have been retained in Bill S-6. There are, however, a number of significant changes designed, for the most part, to ensure the protection of Canadian interests, particularly Canada shippers who make use of conference services.
Bill S-6 was given very thorough examination in the other place. Its standing committee on transport and communications met on numerous occasions and received submissions from various groups representing conferences and shippers. While the carriers and shippers differed on a number of aspects of the bill, all were in favour of continuing to exempt conferences from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. Moreover, I think it became clear during the course of the discussions that Bill S-6 represents a reasonable compromise between the requirements of the conferences on the one hand and shippers on the other. Minor amendments designed to provide clarification of some clauses of the bill were adopted in the other place, and I can now recommend Bill S-6 to the House and request its early passage.


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, as has been pointed out by the parliamentary secretary, this bill has undergone fairly extensive study in the other place. I believe some nine meetings were held that some 20 witnesses appeared before the committee to present their views and submissions. The groups which appeared represented shippers, shipping conferences, and the government. As has been pointed out as
March 8, 1979

well, some seven amendments were brought forward in the other place, and I believe those amendments serve to improve the bill significantly.
It is important that I point out that this bill is a replacement for existing legislation which will expire at the end of this month. I believe that the clause of this bill relating to Section 23 of the National Transportation Act is worthy of consideration, and we will certainly have some questions to ask at the committee stage.
I will not attempt now to plow over the same ground gone over by members of the other place. Upon reviewing the hearings which took place in the Senate committee I think we will find that the bill has been studied exhaustively. There were some good submissions. There are some pros and cons with regard to this bill, but on balance I believe that what we have here today is supportable.
We certainly will support the passage of this bill. We will not impede its passage other than to seek some answers with respect to some questions arising out of the application of section 23 of the National Transportation Act. We will also have questions with respect to regulations which can be made by order in council. We would like to be assured that sufficient safeguards are provided so that regulations will not be unduly rigorous or unduly generous. We would like to see this bill move forward. We are prepared to see that it passes through all stages at this time. If it is the general wish that it proceed to committee, that is fine as well. We can certainly move on it expeditiously.
There is some other important legislation coming up having to do with transportation of dangerous goods. We think that legislation deserves early attention as well as other transportation legislation.
It is not our intention to impede the progress of this bill, and we are prepared to deal with it either in committee of the whole or in the standing committee, whichever the House decides.


Alphonsus Faour: Mr. Speaker, as has been mentioned already, Bill S-6 received quite an exhaustive review in the other place. As has also been mentioned, basically the bill would extend the provisions of legislation enacted in the early 1970s which will expire at the end of this month. The bill would provide exemptions with regard to certain practices of shipping conferences operating in Canada and outside Canada. The exemptions to which I refer are in relation to the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act under several different circumstances.
In general terms I suspect that this bill is probably essential at this time in the sense that shipping conferences are operating now. We deal in an international shipping situation, and it would be difficult for Canada to change the system without some massive restructuring of our own shipping system. However, that does not alter the fact that the whole principle of encouraging this type of monopolistic tendency in the shipping industry is not good for Canada, the Canadian consumer or the Canadian shipping industry, what little shipping industry
Shipping
there is left in Canada. This debate opens up the broad question of whether conferences in this sense are good or bad for shipping, the shipping industry, and the economy of Canada.
Shipping conferences are associations of shipping lines. Basically, they are cartels. Bill S-6 would extend the legality of the cartels which have been operating in Canada for some time now. The operations of these conferences in Canada would be illegal except for this bill and, of course, its predecessor act.
It is necessary to look at the consequences of this type of activity in the shipping industry. Because of the operation of shipping conferences, shipping rates are not set by the market forces of supply and demand in general terms but end up being set on the basis of what the market will bear. This means that in Canada, since there is no competition, or very little, in international shipping, we have higher rates and lower rates, depending on the type of goods shipped. There is a tendency toward price discrimination in Canadian shipping. There are higher rates for high value and low weight goods and lower rates for low value and high weight goods. This acts to the detriment of Canadian consumers.
A justification for restraint upon competition in the shipping industry, other than the fact that this is the way it has always been and this is the way the world runs in general terms, is that it maintains the health of merchant marines. It also maintains regular and frequent cargo services and creates-it is alleged-stable rates in the system.
The first of these justifications just does not apply to Canada because we do not have a merchant marine. It has been the policy of this government and of previous governments to allow our merchant marine to deteriorate to the point where it does not exist any more.
The operation of conferences may give us stable rates in the shipping industry, but the prices, while they may be stable, are still too high. A study, commissioned by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, by the institute for policy analysis at the University of Toronto came to the conclusion that the high prices in this area are an excessive price to pay for any alleged advantages of a healthy liner trade. We do not even have one in Canada right now and we still have to pay the price. That institute and that study, which was released not too long ago, recommend change and reform in the system immediately. This bill continues the recent trends in world shipping of decreasing and lessening competition in the industry, which has not been good for Canada mainly because we do not have an industry operating in the field.
Generally speaking, conferences augment their power and exercise their power through discriminatory pricing, which has tended to favour exports over imports in Canada recently. This may be good in terms of balance of payment, but in the long run leads to certain misallocation of resources and a high cost to consumers. Also, they operate by means of patronage agreements to force shippers to use only certain lines or routes. The competition between conferences even is limited. There

March 8, 1979
Shipping
are some 50 conferences operating out of Canada on international routes, but on essentially heavily used routes like the north Atlantic there is such a great overlapping membership among these several conferences that there is very little effective competition among them.
Other countries have attempted to control the power of these conferences in various ways, through regulation and so on, where the conferences' activities are most obviously in conflict with the public interest, but in general the effects of regulation have been negligible in terms of positive effects upon the economic welfare. So with the experience of other countries as a guide, it seems pointless for Canada to attempt regulation of conferences in conjunction with this type of bill in order to minimize their most objectionable points. But then neither should we make their activities legal when our whole economic tradition dictates that we should be doing just the opposite, that is, increasing competition.
Canada has no merchant marine, as I mentioned before, and in two ways this would, or should, dictate that we not allow conferences such leeway in our economy. Without a merchant marine we have no leverage in the shipping industry to control the adverse effect of the conference operations. As well, there is no benefit to Canada as a result of the high rates which result from conferences. High rates in another country might encourage the development or continuance of a merchant marine and its healthy operation; in Canada that factor does not exist because we do not have a merchant marine.
However, there is a problem, and that is why I suggest at this time that, in spite of my opposition to the bill, it might be difficult to make conferences totally subject to the Combines Investigation Act, because most conferences or most lines operating in Canada also belong to conferences operating out of the United States and it would be very difficult to prove collusion or some other action contrary to the Combines Investigation Act, where, in most cases, it would only be a passive agreement between conferences or member lines of conferences. But in spite of those difficulties we should not be encouraging such practices as price discrimination, and perhaps we could specifically prohibit them if we did not allow the legalization of the conferences in this country.
As I mentioned before, one of the main reasons for this bill right now-and the problem 1 have with this bill-is that we do not have a merchant marine. If Canada had a viable merchant marine we could effectively counter the power of conferences on the international scene, and we could effectively gain from the rate structures and the frameworks that are set up by conferences internationally. It is astounding to me that the Canadian government would make a conscious decision as far back as the early 1950s not to foster a merchant marine. At one time, as hon. members are aware, Canada was one of the top countries in the world in the size and power of its merchant marine. Now our sea-going traffic is limited mainly to lake traffic on the Great Lakes in central Canada. For a country that relies as heavily on international trade as does Canada, we should have some control over the way we get our goods to markets and over the way we bring goods from

overseas. The whole problem of shipping conferences is that they operate with little if any direction or control by Canada, and because of the monopolistic tendencies of the conference operations they do us harm economically.
Not only do we not have a merchant marine but we do not require Canadian companies such as CP, which receive many dollars in subsidies and tax referrals, to register their ships in Canada like a good corporate citizen should. The benefits of bringing home these vessels, which are now flying flags of convenience like Bermuda but are beneficially owned in Canada, would be great. It would give us a merchant marine under Canadian control to counter the power of the conferences internationally. It would provide jobs and employment at home rather than in foreign countries which fly flags of convenience, it would subject the ships to greater Canadian regulation in a great many fields, including working conditions, and finally, it would benefit consumers by providing a competitive Canadian presence in world shipping.
This bill would not be perceived to be so necessary or so objectionable if Canada had its own merchant marine, and I suggest it is incumbent on this government to begin developing one now rather than pursue a conscious policy which is going in the opposite direction. Also, I suggest that this government should encourage, and perhaps require companies like CP, Federal Commerce and Irving Oil, to register their ships in Canada, thereby employing Canadians and making them subject to Canadian law. It is important to bring some democracy and competition back to the market place in the shipping industry so that Canadian workers and consumers will benefit.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, at this time, without some drastic reorganization of the Canadian shipping industry structure, it is probably a little impractical for the government not to pass this bill at present. But in principle we are opposed to it because of the reasons I have outlined, that it decreases and restrains competition in the industry, thereby bringing less benefits and greater costs to Canadian consumers, Canadian workers, and the Canadian industry.


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the main object of this bill is to exempt certain practices of the shipping conferences from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act.
Let me provide some background, Mr. Speaker. Shipping conferences are associations or groups of shipping lines serving the same route or area that act together to set rates and other conditions under which they will carry goods. These associations or conferences exist in what is known as liner sectors, that is, among companies operating between fixed points on a regularly scheduled basis. Moreover, conferences exist primarily in the carriage of general cargo rather than in the dry or wet bulk trade, such as the shipment of wheat or oil. Conferences carry about 10 per cent of the Canadian exports in tonnage terms but considerably more in dollar terms since much of their business consists of higher value goods.
There are about 50 conferences serving Canada at the present time, each consisting of two or more members and
March 8, 1979

each serving a particular trade, such as exports from Canada, the United Kingdom, Scandinavia or Japan, with separate conferences covering the inbound trade.
The shipping lines making up any given conference typically adopt an agreement which governs their membership voting procedures and other aspects of their relationship. They maintain a permanent office or offices, and meet from time to time to agree on rates for various commodities, or to discuss other matters in relation to the operation of the conferences. While conference members normally agree on rates, at least for most commodities, typically they also compete with each other for business on the basis of such factors as service or delivery times. In many trades they also are in competition with other lines that are not members of that conference, or for certain high value products with the airlines.
The conference system is not new, nor is it unique to Canada. Liner operators have been operating in conferences for more than 100 years, and are active in most parts of the world. Since their origins in the 1870s, conferences have been subject to analysis and discussion, both internationally and in Canada. In this country, for example, there have been several investigations into conference activities, the first of which was in 1913. The most extensive inquiry was that carried out by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission which concluded, in a 1965 report, that conferences operate as cartels, contrary to the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act, but that the public interest would not be served by the excessive rate and service instability that might result if shipping conferences were not permitted to exist. It was the report of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission that led to the Shipping Conferences Exemption Act, which came into force on April 1, 1971, and which will expire on March 31 this year.
The act that is currently in effect sets out a number of conference practices, such as the common setting of rates, that are exempted from the Combines Investigation Act. At the same time it sets out other practices, such as the use of deferred rebates, that are not exempted from the act, or in other words, practices that are not permitted. The act also requires conferences to file copies of conference agreements, memberships, tariffs, etc. with the Canadian Transport Commission so that they are accessible to the public. This is the framework of the legislation currently in force, allowing conferences to operate in Canadian trades subject to clearly established ground rules.
In anticipation of the expiry of legislation currently in force this year, the government has considered the question of whether or not to continue to exempt conferences from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. The government has concluded that conferences continue to serve the public interest, in providing stable services for Canadian shippers at reasonable cost. This also was the almost unanimous view of the private sector, as reflected in responses to an inquiry carried out last year by the Canadian Transport Commission
Shipping
in connection with a review of the effectiveness of the current legislation.
The main features of the present legislation have been retained in Bill S-6. There are, however, a number of significant changes, designed for the most part to ensure the protection of Canadian interests, particularly Canadian shippers who make use of conference services.
Clause 8, which spells out filing requirements, ensures that changes to tariffs and other conference documents will be accessible to shippers and other interested groups on the date on which they come into effect, rather than 30 days after the date of their adoption, as in the current legislation.
Clauses 13 and 14 require conference members to make copies of all conference documents available for inspection or purchase at an office or agency in the region of Canada where they operate, and to make copies of current tariffs available for inspection at all members' principal offices or agencies in Canada. This would provide shippers with easier access to relevant information since at the present time the conferences are required only to file this information with the Canadian Transport Commission.
Clause 15 requires members of conferences operating from Canada to meet with designated shipper groups, when reasonably requested to do so, and to provide the shipper group with information sufficient for the satisfactory conduct of the meeting. This section is designed to ensure that such conferences meet with Canadian shippers to discuss problems of mutual interest and to ensure that shippers are provided with information on which they can judge conference actions, such as proposed rate increases.
While it is hoped that any additional information can be obtained voluntarily, clause 16 empowers the governor in council to make regulations requiring members of a conference to provide information necessary to enable the commission effectively to supervise their activities. The government appreciates the sensitivity of this question of information, but is of the view that clause 16 contains adequate and appropriate safeguards to protect the legitimate interests of various members.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, clause 23 provides for the legislation to expire after five years, with provision for extension by proclamation for periods not exceeding five years.
Bill S-6 was given very thorough examination in the other place. Its standing committee on transport and communications met on numerous occasions, and received submissions from various groups representing conferences and shippers. While the carriers and shippers differed on a number of aspects of the bill, all were in favour of continuing to exempt conferences from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. Moreover, I think it became clear during the course of the discussion that Bill S-6 represents a reasonable compromise between the requirements of the conferences on the one hand, and of the shippers on the other.
Minor amendments designed to provide clarification of some clauses of the bill were adopted in the other place, and I think

March 8, 1979
Shipping
that following the contributions we have had from the opposition and from this side we could probably now go into the committee of the whole on the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Does the House consent that we change the motion, referring the bill to the committee of the whole?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: As I pointed out earlier on behalf of our party, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to consider this piece of legislation in the committee of the whole.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to agree to the request to deal with this bill in committee of the whole.


Léonel Beaudoin: We agree, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The question is on the motion that Bill S-6, to exempt certain shipping conference practices from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act be now read a second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to the committee of the whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Ethier in the chair.
On Clause 2-Definitions
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct a few questions to the parliamentary secretary in connection with clause 2 of the bill. My first question has reference to the commission, meaning the Canadian Transport Commission. I notice that later in the bill there is reference to investigations at the request of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs by the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. This leads me to wonder why there is a necessity for involving another commission in the processes under the legislation. I would ask the parliamentary secretary how many references were made under the existing legislation to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, and whether any consideration has been given to having investigations of the kind in clause 12 of Bill S-6 carried out by the Canadian Transport Commission?
[ Translation]


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I must honestly inform hon. members that I am not very familiar with this bill and in view of the specific nature of the question the hon. member has just asked, I would ask to be allowed to reserve it until such time as, when departmental officials arrive, I can reply in more specific terms.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, I will certainly grant the indulgence and move on to the next provision of clause 2 of the bill which is the definition of "goods". In the parliamentary secretary's judgment and the judgment of the people who have been concerned with the administration of the act in the past, is the definition of goods intended to cover all and every kind and class of goods that might be expected to be carried by an ocean carrier, or is there some element of restriction? The words used, "articles" and "commodities", might be taken in some circumstances to be restricted in meaning, as opposed to being broad and including every class and kind of chattels and property. Is there any intention to exclude some goods from the definition?


Charles Lapointe: The definition of the word "goods" in clause 2 of this act reads:
"goods" means any articles or commodities that may be the subject of trade or commerce.
In my opinion there is no restriction.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, I understand from the parliamentary secretary that the words used are intended to be as broad as possible and not intended to exclude any particular class or kinds of articles or materials of any sort. It might be argued that lumber or something of that sort would not be regarded as an article or commodity if it is in its very natural form and not in any way processed. The term commodities normally implies a processing, and the term article refers to articles produced by man. I query whether lumber in the raw form would be included in the definition of goods. In specific terms I would ask whether natural material like lumber, material in a relatively raw form, might be included?


Charles Lapointe: According to the information I have been able to get in the last few seconds, the commodity referred to by the hon. member is included. On the other hand, bulk such as wheat is not included, and liquid such as petroleum is not included. These materials are excluded from the word "goods" as it is described in this bill.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, can the parliamentary secretary give us any explanation beyond the mere words of the bill in terms of whether or not there is some intention to exclude natural materials? For example, are petroleum in its natural state or even in its manufactured state and wheat excluded on the grounds that they are natural products?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I think I will be in a position to provide the hon. member with more information a bit later.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the parliamentary secretary to elaborate on the definition of "patronage contract". To what extent and how broad is the use of patron-
March 8, 1979

age contract in relation to and in respect of the conferences that we are talking about here?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, if I refer to the text of the bill, I find that "patronage contract" is fairly well defined; may I be allowed to quote the fifth paragraph of clause 2:
"patronage contract'' means a contract between a shipper of goods and members of a shipping conference whereby in return for certain advantages the shipper agrees to offer to members of the conference for transportation by them all goods, all goods of certain classes or a fixed proportion of all goods or of all goods of certain classes shipped by water by that shipper to places served by members of that conference;


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, could the parliamentary secretary indicate to the committee just how widespread the use of patronage contracts is in relationship to the shipping conferences? That was my point. Is it predominant, is it very widespread, or is it on a minimal basis?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, once again, I must admit my ignorance of such a specific point. But I am told that the officials of the department will be here in a few moments, at which time I can give a more specific answer.


Alphonsus Faour: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding, according to the deliberations on clause 2, that questioning can be fairly general. I would like to address a question to the parliamentary secretary concerning the thrust of this bill and what it is to accomplish in so far as benefits for Canada are concerned.
In my remarks earlier this evening I mentioned, in quoting from the summary of a study prepared for the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs by the Institute for Policy Analysis of the University of Toronto, that restraints on competition, such as are included in this bill, are usually justified by national governments. For example, one ground is to maintain and strengthen the financial health of the national merchant marine. Other grounds are that there is a virtue to regular and frequent cargo services, that restraints on competition, such as this bill will allow, will encourage regular and frequent cargo services and also stable freight rates.
The criticism on the other hand is that the rates, while stable, are too high to justify this sort of restraint on competition. Usually the only benefits that accrue to a national economy are when there are possible benefits that may be gained by a merchant marine. Canada does not have a merchant marine. What sort of benefits in general terms-I realize that it is difficult to be specific-does the operation of conferences such as this have for Canada?
Shipping


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, to my mind, the advantage, in general terms, is rather obvious, and protecting shipping conferences allows Canadian shippers or users to bank on a service that is regular and stable, and also on stable tariffs. A while ago, in the course of his remarks, the hon. member criticized the Canadian government for not setting up a merchant marine. I should like to tell him that this may not be a substitute for a merchant marine but, on the other hand, protecting shipping conferences will give Canadian ship owners a sheltered market, up to a point, and allow them to set up business for operating a ship on a profitable basis.


Alphonsus Faour: Mr. Chairman, I recognize that the operation of conferences is helped by a bill such as this one which exempts their operation from the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act. I can also see perhaps the advantages of stable prices, but there have been criticisms and, in particular, the study by Professor Bryan Kotowitz of the University of Toronto which was commissioned by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The study finds that the cost to the Canadian consumer is greater than any benefits which may be received by an increase in the stability of the shipping rates structure. I wonder if any studies have been made to determine what the costs are in higher rates to shippers, and hence the Canadian consumer, as opposed to how unstable the shipping industry would be if the conferences were not allowed to operate in Canada?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I would like to remind the hon. member that in the study he referred to, they do not recommend the abolition of shipping conferences. Furthermore, on the second point he raised, namely, whether studies were made to determine the cost of that shipping conference system to the consumers, I would say to the hon. member that there were no special studies on that subject. However, I would like to advise him that those shipping conferences enable us precisely to avoid, both for the Canadian consumer and for the shipper who uses that system, unduly great fluctuations such as in oil shipping, for example.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, now that the official has arrived to assist the parliamentary secretary, I should like to come back to an earlier question with respect to the definition of "commission." I asked the parliamentary secretary how many investigations had been held in the past under the provisions of the old statute. I should like to know at the same time whether, on the basis of past experience, there has been any need to involve another commission as is referred to in clause 12 of the bill, in terms of conducting these investigations and of the kind that are described there, or whether they might be conducted by the Canadian Transport Commission.

March 8, 1979
Shipping


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, clause 12 is in this bill only to provide an additional avenue or means to protect shippers and consumers in this matter. It has not been used so far to my knowledge, but I think it is important for Canadians to have this additional protection over and above the Canadian Transport Commission.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, as the parliamentary secretary may know, the investigations provided for in clause 12 are at the initiative of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I assume if there have been no such investigations in the past, it was because the minister did not see fit to order any. I want to confirm that that is the case, that in the past the minister has not seen fit to order any investigations.


Charles Lapointe: As far as I know, Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has not ordered any investigations under these provisions.


M. Faour:: Mr. Chairman, I have one more question on clause 2 in the general vein of those I put to the parliamentary secretary earlier. I should like to read a brief extract from the Department of Transport "Shipping Policy for Canada", on page 3, as follows:
Canada's shipping policy to date rests on the belief that in the long run a freely competitive shipping environment will prove more beneficial to her interests than measures to develop and/or subsidize a national deep-sea fleet.
That seems to imply that competition is more important than a merchant marine. If competition is so important, I wonder why it is necessary in this bill to put restraints on it. This is a serious question and it may be difficult to answer, but what is the point of decreasing competition in the industry when the thrust of economic policy in Canada has been to encourage competition for the benefits that it brings?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, the principle of shipping conferences is recognized internationally, and it enables those who enter that contract to make the large investments which are necessary to buy the equipment, the specialized vessels or the other things which are needed. Of course, by accepting the principle of those conferences you have some restriction as far as competition is concerned, but it does not prevent us from encouraging competition, and there is the fact that other ships or other means of transportation, such as air transport, can compete with those shipping conferences.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, my question arises out of comments made by my hon. friend to my left and the response he received. We talk about the advantages, and an example comes to mind regarding the movement of grain out of eastern Canada. Would the vessels carrying the bulk of Canada's grain be a party to some form of shipping conference? Is there any advantage in this regard? I see the parliamentary secretary shaking his head in the negative. If they are not associated with the conferences, is there any particular reason for that?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, the conferences are there to provide the regular, scheduled service at specific points, not for bulk cargos. Bulk cargos are taken care of by chartered companies that have charter ships, not conference ships.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Would that also apply to commodities like coal and crude oil?


Charles Lapointe: In general, Mr. Chairman, bulk cargo is not carried by conference ships.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the parliamentary secretary regarding the coastal trade, and the passage of bills within the last year in which our avowed interest was to establish the use of Canadian vessels between one Canadian point and the other. Will the conferences set prices? Will it be detrimental to the possibility of Canada establishing coastal trade for deep sea fishing? We are making arrangements for a lot of other countries but we are not making arrangements for Canada. I believe we have less than a dozen ships that will be affected by any of these conferences. I would probably be exaggerating if I said we had a dozen deep sea ships under Canadian ownership and Canadian registry. By making this kind of an arrangement will we not eliminate the possibility of developing our own fleet at some time? As I understand it, we would be subject to similar international regulations as those under which the airlines operate. We cannot do things that we do not allow someone else to do.
If we are to have deep sea fishing we will have to do many other things so that coal can be handled in Canadian bottoms, or wheat or other things. If we lock ourselves into this conference arrangement, are we not in effect making it almost impossible for us to do anything about getting into shipping if the government ever desires to subsidize the industry? Subsidization is an arrangement a country may make to give itself an international advantage in using its own bottoms.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, since shipping within those conferences applies only or mainly to international transport, it does not conflict with coastal trade or coastal shipping. On the other hand, some Canadian companies, such as CP Shipping, belong to such conferences which enable Canadian companies to integrate into that framework and allow them to do some international shipping. I do not really see the point which the hon. member wants to make.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, the point is fairly simple. We have no merchant navy. At one time Canada was among the top five nations of the world with a merchant navy. This merchant navy in the main was sold to Mr. Onassis in Greece. From listening to members of parliament over the past five years I am sure that members on all sides of the House feel

March 8, 1979

that it is advantageous for Canada, sooner or later, to get into the shipping field again, and that Canada should not be subjected to other countries shipping our produce.
If we allow international conferences which set international tariffs, what kind of a position will we be in after signing such an arrangement or international convention? I am well aware there may be some advantages in having these conferences and that sometimes the rates are beneficial. I think Canada is committed, more or less, to the idea of developing a merchant navy. Canada has one of the largest coastlines in the world. It has a large export market for raw and bulk materials. I am aware of what happened with respect to the coastal trade which does not necessarily apply in this case, but we do not have too many ships involved there either.
Someone indicated that there were reciprocal trade agreements signed with countries that do make available certain things which are not necessarily available in this agreement. I say on behalf of the Canadian public that I am sure we would not want to lock into anything on a short-term basis that may be to the advantage of some of the trading blocks in our own society, but is a situation which will not allow us to build a merchant navy. Over the next few years, unless we can fly our Canadian flag around the world, we will not be the trading nation most of us think we are.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, the bill requires no ratification of international agreement. It only provides a legislative framework enabling shipping conferences to operate in Canada. In my opinion, there is no relation between the creation of a merchant marine and shipping conferences since most countries that already have a merchant marine also belong to those shipping conferences.


Mr. Corbett:: Mr. Chairman, the parliamentary secretary made reference a short time ago to some of the commodities that might be excluded from this particular bill, for example, wheat, oil, coal, and things of that nature. Is he in a position to inform us what other products or commodities might generally be excluded from this type of a bill?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, properly speaking, there is no exclusion of certain goods.

Those conferences will carry mainly, and I think I can safely say, only general cargo composed of manufactured goods and liquids which are carried for the most part in containers. It is related to the size of the ship, so they do not carry bulk.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Chairman, it appears to be a rather loose framework for dealing with the various commodities. Can the parliamentary secretary give the House any indication of how the Canadian Transport Commission, which I would assume is the governing body and the one making the decision, will decide which will be exempt and which will not? Could he tell us what guidelines will be taken to determine which commodi-
Shipping
ties will or will not be involved? For instance, will there be dollar values put on, tonnage, or things of this nature?


Charles Lapointe: No, Mr. Chairman.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding of this particular set-up that there is an open class conference and a closed conference. Apparently the United States has been involved in an open type of conference and the Canadian conference is presently closed. From the information I have, the United States is now moving toward the concept of the closed conference. Can the parliamentary secretary indicate what the future direction of the Canadian conference might be in this regard? If it is toward a continuing closed conference, will the parliamentary secretary indicate what procedures a new shipper might have to go through in order to be accepted by the Canadian Transport Commission?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member is correct in saying that in Canada we operate mainly under a system of closed conferences. Any shipper in Canada wanting to join must apply to the conference and the membership of that conference will decide whether or not to accept the application.
With regard to what is happening in the United States, the shipping policy there is now under review. At this stage it is impossible for me to say which way it will go. I might refer the hon. member to the proceedings of the Senate transport committee where this question was dealt with thoroughly.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Chairman, I apologize if I am digging up old ground, but I am not very familiar with the proceedings that took place in the Senate. For those who might be in the same position, perhaps the parliamentary secretary can give some indication of the guidelines for acceptance of a new shipper into the closed policy conference set-up that the Canadian Transport Commission is apparently working toward.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, if a shipper wants to become a member of the conference, as I told the hon. member, he must apply to the conference. Membership is left to the members of the conference. There are no criteria devised by the CTC. It does not enter into it unless there is a complaint to that body to inquire into a request which has not been accepted.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Chairman, I just might make a suggestion. As governments are involved in the parliamentary process of this country, it might be a thought for legislators to have some input into the exclusion or intrusion, as the case may be, of new shippers or at least prospective new shippers into the business of the Canadian Transport Commission.
I would like to expound somewhat on the comments of my friend to my left about the establishment of a merchant marine which is an admirable direction for the country to be taking. I heartily endorse it. Can the parliamentary secretary
3978

March 8, 1979
Shipping
indicate whether his department has had negotiations with the union involved, the Seafarer's International Union, which played a very important role in the demise of the Canadian merchant marine in this country several years ago?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I think that possible negotiations or contacts with the International Seafarer's Union bear little relationship to the bill before us. As for the more general issue of a merchant marine for Canada, we have had many opportunities to discuss this in the House. As I said, Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any relationship between this question and the proposed legislation.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, I wish to deal with one aspect of the points raised by an hon. member in questions to the parliamentary secretary with regard to the coastal shipping trade. I appreciate that the bill relates to and deals with international shipping. The definition of transportation of goods makes that clear. There is an area of coastal shipping trade that is both intra-Canada and international in its makeup. By way of example, a ship can travel from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to St. John's, Newfoundland, and on to the eastern seaboard of the United States. I just wonder about the effect of excluding this kind of transportation route from the operation of the bill and presumably from the operation of the shipping conference. Is there a benefit to be derived from including in relation to the coastal shipping trade that portion of the transportation that is intra-Canada, that is, within Canadian points such as Halifax, Nova Scotia, and St. John's, Newfoundland?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I do not clearly see the purpose or the basis of the hon. member's question. I do not quite understand what he is trying to get at. In so far as coastal shipping is concerned, it is clear, as I mentioned earlier, that it is protected for Canadian ships. I do not see what he is driving at.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, I would not have thought it was obscure. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary is not familiar with the geography involved. It is convenient for ships to travel from Halifax, Nova Scotia, to St. John's, Newfoundland, and on to the eastern seaboard of the United States. That kind of shipping route would involve an international aspect as well as an internal or domestic aspect. As I understand the provisions of the bill and the designation of the transportation of goods, such a transportation route would be excluded from the operation and the protective aspect of the bill. Having regard to the fact that the bill is intended to benefit Canadians by curtailing, in some respects, the effect of the Combines Investigation Act, I am asking whether this is really of benefit.
{Mr. Corbett.]


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, perhaps I can ask the hon. member to give me some clarification on the substance of his question. He could perhaps give me a factual example, and I could give him a clearer answer. Does he mean for example, that transport between Halifax and St. John's should be restricted to vessels flying a Canadian flag or would he include those vessels flying a Canadian flag within those conferences?


Howard Edward Crosby: I thought I had given the parliamentary secretary an example. As I understand it, a ship which travels between Halifax, Nova Scotia, and St. John's, Newfoundland, and then goes on to Boston before returning to Halifax to continue that circular pattern is not included in this definition of the transportation of goods and does not get the benefit of exclusion. Is that correct?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, if the definition of transportation of goods was included in clause 2, it is precisely to take care of the hon. member's concerns. Those goods are therefore included within those conferences even if they travel from one point X through Y, in another country, to come back to Z, in Canada.


Howard Edward Crosby: It seems to me the parliamentary secretary has not given my question the consideration for which I was hoping. Can any consideration be given to permitting the inclusion under the definition of routes which are partly within Canada and partly outside, such as the one I have described? The answer, apparently, is either that the hon. gentleman does not know or else he is not interested.
[ Translation]


Charles Lapointe: I think, Mr. Chairman, that if the hon. member had understood my previous answer, he could have concluded that I said yes to his question. Now, I would not want to give here a legal opinion on that subject.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
On clause 4-Investigation
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, I have had some experience with section 23 of the National Transportation Act, particularly as it relates to the establishment of a prima facie case of circumstances detrimental to the public interest. I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could obtain from his officials a brief explanation of the relationship between clause 4 and section 23 of the act? Under section 23 the difficulty in establishing a prima facie case has been one of the inherent obstacles to making that provision workable.
March 8, 1979

I recall a case under section 23 involving freight rates as applied to the movement of processed rapeseed; it took well over three years before this issue was resolved by the CTC. The bottleneck was the difficulty in establishing a prima facie case of a circumstance deemed to be prejudicial to the public interest. Has that section been streamlined sufficiently to make the clause before us workable? What provisions existed in the previous legislation for protection against rate fixing or tariffs which may have been prejudicial to the public interest? Was a clause of the kind we are considering necessary at that time? Have a series of problems arisen because existing legislation was not able to deal effectively with the application of rates which were clearly prejudicial to the public interest?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, 1 appreciate the hon. member's concerns. I know that the operation or the use of section 23 of the National Transportation Act, as it is now, is difficult.
I suggest that is why Bill C-20 has amended the structure of this section to facilitate the recourse to this appeal procedure. Why then is it mentioned in clause 4 of the bill? There was no specific reference in the previous bill. It was made part of Bill S-6 to remind shipowners and conference members that this appeal procedure exists in the National Transportation Act.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, am I to understand that this clause is inserted in anticipation of modifications to section 23 in a new National Transportation Act? May I assume that the parliamentary secretary is optimistic that those will be passed in sufficient time to be utilized in conjunction with this measure? That section of the existing act would otherwise be made unworkable.
I wonder as well what options are open to the CTC if in fact it found a prima facie case of tariff fixing or rate fixing which was indeed prejudicial. What would the commission do? Would it order a correction? What sanctions are available to redress a problem in the event that the finding of the commission is that a certain practice is prejudicial?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I do not have with me the text of the National Transportation Act and it would have to find out what is provided for under section 24. As far as 1 can remember, the Canadian Transport Commission is empowered to order corrective measures if it feels a situation is prejudicial to shippers, and to recommend to the governor in council to take steps to correct such a situation. As for Bill C-20, I am sure that if the hon. member for Vegreville and I had had both to look after it, this bill would have been adopted long ago.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, would that mean that the CTC would have the power to disband a conference?
Shipping


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, what is contemplated is that the CTC could order a specific conference to correct a situation which has been found to be prejudicial.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, in my earlier question I asked whether any specific examples under the existing legislation were cited in a request to have this kind of safeguard inserted. Were there examples of customers who had complaints about the impact of conferences acting contrary to the public interest? Is that why this clause is being inserted?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, there has been no specific request made to the Canadian Transport Commission or any other organization for an investigation to be made or for a situation to be corrected. I think however that clause 4 was made part of this bill to provide additional protection to shippers, and remind them that this appeal procedure exists and that they may avail themselves of it.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 4 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
On clause 6-Limitation


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, clause 5 refers to those who deal with a particular conference, and clause 6 refers to those who do not. There are five or six reasons why there might be a dispute. When there is a dispute, where can appeals be directed? Are they to be directed to the appeal board provided for in Section 23 of the act and the Canadian Transport Commission as well, or are we setting up some other agency? It seems to me that any appeal under clause 6 would have to be made right away, or it really would not be an appeal. Such an appeal would not be long-term litigation but simply a request for an answer.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, clause 6 lists only those practices of a conference which would not be allowed under the present act and which still come under the Combines Investigation Act.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, if clause 6 applies to practices referred to in the Combines Investigation Act, where can an appeal be taken? For instance, if a vessel is used for the purpose of preventing or lessening unduly competition in the transportation of goods by an ocean carrier which is not a party to such a contract, agreement or arrangement, where can an appeal be taken?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, a third party could appeal to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission or to the Canadian Transport Commission under section 4.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 6 carry?
Clause 6 agreed to.

March 8, 1979
Shipping
Clauses 7 to 11 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 12-Inquiry and report by Director


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask further questions of the parliamentary secretary in relation to matters raised previously regarding the references by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. I understand that in the past there have not been any references by the minister, and I would like the parliamentary secretary to indicate whether in the course of the trade carried on by the various conferences there have been complaints made by particular shipping conferences about competition from other shipping conferences, or anything of that nature. More specifically, have complaints been recorded or have requests about unfair competition been made to either the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or to the Canadian Transport Commission?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, as I stated earlier, to my knowledge there were no complaints or formal requests to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, nor were there formal complaints to the Canadian Transport Commission.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, on a related matter, as I understood the remarks made by the parliamentary secretary or by another hon. member, there are approximately 50 shipping conferences operating under the provisions of this act. Could the hon. member indicate to us to what extent these 50 shipping conferences are in competition with each other or in what way they are classified or divided for competition purposes?
t Translation]


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, conferences themselves do not compete with one another because, normally, the shipowners within a conference devote their activity to a given ocean route, for instance, there is a conference for shipping between Canada and the United Kingdom, another for the transport of goods between Vancouver and Japan, or something similar. There may be some competition within a conference, that is, between shipowners who may be competing with one another, and of course, there will be competition at large with other shipowners or other companies outside the conference.


Howard Edward Crosby: I am not sure I understand the parliamentary secretary. He is indicating there have been no complaints under existing legislation similar to clause 12 of the bill. Now he seems to be indicating there is no occasion for any complaints. Perhaps he might explain why clause 12 is in the bill, and perhaps he can give us an example of a complaint which might require investigation under clause 12.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I should like to refer the hon. member to clause 6 of the bill, which has already been passed
[The Chairman.]
to show him there are cases of complaints or inquiries. In addition, clause 12 as included in the bill, as I said earlier, grants additional protection to Canadian ships, though we hope it will never have to be used. But, should it happen that some conferences use means that do not respect the spirit of clause 6 in particular, or the bill in general, clause 12 will authorize the director of the Combines Investigation Commission to undertake an enquiry if he feels that the activities of a given conference go beyond what is envisaged by the bill.


Alphonsus Faour: Mr. Chairman, I have one brief question for the parliamentary secretary. Can he give me an indication as to whether this power of inquiry has been used before and, if so, how many times has it been used before?


Charles Lapointe: No, Mr. Chairman.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the parliamentary secretary one question. Is the reason it has not been used the fact that these companies do not necessarily have an office in Canada and there is no way we can use that provision on them? They are all foreign companies. We do not have ships in Canada and, therefore, many of them do not have an office here. Is the reason we have not considered subjecting them to this provision the fact that they do not exist in Canada and that any law we pass in this manner would not apply to them in any way since they are normally outside of Canada, and we would have to extradite them each time?
[ Translation]


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I think we should not split hairs in this matter. If no investigations were ordered, it is probably because the conferences are providing Canadian shippers and the Canadian public with good services and that there has been nothing to investigate.


Mr. Muir:: Mr. Chairman, I have one short question for the parliamentary secretary. The whole bill is full of legal jargon, as most bills are, and I offer my apologies to the lawyers in the House, but I understand that of necessity we must have that. Under the heading of "Investigation of Shipping Conference" it is stated that the director, on his own initiative, may carry out an inquiry, and also that an inquiry may be carried out on direction by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs or at the request of the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. I wonder what steps would be taken. Does the director have the first decision on this, following which it goes to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and then to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission? In what sequence does this take place, if necessary?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I think that I cannot, as Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, answer
March 8, 1979

this question. This mechanism comes under the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 12 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 13-Office in Canada
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, I have one question on the matter of offices. Are there any in Canada now and, if so, how many, where, and how long would it require for a conference to establish an office? What sort of latitude would be given?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, of the fifty-odd existing conferences, only a few do not have an office in Canada. Now I think the bill uses the verb "shall", therefore we will have to give those conferences which do not have an office here time to establish themselves.


Gérald Laniel: It being ten o'clock, it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to consider the bill again at the next sitting of the House.
[Translation[


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, if hon. members have only a few more questions to put at this point, maybe they will accept, by unanimous consent, to continue this consideration a little past ten o'clock in order to complete it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: That would certainly be O.K. with us, Mr. Chairman. I think two or three more questions would certainly round it off as far as we are concerned.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All right.


Gérald Laniel: In order to sit beyond the normal hour a decision would have to be made from the chair. Perhaps I could just not see the clock, if that is agreeable to hon. members.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 and 15 agreed to.
On clause 16-Regulations


Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Chairman, I should just like to put one point to the parliamentary secretary for clarification. Clause 15 establishes that members of the shipping conference shall provide information sufficiently satisfactory for conducting a meeting, which I assume deals with information that perhaps is in conflict between the groups. We then get to clause 16.
Shipping
Under subclause (2) we have reference to confidentiality and it is noted that information shall not be made public in such a manner as to be made available for the use of any business competitor of the persons to whom the information relates. It seems to me that these statements are contradictory, one to the other, and that they work against the purposes of the ideas of each group. Certainly if that is not the case this is less than crystal clear, at least to me. Could the parliamentary secretary give us some clarification in that regard?


Charles Lapointe: Clause 15 represents the differentiation between the shipping lines which make up the conference, and the shippers and the exporters and importers. It gives to Canadians who are using the conference the ability to obtain information necessary to make a judgment about the tariffs imposed by the conference. Clause 16 is a last resort clause, giving power to the government to help those shippers get that information necessary to make a judgment about the tariffs. That is why there is this clause in respect of confidentiality, in order to put before the public all the financial operations of the companies.
Clause 16 agreed to.
On clause 17-General security by ocean carrier


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the parliamentary secretary could advise the House if in fact there are any securities now on deposit? If so, for what reason? What are the terms and conditions? Perhaps the parliamentary secretary might even have the number that may be on deposit at this particular time. I am just wondering how widespread it is in fact utilized.


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, to the knowledge of the official who is present, there was no requirement under the section. We are not totally certain of that assertion, but I will find out and pass the information along to the hon. member.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clauses 18 and 19 agreed to.
On clause 20-Annual Report


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, very briefly, the bill requires a report within three months of the end of year. There is a similar provision now in enforcement. Could the parliamentary secretary tell the House whether the report provided under the provision currently in force has been made and, if not, when will it be made?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, I would have to secure that information from the Canadian Transport Commission which is responsible for the administration of this act. Unfortunately, I do not have it.


Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Chairman, for clarification it is the Minister of Transport who must submit the report.

March 8, 1979
Business of the House
[ Translation]


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Chairman, up until now annual reports have been tabled regularly. I do not know exactly when the last one was. As I said, I can find out by tomorrow morning and get back to the hon. member.

Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 to 23 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.

Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, about the business of the House for tomorrow, following the meeting that took place this afternoon between the respresentatives of the various parties on Bill C-29, and as there is complete agreement on the procedure and the amendments that could be made to the bill, we will be proceeding, barring a change, the consideration of Bill C-29 tomorrow. As there was also consent for the consideration to take place in committee of the whole rather than in a standing committee of the House, therefore, since the motion has not yet been introduced in the House and it will in all likelihood be introduced tomorrow, I want to advise hon. colleagues on both sides of the House that that motion will be disposed of with the necessary amendment to refer Bill C-29 to a committee of the whole. That motion will be disposed of without a vote and at the committee of the whole stage. As I mentioned earlier, there is complete agreement among the respresentatives of the various parties as to the nature of the amendments to be made to Bill C-29.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary has said is in accordance with the agreements that have been reached, at least in so far as I understand that matter. It would seem to me that it might be useful to have an order made tonight in line with what we have done to change to motion for second reading, so that when we vote on it tomorrow, the motion will be to give the bill second reading and refer it to Committee of the Whole House. That is part of the agreement.


Mr. Ellis:: That is our understanding also, Mr. Speaker.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, that meets our views also, it being agreed that the motion will be disposed of by consent without a vote.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I find it difficult to do that at this time. I might be ready to receive further direction from the House. The question not being before the House, I do not even have a motion in front of me. Unless an hon. member wants to indicate an acceptable procedure by which we can do that-of course by unanimous consent we can do anything we wish-we do not have that order in front of us. I wonder if it is possible for me to do it. I am ready to receive advice.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, about the request for an order of the House made by my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I personally do not see any objection but in view of what I mentioned with respect to the agreement among the representatives of the various parties, if you prefer to dispense with that order of the House tonight, it seems everything could be done tomorrow without complication when the time comes to proceed with government orders.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That would be satisfactory, although I had thought it might be a House order that when item No. 29 is called tomorrow we could proceed with it, as we understand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I find it difficult to do it. The motion is not in front of me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At least we know what we are going to do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I think I could only seek agreement of the House to do that tomorrow-to change the motion. Perhaps we should wait until tomorrow when the motion is in front of us.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I note the consensus.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, on March 2 I questioned the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamon-tagne) about the new overnight courier service which it was rumoured had been launched by the Post Office Department.

March 8, 1979

There has been a veil of secrecy surrounding this service. The rumour was circulating following the somewhat embarrassing information revealed in the House that the Post Office Department has phased out this so-called assured mail service notwithstanding the expenditure of something like $1.5 million to provide special boxes and facilities of that kind to launch this now phased out program of assured mail.
It became necessary to ask the question then because it was impossible to get information from the department. Unfortunately this is a pattern that has been adopted by the Post Office increasingly in recent years. It has been surrounded by a sea of troubles, frequent changes of postmasters general, trouble with its mechanization program, increasing labour-management difficulties resulting in frequent strikes, and, of course, the inevitable result is the loss of business to private couriers.
The Postmaster General replied to my inquiry in rather enigmatic terms. He says this as reported at page 3763 of Hansard for March 2, 1979:
It seems the hon. member is referring to our new service which is called Priority Post. It was devised to give to certain customers under contract a mail service comparable to that of any private enterprise competing with us at the moment. We could promote it, in a way, without publicity; the reason we have not publicized it is that we wanted to make sure that the operation was a success, that it was self-sufficient and that undertaking this new venture would not lead to a requirement for more money from taxpayers.
He goes on to say:
There is nothing secret about it. It is just a question of good management on the part of the Post Office.
It really is quite secret. I was amazed in light of what the Postmaster General said that the Post Office Department had not been shouting from the rooftops about this overnight courier service. The best way, and this has always been a custom in this House as you well know, Mr. Speaker, when new programs of this kind are announced, is that they are announced in the House of Commons and members of parliament have a chance to respond. The public is informed, and the information should result in a favourable response from potential users of a new service of this kind.
Unfortunately, as I have said, the Post Office has developed an inferiority complex. It has become paranoid almost to the point where it is shrouding itself in a veil of secrecy. It refuses to table reports that would be helpful in resolving Post Office difficulties. There is suspicion and confrontation between management and labour rather than consultation and co-operation. This attitude even extends to the proposed Crown corporation legislation where the Post Office is surreptitiously attempting to extend its monopoly by using phrases such as "the transfer of goods" instead of transfer of parcels, and "the transmission of messages" rather than the conveyance of mail, which suggests it wants to move into the electronic transmission business. It spends great sums of money in fighting courier services, such as UPS, rather than providing the superior service which would compete easily with private couriers if the Post Office could only get its act together.
Adjournment Debate
The point in raising this matter tonight is to restore confidence in the Post Office. Canada used to have the best postal service in the world. It was open and accessible to all Canadians. Members on this side of the House still believe that the Post Office is capable of recovering its morale and its efficiency. We believe it should be open and honest with the public if it is providing this service, instead of keeping it close to the chest. Let the public know that overnight courier service is available. Then they will recover the business and will increase their revenues in this manner rather than having to go to the regular periodic increases in rates which have occurred with frequency over the last three years. Inevitably when rates are increased one must face the prospect of losing business to competitors.
I would hope that when the parliamentary secretary replies he will be forthcoming to the House, that he will tell us without equivocation that the service is the best available, and let the customers know that the Post Office is trying to provide the service it is capable of providing rather than hiding its light under a bushel.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) for accommodating my schedule this evening by allowing this question to be dealt with first in the adjournment debate.
I think I can give the assurances to the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) that he wanted in terms of explaining Priority Post. When I have concluded my remarks I will give him a promotional piece of literature which the Postmaster General (Mr. Lamontagne) signed for his edification. I can really only repeat the minister's answer that was given in the House the other day. I quote from Hansard:
It was devised to give to certain customers under contract a mail service comparable to that of any private enterprise competing with us at the moment. We could promote it, in a way, without publicity; the reason we have not publicized it is that we wanted to make sure that the operation was a success, that it was self-sufficient and that undertaking this new venture would not lead to a requirement for more money from taxpayers.
To say that we have kept the service a secret is somewhat inaccurate. How can a service operate if we keep it a secret? How could we have contacted over 500 business firms and induced them to try a secret service? We have had coloured brochures, like the one I have in my hand, specially coloured bags, training programs, interval instructions and reports to postal employees. How could this have been done if it had been our desire to keep the service secret?
Knowing the diligence with which the hon. member for Brandon-Souris pursues his activities as official critic for the Post Office, those of us associated with the Post Office are not so naive as to think for one moment that we could keep something secret from the hon. gentleman. It can be seen that indeed it was not a secret. From past experience we knew perfectly well that the hon. gentleman would pose enough piercing questions often enough to gain us many lines of free

March 8, 1979
Adjournment Debate
publicity across the country. He has done that.We thank him very much for drawing public attention to this very worthwhile service.
What is Priority Post? I am not sure how much time I have left. I could tell the House it is a new service from Canada Post, fundamentally a next day premium mail service between designated places of business. It is only offered on an individual service agreement basis. That means that the Priority Post you buy has been tailored specifically to the needs and schedules of the various businesses. It also means that, in committing itself to an agreed service, Canada Post plans to live up to its end of the bargain.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-MEASURES TO REDUCE CURRENT ACCOUNT DEFICIT
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the adjournment debate that I join in tonight arises from a question I attempted to put to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday dealing with Statistics Canada current account deficit figures that were released at one o'clock yesterday afternoon. Unfortunately the Prime Minister was right out of it yesterday. He must have had a very bad caucus or something because he literally did not understand what I was talking about.
I was talking about the fact that it was revealed yesterday that our current account deficit was $5,261 million for the year 1978. That means we had a record deficit in that year, a record for any year to which you want to compare it. Most important, the fourth quarter of last year was also a record deficit. I think it is unfortunate that the government is attempting to gloss over the extent of the deficit into which it has led this nation. The fact that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) was in this House until a few minutes ago and then left without replying to my remarks this evening shows how little they care about informing this House and the Canadian public concerning this matter.
A deficit of $5,200 million on current account represents 2.2 per cent of the gross national product of this country last year. That is a record deficit, as I have said, and it is a record ratio. When we compare it to the deficit in the United States we find that the U.S. current deficit was $17 billion on a $2,111.2 billion economy. Their ratio was .81 per cent. What is of even greater importance, though, is that in the economic report of the President transmitted to Congress in January of this year the following statement is made:
The United States current account deficit is expected to decline considerably from the levels at the end of 1978, dropping to about an annual rate of $2-$8 billion by the end of 1979.
In short, Canadians have been led into a current account deficit which is almost equal to the anticipated deficit in the United States in the present year. Let us get this into perspective. All OECD countries in 1978 were, in the aggregate, actually in surplus as far as current accounts were concerned. All those countries, put together, were in surplus. We had a deficit of $5.2 billion. Let me put on record the surpluses of

some of those other countries: Japan $20 billion, Germany $6 billion, France $2 billion, Italy had a surplus of $5.5 billion, and the United Kingdom had a deficit of $500 million compared to our deficit of $5.2 billion.
We note that time and again the Government of Canada is borrowing foreign funds. Appearing before a committee of the other place, the governor of the Bank of Canada, speaking on January 24 with regard to foreign borrowing, said we borrow enough money to cover our current account deficit. Then he went on to say, "I certainly do feel the current account deficit is too large now." The governor made that comment when it was anticipated that our current deficit for 1978 would be $4.5 billion. It turned out to be $700 million more than anticipated. Not only have we permitted a record deficit, but it is growing. We find, for example, that in 1973 this country actually had a surplus as far as our trade and services account with the rest of the world was concerned. But in the last five years we have run up an aggregate deficit with the rest of the world of $19,429 million. This means that for every man, woman and child in this country we have gone into debt to the extent of $844.
It has been said that somehow this position will correct itself if we can hold inflation down. But the sad fact is that to the degree this deficit has caused our dollar to collapse, it is causing inflation. It is expected that the CPI figures to be released next week will show on a month over month basis that inflation in February of this year was running approximately 9.4 per cent higher than one year ago. This is an intolerable situation. The government is simply using monetary means, the borrowing of foreign funds, to cover a foreign account deficit instead of using effective fiscal measures to correct the problem to which I have referred.
The whole key to this situation is not to take the current account deficit as a basis and then just try to finance it by foreign borrowing and forcing up our interest rates either to prevent a capital outflow or to stimulate an inflow. The Trudeau government has placed the Bank of Canada in an impossible position because it is asking them to use purely monetary tools to correct a situation which can only be corrected by fiscal steps. A Canadian dollar defence using monetary policy is doomed to failure from the beginning because the government has asked the Bank of Canada to do an impossible job.
When I raised the question yesterday I sincerely hoped that the Prime Minister would rise and say that the government was alarmed, that it felt it could handle this problem by monetary means-foreign borrowing-that it now realizes it has to take more severe fiscal steps, and that it is going to narrow the budgetary deficit which is triple, in relative terms, the deficit with which the Americans are living. If the Prime Minister had said that, I would not be in this debate tonight. However, not only did he refuse to say anything, but commenting on the figures I have referred to, the Minister of Finance said yesterday that this is a problem we have to live with. The hard truth is that this country cannot live with a chronic
March 8, 1979

current account deficit of the magnitude we have been led into by this government. That is why I was hoping we would have received some answers tonight, not from a parliamentary secretary but from the Minister of Finance.


Mr. Alan Martin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that it is blatantly unfair of the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) to suggest that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) should be here in this late show to respond to his question. He knows the tradition in this parliament whereby it is completely accepted that parliamentary secretaries respond at this time.
The second point I would like to make is that it is equally blatantly unfair of the hon. member to have anticipated that in the absence of the Minister of Finance yesterday, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), having just come into the building at two o'clock, should have been briefed on a release which came out at one o'clock.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: He had it the day before.


Alan Gray Martin: These points should be borne in mind.
Let me point out that historically Canada's balance of international payments has been characterized by a significant deficit on current account and a surplus on capital transactions. Current account deficits for Canada are neither new-in fact, they are the rule, not the exception-nor are they in themselves a bad thing.
The current account of Canada's balance of payments has registered a deficit in 25 of the past 30 years. As a percentage of gross national product the current account deficit it not out of line with our historical experience. In order to finance high levels of capital formation and enhance economic growth, Canada has traditionally supplemented its domestic savings by recourse to foreign capital markets. Deficits on current account are the necessary counterpart of this.
Nevertheless, under present circumstances the government would view a reduction in Canada's current account deficit as a favourable development. Despite temporary reversals we are optimistic that this will occur. Since the first quarter of 1976 we have experienced a substantial improvement in our merchandise trade account, and we expect further gains. As the House knows, the merchandise trade balance registered a record surplus of $3.5 billion in 1978. The merchandise trade figures for January, which were recently released, showed a merchandise trade surplus of $386 million. Projected on an annual basis, it comes to $4.6 billion. Our competitive position on international markets, which earlier had been a cause for concern, is much improved, and this should exert a positive influence on our current account over the coming quarters.
An additional favourable indicator is the halt in the deterioration in our travel balance. In fact, in the fourth quarter it registered a significant improvement.
The increase in the current account deficit was primarily due to increases in net payments of interest and dividends abroad and a swing in the balance on net transfers from an
Adjournment Debate
inflow of $366 million in 1977 to an outflow of $24 million in 1978. The swing in net transfer payments was almost exclusively due to an increase in official government contributions to non-residents, a large part of which was not a cash outflow.
I should also like to point out that the flow of dividends abroad in the fourth quarter was abnormally large and was associated with the removal of controls on dividends and the expiry of certain deferred tax advantages associated with the tax reforms of 1972.
Additionally, I would like to note that a portion of the increased dividend outflow in the fourth quarter was in the form of stock dividends and was offset by an inflow of direct investment in the capital account. Thus to some degree the deterioration in the current account last year was more apparent than real.


ENERGY-INQUIRY WHETHER DREE REPRESENTED IN MARITIME ENERGY CORPORATION
J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, the Maritime Energy Corporation is an excellent vehicle for the development of a full-scale maritime power pool with strong interconnections to the United States and the rest of Canada. The Maritime Energy Corporation can also be an effective development tool for Atlantic Canada if the federal government is prepared to invest money to help this region help itself.
The government has chosen the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as its instrument for development, and I feel strongly that, as such, it should be represented on the Maritime Energy Corporation directorate and work with it and the premiers of the Atlantic provinces in creating a regional development strategy for Atlantic Canada.
The basic cost of energy is dictated by the cost of production, the cost of transmission, the cost of distribution, and the cost of operating the system. Clearly, the cost of production of energy that is used in an interprovincial grid and the cost of transmitting it is an area where the Government of Canada could wisely invest money in the form of a grant to reduce the cost of the end product. The amount of money invested would have a direct effect on the end product and could result in a very low energy cost. By introducing this low cost energy into the maritime power pool, the total cost of energy would necessarily be lowered.
In plants that are capital intensive and produce power from low cost sources such as hydro plants, tidal plants, and to a lesser degree nuclear plants, the elimination of this capital cost by the Government of Canada would be a real investment in the future of the Atlantic provinces.
If the Maritime Energy Corporation proceeds with the Fundy tidal power study and reports favourably on it, the maritime provinces would have in place a massive energy source that would be most attractive to metal and chemical based companies which could well locate on the periphery of such a plant, creating a large number of well paying jobs.

March 8, 1979
Adjournment Debate
Then too, plants building electrical components for the staged development of Fundy might find it very much worth their while to build in that area. The spinoff in service and support industries could be considerable. That is where DREE comes in and that is why DREE should be involved with the Maritime Energy Corporation.
DREE should get away from the idea that its main responsibility is to provide industrial incentives to entrepreneurs who wish to move into the Atlantic area, or to local businessmen who want to expand their present operations, or a series of ad hoc programs providing valuable services, but on a small, piecemeal scale. DREE should be doing more than that. It should be looking at the big jobs crying to be tackled. For example, DREE has done nothing so far about the Fundy tidal power project. It is very convenient for the government, whenever Fundy is seriously mentioned, to be able to pass it off to a study or a commission or a committee, which it knows full well can stall the project another year or another decade. DREE should be brought into these discussions. DREE should be handed the responsibility of correlating these studies. DREE should be given the job to do.
DREE was created to lead the attack on regional disparity. Like Uriah, the Hittite, it was to be thrust into the forefront to battle, there to do or die. But DREE stayed in the background when the big conflicts were raised. It handed out its grants and loans to justify its existence, and failed miserably to take hold of the big projects which the Atlantic provinces have needed for generations. In short, it avoided the massive development undertakings without which the Atlantic provinces will always remain what they are today-the most neglected part of Canada.
Finally, I want to say that I am very pleased to see the Maritime Energy Corporation moving forward. In addition to the financial advantages this corporation can have as a vehicle combining the credit potential of three maritime provinces with the Government of Canada, I see tremendous future planning opportunities for the corporation by utilizing the excellent resources of the New Brunswick Electric Power Commission and the Nova Scotia Power Corporation which are already in place. I do not envisage a large or expensive organization, nor need it become another layer of bureaucracy. Instead, I see a vehicle for development which has tremendous potential, and its success depends entirely on the extent to which the Government of Canada is prepared to invest in it and develop Atlantic Canada.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Speaker, before responding to the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie), I should like to place on the record a correction to part of my response earlier to the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) who was good enough to draw to my attention that Statistics Canada does indeed record that in the fourth quarter of 1978 there was a further slight deterioration in the travel balance. That reference I made should have been to the month of January, 1979, when there was some significant improvement.
Mr. Speaker, on February 19, 1979, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and Minister_qf State for Science and Technology (Mr. Gillespie) tabled a memorandum of understanding between Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island dealing with the Maritime Energy Corporation.
This memorandum establishes the agreed functions which the corporation would perform, and these may be summarized as follows: (1) Carry out regional planning of electrical generation and transmission for the three maritime provinces; (2) finance, build and operate regional generation and transmission; (3) co-ordinate and dispatch the day to day operation of the maritime electrical system; (4) purchase and sell power over transmission ties external to the region; and (5) engage in research and development.
It has been agreed that the Point Lepreau nuclear unit will be MEC's first major project. Its output will be sold through back-to-back contracts with Canada as an intermediate purchaser. This involvement by Canada in back-to-back contracts ensures a strong credit rating for MEC and should permit borrowing for project financing at reasonable rates.
The provincial utilities and the federal government will contribute equity up to 10 per cent of the Lepreau project cost. In addition, the federal government will provide a performance loan to reduce the impact on revenue requirements of possible performance problems that might seriously reduce Lepreau output. The maximum drawdown will be $200 million.
This agreement promises to provide regional co-operation unique in Canada and will ensure greater stability in electricity price within the maritime region than would have been possible without MEC.
There remains to be worked out the detailed legal agreements to implement the decisions reached and to permit the incorporation of Maritime Energy Corporation under the Canada Corporations Act. The shareholders will exercise their rights under these agreements and provide direction to the officers of the corporation through a board of directors nominated by each of the four parties. Federal representation on the board of directors will likely reflect the interests of several departments, and will undoubtedly take into account the individual contribution which directors can make to the effective operation of the new corporation.
The final structure of the board of directors has not yet been determined. It should be noted, however, that in negotiating the details of this agreement the Department of Finance and DREE have been closely associated with Energy, Mines and Resources. Undoubtedly the interests of all three departments will be taken into consideration in the nomination process for members of the board.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow morning, at eleven o'clock.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.43 p.m.

Friday, March 9, 1979