1979-11-09

REMEMBRANCE DAY


Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, on Sunday at 11 a.m., this nation will officially observe a day of remembrance for the 115,000 Canadian men and women who gave their lives in the defence of freedom in two world wars and the Korean conflict.
Their sacrifice is remembered, not only at the National Memorial in Ottawa, but all across this great land and in many other parts of the world. Our allies also keep the eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month sacred to commemorate the war dead. It is the time that our country stops to pay its respects in cities, towns and villages to those of our countrymen and women who paid the supreme sacrifice.
Three times during this century, young Canadians from the Atlantic provinces, from Quebec and Ontario, and from western and Pacific Canada went by sea and air to distant lands to defend freedom-France, Italy, Belgium, Holland, Hong Kong and Korea were their destinations. Many of these brave young Canadians died in places far from their homes, places such as Vimy Ridge, Passchendaele, Dieppe, the Hochwald, Ortona and Kapyong.
It is their heroism that we commemorate today. We remember them with pride, for they served with distinction. We remember also with sorrow, for they forfeited their lives in the service of our country.
To those of us who remain, the legacy is clear: we too must dedicate ourselves to the service of our country. We must ensure that it remains "glorious and free", as they would want to see it if they could.
On this Day of Remembrance, let us resolve to live in peace and harmony with one another. Let us ensure that the tragic price paid by more than 115,000 young Canadians has not been paid in vain.
All hon. Members: Hear, hear!


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply honoured to rise to pay respect, on behalf of the official opposition, to the more than 100,000 Canadians who died in the defence of freedom. These were young men and women with their whole lives ahead of them. By their sacrifice we have been allowed to live in peace in a country
untouched by the physical ravages of war. For hundreds of thousands of Canadians the memory of loved ones lost remains vivid and painful. Those who returned have memories of the buddies they left behind, memories of joyous comradeship and of grievous, sudden loss. Once each year, Canadians gather at cenotaphs in every community to remember those who paid the ultimate sacrifice.
[DOT] (mo)
As Canadians, and especially as members of the Parliament of Canada, we should also remember those who returned with handicaps that have made it difficult or impossible for them to enjoy all that life has to offer. There are patients in veterans' hospitals across this country who have been there since the end of the first world war, over 60 years ago. Let us not forget these veterans who also paid a heavy price.
We can also honour the memory of those who perished by maintaining our commitment to the preservation of peace today by supporting our Canadian Armed Forces at home and abroad, in NATO and in their useful role as peacekeepers. To many who have no concept of the horrors of war, our present peaceful existence seems "permanent". We must never let down our guard. For citizens of a free country, every day should be a remembrance day, and by giving support to those who now defend Canada today we show respect and gratitude to those who served and died to ensure our freedom.
The last major world war came to an end over 34 years ago, but no one can deny that we have lived in times of almost constant turmoil with war remaining an every day part of life for millions throughout the world.
Let us in all seriousness realize that if we, along with other member nations of the free world, do not have the determination, the courage and the will to meet the challenges of our times, then we will not, in fact, be keeping faith with those who died.
I would like to quote a poem by Pearl McGinnis entitled "Today" which I feel is very appropriate.
I have no yesterdays,
Time took them away.
Tomorrow may not be.
But I have today.
We have today to honour those 100,000 Canadians who proved their dedication to Canada and who gave their tomorrows to us. Let us think constantly about these words as we attend various services this weekend.
There is a saying that those who fail to bear their own arms will eventually bear someone else's. Today we are honouring those who not only bore arms in the name of Canada, but

November 9, 1979
Remembrance Day
indeed distinguished themselves in doing so. They answered the call of duty, and we will remember them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is probably one of the most fitting and appropriate things that we as Canadians do when on November 11 of each year we pause to remember those who gave their lives on our behalf for this country and for peace and freedom throughout the world in the first great war, in the second great war, in Korea and in other engagements, particularly in peacekeeping operations. So it is equally fitting and appropriate that in this House of Commons on this last sitting day before November 11 we take this moment to remember all of them.
We pledge ourselves not only to remember with respect those who gave their lives, but to remember those who are still with us, and indeed do everything we can for them. We pledge ourselves to remember their families and their survivors. We also pledge ourselves to do everything we possibly can to build the kind of world in which it will not happen again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, memory is a faculty which too easily forgets. This is why special days have been designated to enable people to recall their past; among them Remembrance Day is set aside to remember that if we are living today in a free country which provides us so much solace, it is because at a given moment in our history some people lost their lives to guarantee ours.
Thousands of soldiers died on the battlefields of Europe. Thousands of others were wounded. All fought bravely and courageously. Passing years make us forget many things, but never the sacrifice of a life. They died so that others may live. Referring to that ultimate gift, Winston Churchill said: Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few.
It is therefore quite in order, if not to show respect for life itself and for the example given us by those men, that we show our gratitude. If we really want to preserve that freedom guaranteed by those brave soldiers, let us not abuse it but always show due respect.


Mr. Speaker:: Proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 43, and questions, will continue until ten minutes past twelve.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact, as reported by the press, that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) was successfully able to demand from the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) a ticket for the state banquet tonight in honour of President Carter for services to be rendered, even though many members of the cabinet were not invited to that dinner, and in view of the fact the dinner has now had to be cancelled, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson):
That this House direct the Prime Minister to table the choice of consolation prizes he is now offering the hon. member for Beauce.


REMEMBRANCE DAY
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to ask the unanimous consent of this House on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In keeping with the tributes this House has today paid to Canada's war dead, and in light of the fact that few Canadians are aware that one of Canada's most decorated soldiers in the Second World War and Korean war was an Ojibway Indian from the Brokenhead Reserve in Manitoba, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):
That this House honour the memory of all Canadians who have served their country in time of war by paying its respects to the late Sgt. Tommy Price of the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry.


Mr. Speaker:: No matter how worthy the subject, the hon. member will realize that I have consistently ruled this kind of motion out of order with respect to Standing Order 43.


REQUEST THAT AGE OF DRIVING BE RAISED TO EIGHTEEN-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity-urgent because of the alarming number of deaths and injuries in traffic accidents across Canada, particularly in the 16 to 18 age category, and pressing in the interests of energy conservation. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Higson):
That the Prime Minister and/or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources take the initiative at the first ministers'conference next week to urge the provinces to raise the requirement age of driving from 16 to 18 years of age.
November 9, 1979


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have very grave reservations as to whether or not that subject is within the administrative competence of this House.
That the Prime Minister withdraw his insulting remarks and consider more seriously the Canadian unity issue which must of course prevail over his purely political and partisan interests.


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Whereas the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) has pledged to hand over control of offshore resources to the provinces, and the Minister of Justice stated in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs that he saw no reason why municipalities could not now assess, for purposes of taxation, resources that lie under the ocean and adjacent to the municipality, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais):
That the government instruct all their Crown corporations of this change so that the municipalities concerned can include these resources in their assessments for 1980.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) made this morning to the Canadian Press concerning his attitude regarding sovereignty-association, and I quote:

My approach is easily subject to caricature. I could conceivably be hurt politically if I shook my fist and acted like a tough guy.

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker):


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion relating to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the fact that the Cossette report on the employment situation in the port of Quebec city recommends, first, eliminating one third of the jobs of the 365 longshoremen working in the port, second, reducing the number of working hours guaranteed each year to these workers and, third, lowering the retirement benefits of these men; and also given the fact that these recommendations have been rejected unanimously by the longshoremen gathered last Monday night in general assembly, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Matapedia-Matane (Mr. De Bane):
That the House ask the Minister of Labour to ignore the recommendations of the Cossette report and urge the federal government to take all necessary steps to facilitate the establishment of a forestry terminal in the port of Quebec city which would give jobs to all the longshoremen now working in that port.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

November 9, 1979


TREASURY BOARD
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43.
In light of the fact that the National Indian Arts and Crafts Corporation receives considerable government funding, and since, after numerous complaints by native groups, the government ordered audit services to investigate NIACC; bearing in mind, also, that proper administration of these funds is important in the promotion of the native arts and crafts industry and that the government, though it received the completed audit in August, has consistently refused to present the audit to concerned groups despite all the rhetoric about freedom of information, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell):
That this House insist on the tabling of the audit in question concerning the use of public funds and that the government live up to its promises of freedom of information and, in future, immediately present to the House reports prepared by audit services of agencies receiving public funding.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion at this time, under the terms of Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*
[ Translation]



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion on an urgent and pressing matter.
In view of the fact that there are six senior citizens' homes in the riding of Saint-Michel, that I have received numerous phone calls and letters from people concerned over rumours that universal old age pensions may be abolished and that these senior citizens are very vulnerable, anxious, troubled and almost panic-stricken, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) inform the House this afternoon, provided House rules allow it, whether his department intends to continue universal old age pensions, so as to reassure millions of Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion introduced by the hon. member. Pursuant to

Standing Order 43, this motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Bearing in mind the serious damage done to our political and economic relations with Arab countries by the government's policy on the Canadian embassy in Israel and by the irresponsible and foolish statements made by the Minister of Employment and Immigration last summer, and more recently by the policy adviser to the Prime Minister, can the minister tell us whether she has personally been in touch with our ambassador in Iran in order to ascertain that there is no danger to Canadians who are presently in Iran, and that there is no danger of an interruption of oil supplies from Iran to Canada in the months to come?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I trust that the hon. member will have the same concern about the grave situation which exists in Iran at the present time as do we on this side of the House.
I would like to assure the hon. member that my department has been in touch with our ambassador in Tehran on a continuing basis in order to be assured of the safety of the situation in Tehran and to ascertain how the situation affects Canadian nationals in Iran.
I can assure the hon. member that at the present time there is no real cause for concern. That information has been conveyed to us both by our ambassador in Iran and also by the charge d'affaires of the Iranian embassy here in Ottawa.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. lady for her answer to the first part of my question. I noticed that she ignored the second part. I would, therefore, like to turn to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
He gives us cold comfort when he states that there is no danger of interruption of supply because there is at sea one tanker from Iran. He knows, or he should know, that the problem of security of supply does not concern just our rela-
November 9, 1979

tions with Iran, but also with all the other oil suppliers. Last year, Exxon-the owners of Imperial Oil-on the occasion of the Iranian crisis diverted supply destined for Canada coming from Venezuela.
Has the minister been in touch with multinational oil companies, and particularly with Imperial Oil, either directly and personally or through his personal advisers, or the director-general of the Conservative party, who all come from Imperial Oil-


An hon. Member:: Come on.


Mr. Crosbie:: You are a jerk.


Marc Lalonde: -as to whether we can be assured by these companies that there will be no diversion of oil supplies coming to Canada from any country, to other destinations?
[DOT] (U30)


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to assure the hon. member right away that this government will not regard very well and treat very seriously any attempt, on any account, by any company to act to the detriment of this country. I can assure him of that in no uncertain terms, and assure him that we will be watching the matter very carefully with respect to any diversion that is detrimental to our country.
I want to tell the hon. member that according to my information-and I want to bring him up to date with respect to Iran-loading is proceeding in the normal fashion. There are reports with respect to a 5 per cent cutback by Iran, but this should not have a serious effect with regard to international supply.
I want to advise the hon. member, with respect to Canadian supplies, that Gulf Canada-which is the principal importer from Iran in Canada-unloaded a tanker of 2.3 million barrels on November 3 in Canada. Gulf loaded a tanker, the Vanpet, on October 15, and this is due to unload in Canada on November 20. Gulf loaded another tanker, the Vanoil, on November 6, and this is due to unload on December 14-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, I wonder if the minister could keep his reply short.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, this is very important.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: The minister has not been in touch with the multinationals to obtain from them an assurance that they will not divert from Canada to other countries to Canada the supply of oil. I urge him to get going and to get those assurances from the multinationals. My question has to do with the situation with regard to the supply in Canada over the winter. Last summer we urged the minister to get going, and he told us there was no problem. Lask week he told us the situation was fragile-
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must be fair to both sides. If I cannot permit the minister to give long answers, I cannot permit long questions.


Marc Lalonde: In view of the statement by the minister's own department yesterday that the situation was now extremely fragile and tight, when will the minister set up the Energy Supplies Allocation Board? He said he would, but we are still waiting for a firm decision on when it will be set up. Is it true that he is delaying appointing that board because he wants to amend the act in order to remove the representative of Petro-Canada who is supposed to be on that board, according to the legislation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, if 1 may complete my answer to the hon. member's question, let me say that I wanted to point out to him that the next loading from Iran for Canada is due on January 1 and is due to unload on February 5 of next year. This should put the situation in perspective.
The second matter I want to put into perspective for the hon. member is the fact that when I assumed this responsibility, I must say I found the circumstances very unsatisfactory and I immediately moved with respect to other initiatives. If the hon. member had been doing his job in the former government, he would have acted much sooner in connection with the reduction of our exports to the United States from 55,000 barrels a day to provide Canadian sources with additional domestic supplies.
So far as independants are concerned, I have also initiated an investigation on the part of the National Energy Board and they have been in touch with Interprovincial Pipe Line. Interprovincial Pipe Line have now made arrangements to free some space on the line. I have taken initiatives that the previous government refused to take-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to keep reminding the House-I am not laying the blame at the feet of the two participants here, but the House can recognize the fact that it has taken ten minutes to complete the first round of questions, consisting of three questions and three answers.
If we are to continue that on a daily basis, it will be impossible for there to be much participation, and if members later in the question period can ask questions and give answers of a shorter nature, I do not see why it cannot be done in a co-operative way at the outset of the question period.



OIL IMPORTS FROM MEXICO AND VENEZUELA

Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be brief. My question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday, in response to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, the minister indicated that


Some hon. Members:: Order.

Oral Questions
negotiations with Venezuela and Mexico were proceeding satisfactorily, yet it is becoming clear that due to the government's inaction over the summer, and due to the successes that Japan and other countries have had in their negotiations with Mexico and Venezuela, the chances of our receiving supplies this year are very slim indeed.
Will the minister confirm that despite the awareness of potential energy shortages in Canada in the winter, the government only started to negotiate with Mexico in late August, and with Venezuela only in September? Will he also confirm that it is this neglect that is the cause of the probability of our getting any extra supplies from these countries to be very slim indeed?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, 1 reject out of hand any suggestion that we did not act directly and with some effect with the two countries to which the hon. member referred. In the case of Mexico, pursuant to the memorandum of understanding which was arrived at in May, we are proceeding with the negotiations. A delegation will be proceeding to Mexico again in December to continue negotiations and to determine availability arrived at under the memorandum of understanding. The fact is that it was not contemplated, under the original memorandum, that we would have commencement either by the end of 1979 or during 1980, even under the arrangement entered into by the previous government.
With regard to Venezuela, the Leader of the Opposition has indicated there is some agreement. That is incorrect; it is not true. The fact is that we have carried on negotiations and will continue to carry them out in order to arrive at a settlement with them as well.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I take it from the lack of response that the dates that I have suggested in my question are correct.
1 have a supplementary question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with regard to another issue. Yesterday, his department gave an excellent briefing on the energy situation to all members of Parliament, and I congratulate the minister on that; but in that report, a report on taxation and revenue-sharing was produced which said that required price increases over the next period of time will mean massive increases in revenue to the multinational oil companies, which will be sufficient not only for research and development in energy but beyond that. This morning, the Prime Minister, in his press conference indicated that he felt a significant-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member come to his question, please.


John Leslie Evans: My question is as follows: In view of both these facts, is the minister prepared to make a commitment to the House that the multinational oil companies will not be allowed
[Mr. Evans.)
November 9, 1979
to receive any greater revenues than they have been under existing arrangements?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that we are very much concerned with respect to the appropriate taxation regime, and we want to make sure that it is a fair and equitable one to allow the bringing in of new supplies and to do it in a way which would be fair and equitable to the Canadian people as well as to the industry.
I can assure him that these factors are under active consideration by me and by the Minister of Finance, and we will move ahead on a policy of energy self-sufficiency whether or not the official opposition wants to come along.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, this morning 1 would like to address my question to the Prime Minister. Massive lay-offs are being reported and predicted in this morning's press in both the lumber and the automotive industries in Canada.
In view of additional and significant lay-offs in the B.C. forest industry related directly to our high interest rate policy, when does the Prime Minister intend to meet with the union and management of Weld wood as he promised this week, and what specific action will he be bringing forward to stop the current nosedive in both construction in Canada and lumber sales, particularly in British Columbia?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I have received some communication from representatives of various unions, particularly in the lumber industry in British Columbia. I intend to have a meeting, either myself when I am in British Columbia or to have ministers of this government meet with the representatives of industry and the unions involved.
The problems are not confined to Canadian rates of interest, they are much more complex than that, as the hon. member will, in all fairness, acknowledge. But we think it would be useful for there to be an opportunity for representatives of the government to meet directly with representatives of the industry and the unions involved to see what we can do about a situation which is very serious for Canada.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I think the Prime Minister would agree that the high interest rate policy and the relationship between that and lumber sales is because both the United States and Canada are pursuing the fallacy and the folly of a high interest rate policy.
1 have a further lay-off question for the Prime Minister. General Motors indicated that there will be more than 11,000 lay-offs in its plants in Ontario and Quebec, which will cause
November 9, 1979

extensive economic hardship. When does the Prime Minister intend to call in the executive of General Motors of Canada and obtain some kind of assurance that this country will no longer accept an unfair share of North American production, investment, research and development, so that such lay-offs can be avoided?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that the problems in the automotive industry exist on both sides of the border. That is of no comfort to Canadians whose jobs are threatened, but it indicates the broad nature of the problem we are facing. I have noted his representation, that it might be useful for me or the ministers of this government to meet with representatives of the automotive industry. We would be prepared to consider that. If we think it would be useful to do that, we would be prepared to. Also, naturally, we would extend that to see whether it would be useful for us to meet with representatives of the unions and the industries involved.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, I have a final supplementary question. Since the government's high interest rate policy is a major reason for extensive lay-offs taking place throughout Canada, particularly in the industries I have mentioned and in small businesses as well, will the Prime Minister make a statement on motions indicating what specific actions his government intends to take to develop an effective industrial strategy for Canada, so that we can increase, rather than decrease, employment for Canadians?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will understand that I and most people do not accept the premise of his question. Regarding the development of a national industrial strategy, the hon. member will know that after real decades of neglect the government has indicated its intention, through a conference to be called by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of State for Economic Development, to bring together representatives of all aspects of the Canadian economy.


An hon. Member:: Another study. Study, study, study!


Charles Joseph Clark: We hope, probably in early January, to start a process of planning and establishing a national industrial strategy which will serve the longer-term interests of the country. We do not intend to pretend that that can be done by government alone, nor do we intend to talk about industrial strategy, as members opposite have, and do nothing about it.
We are taking a concrete step for which preliminary plans are already under discussion with the provinces, the private sector and organized labour, that we hope will move the country toward an industrial strategy which will find support among all elements and all partners in the Canadian economy.
Oral Questions



AGRICULTURE


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, given that my question is related to the agricultural sector, and that several ministers are responsible for that sector, I will therefore ask my question of the Prime Minister.
This morning over 100 poultry producers came here to Parliament Hill for the visit of the American President which has been postponed. These people are here anyway, to protest the fact that the Canadian government has signed an agreement to import a large quantity of poultry from now to December 31, namely 8,750,000 pounds, plus 48 million pounds in 1980 and 52 million pounds in 1981. Would the right hon. Prime Minister tell the House whether such importation of poultry is due to a shortage, or to the inability of Canadian producers to meet the needs of the Canadian market?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I said recently and as the Minister of Agriculture said, we have managed a reduction in the importation of poultry. Today the Minister of State for International Trade met with the producers to whom the hon. member referred and the minister told me that it was a very useful consultation as far as the government is concerned and, I think, for the producers as well. It is in such spirit of co-operation that we intend to approach such an important question for Canada's future.



RELATIONS AMONG MAPLE LODGE COMPANY, GOVERNMENT OF ONTARIO AND THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Fabien Roy (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that an Ontario company called Maple Lodge is said to be largely responsible for the difficulties and fears expressed by poultry producers and also, to a certain extent, for the current sharp drop in prices, could the right hon. Prime Minister indicate, first, whether he is aware of the fact that this company has a close relationship with the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario and, second, what is the exact nature of the relationship which may link the company and the federal Progressive Conservative Party?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any relationship between the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, the Social Credit Party of Canada or any other party with this company. If the hon. member has concrete information to give me, I will gladly look into it.

November 9, 1979
Oral Questions



STATISTICS CANADA


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. As stated in a motion under Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier yesterday, there appeared to be very serious allegations contained in a letter dated November 6 from Boris Celovsky to the Chief Statistician which implied some doubt about the competence and integrity of Statistics Canada. Of course, this is extremely important in terms of economic decisions.
I must say that I have not had the opportunity to fully corroborate this, and that I am not offering it in any flamboyant sense, but today I am informed that Mr. Celovsky was grilled yesterday by security people in Statistics Canada and is now in the Queensway-Carleton Hospital under intensive care. Of course, this episode is alarming to all of us.
I would appreciate it if the President of the Treasury Board could enlighten us as to the treatment of Mr. Celovsky and the situation in that regard. Of course, there are other serious economic implications to explore.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not aware of the comment made by the hon. member concerning the grilling of Mr. Celovsky, I understand, yesterday. Certainly, I am most sorry if anything of that nature took place, and particularly if the gentleman is in hospital.
When I heard of this incident yesterday, I indicated that I would like personally to meet with Mr. Celovsky to hear first-hand his concerns with respect to the operation of Statistics Canada. 1 have so advised Mr. Peter Kirkham, the Chief Statistician. I was hoping, if not today, that certainly at an early opportunity I would be able to have that meeting and judge from that personal meeting what action should be taken, if any, as a result of any discussions I had with the gentleman.



PREPARATION OF BUDGET-EFFECT OF SUSPECT ECONOMIC INFORMATION

Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I hope that there will be a thorough look at the treatment of Mr. Celovsky. I should like to move to the economic implications and pose my question to the Minister of Finance.
Most certainly, for everybody's sake-Statistics Canada and everyone else-it seems to me that there must be an immediate, factual and public assessment of this situation. For instance, how can the Minister of Finance prepare a budget in confidence if the economic information base is now suspect? Indeed, that is the result of these allegations. What confidence can there be in the economic decisions which he takes, or the economic decisions of the government, unless this matter is cleared up?
I would, therefore, ask the Minister of Finance, since those many important economic decisions are based upon the reports of Statistics Canada on the economy, what immediate and public steps will the Minister of Finance insist upon in order to correct this situation and clear away this serious doubt?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously, what was reported in Mr. Celovsky's letter yesterday were matters which occurred during the past two or three years in connection with Statistics Canada. These are matters which unfortunately were not cleared up by the last administration, and they permitted millions of dollars to be wasted.
I am as concerned as the minister of finance of the previous government should have been concerned, and as is the President of the Treasury Board, about this suggestion that there are wrong procedures being followed. The President of the Treasury Board has been looking into this matter and is looking into it now. If anything can be done about the situation, hon. members can depend on the fact that he is the man to do it.



STEPS TO RESTORE CREDIBILITY OF STATISTICS CANADA

Mr. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. We often hear expressions of concern, as we just have, from the Minister of Finance. Undoubtedly, the President of the Treasury Board is very concerned about the cloud that has been cast upon the credibility of Statistics Canada. What immediate steps will the President of the Treasury Board take to remove that cloud from the credibility of Statistics Canada and re-establish it as being a credible instrument for economic planning and other matters upon which so many of us depend?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, 1 would point out to the hon. member that I was the first minister in 11 years to actually visit the premises of Statistics Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I also have a person on my exempt staff who has been given the assignment of keeping proper liaison between the ministerial office which I now hold, and Statistics Canada. This, incidentally, has been welcomed by Statistics Canada.
In direct answer to the hon. member's question, I think it would be most unfortunate if members of the opposition were to distort what was said yesterday. The comments yesterday were concerning personnel questions and certain programs within Statistics Canada which the gentleman felt were not properly conceived and had caused unnecessary expense.


Robert Knight Andras: He talked about the cooking and fudging of the economic reports.

November 9, 1979


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: There is no over-all suggestion that Statistics Canada is not still the credible institution that it has been for many decades.


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the President of the Treasury Board has actually gone to visit the premises, but he should know that the material can be delivered directly to his office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald James Johnston: My question to the President of the Treasury Board is, would it not be appropriate to appoint a special committee of this House to examine the circumstances of Statistics Canada and remove this question of doubt once and for all?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take that suggestion-I think it is a representation-of the hon. member into consideration. I felt that the first task of our new government was to get a good in-House view of what is, in fact, the situation with respect to Statistics Canada. I have been meeting with various officials and I intend to have more meetings. If it would be helpful to have a committee review the situation, then certainly I will consider it.



FUTURE RANGE OF OIL PRICES

Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister. I believe he said in his press conference this morning that the federal government and the Alberta government had an agreement on, to use his words, the range of price increases in oil.
Could the Prime Minister confirm for the House that the increase will be at least $4 per barrel this coming year, which in our view will mean serious unemployment and a recessionary economy? If so, can the Prime Minister tell us-in his calm, honest and slightly Mackenzie King way-why it is necessary to bring this hardship down upon the Canadian people; and would he tell us what specific measures he proposes to introduce to cushion this increase to the average person?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there are some insults that are just too excessive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: You will not be around as long as he was, Joe.


Mr. Lefebvre:: You could do worse, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: I would like to assure the House and the hon. member that there is no agreement in terms of any final resolution even on a range, although my conversations with various provinces-including, importantly, the producing prov-
Oral Questions
ince of Alberta-have given me a view as to the range within which we can find some agreement. I am not in a position to indicate exactly what that agreement will be.
I am in a position to say that it will be the stand of this government that there should be an increase, because if there is no increase we will be leaving Canada in a position of reliance in the future upon offshore resources that are very unstable.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I apologize if I insulted the Prime Minister, but at least it is better than being called, as the previous prime minister was, a reader of Machiavelli.


Marc Lalonde: At least he read.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: The Conservative treasurer of Ontario, Mr. Frank Miller, said yesterday that the federal government and the Alberta government could not be trusted with increased oil revenues until, to use his words, "an agreement on redistribution of oil money is worked out"; and he doubted the ability of the governments to get the increase in oil prices back into the consumers' pockets.
Would the Prime Minister tell me whether or not he disagrees with the treasurer of Ontario and, if so, what are the specific measures which he will propose? The Americans have proposed, as I understand it, an excess tax on the multinational oil companies.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 have not seen Mr. Miller's statement so I cannot comment specifically on what he is alleged to have said. We are concerned about two aspects of any energy price increase and intend to act on them, although I cannot tell the House at this stage exactly how we will do that because that has not been decided.
One aspect which concerns us very much would be to avoid the creation of excessive profits for the oil companies. We have a proposal that we will be discussing with the premiers, and which we will probably bring into place, that will ensure that significant portions of that money help to enlarge the proportion of Canadian investment in Canadian energy development, while leaving enough operating capital for existing oil companies to carry on the expansion of Canadian supply.
Secondly, having regard to Canadians who will be particularly-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question begs a lengthy answer and I can understand the Prime Minister's attempt to give one, but I think I have to cut it off in the interest of other members.



CN MARINE


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Transport who is

November 9, 1979
Oral Questions
responsible for marine transport in this country. It concerns information that CN Marine is planning a move from Moncton to Halifax. I am also informed by my colleague, the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, that CN Marine made a commitment in April, 1978, to move parts of its administration, at least-if not all-to St. John's, Newfoundland.
I know that the minister is as concerned about this matter as I am, and would he tell the House if he has any information with regard to this corporate insensitivity by CN Marine with regard to the people and the economy of Atlantic Canada?


Hon. J. Robert Howie (Minister of State, Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the headquarters of CN Marine are in Moncton, as they have been for a number of years, and there is no foreseeable move. CN Marine has a number of sectional offices to allow for more effective management of its responsibilities. The only recently proposed change will result in the establishment of a legal insurance section in Halifax, which requires the transfer of seven employees from Moncton. The legal department is in Halifax and the claims department is in Moncton. When the seven people in the claims department were hired, it was made known to them that they would go to the legal department in Halifax for a more functional operation.
The operational base for the Newfoundland coastal services and the dockyard is St. John's, and has been for some time and no proposed changes in the structure or numbers of employees have been modified. I think this probably answers the hon. member's question.


Gary Francis McCauley: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister if it is a fact that the president of CNR, Mr. Bandeen, made a commitment in a standing committee meeting of the House in April, 1978, that part of the administration, if not all, would move to St. John's, Newfoundland; and is it not a fact that further intended moves from Moncton to Halifax were stymied by the minister's intervention?


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, 1 had representations from the hon. member and I heard rumours of the total move of CN Marine from Moncton to Halifax. I investigated and was assured that CN Marine was not planning on moving. As I say, they have sectional offices and there will from time to time be transfers of employees. I am not aware of the Bandeen statement because 1 was not at that particular committee meeting.



URBAN AFFAIRS


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the serious slowdown in construction in metropolitan Toronto, with many hundreds of

people likely to lose their jobs and their homes, is the government prepared now to implement the plan prepared by the previous government, in consultation with metro Toronto and the province of Ontario, to free-up federal land and give financial assistance in order to provide an Ontario congress centre which would provide 2,500 construction jobs immediately, with the potential 10,000 jobs in the hospitality industry, as well as making a significant contribution to reducing the trade and tourism deficit?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that question. It is a matter that is under very active review by the government. I would hope we would be making an announcement quite soon.

[ Translation]



EMPLOYMENT


Louis Duclos: Mr. Speaker, my question is for either the Minister of Transport or his colleague the Minister of State for Transport. In view of the fact that the Cossette report recommends the elimination of one-third of the 365 jobs for the longshoremen in Quebec harbour, could the minister indicate whether he agrees with this recommendation and what action the government will take to protect the jobs of these workers?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the report, but it is a matter that will be discussed with my colleague, the Minister of Labour. I think that is the spirit of the motion presented by the hon. member to the House earlier today under Standing Order 43.

[ Translation]



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Louis Duclos: Could the minister indicate to the House whether the government will encourage the establishment of a forestry terminal in Quebec harbour to make sure that all longshoremen in this port can keep their jobs?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, we will consider any move or any proposal that would ensure the continuance of jobs. That will be something I will discuss with my colleague, the Minister of Labour.
November 9, 1979



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, my question refers to a recent announcement by the government about allowing development of a lead-zinc mine by Cominco on Little Cornwallis Island in Canada's High Arctic. My question is directed to the Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment.
In May, 1976, Cominco withdrew its bid to develop this mine because of social and environmental conditions imposed by the government. Since that time there have been no new environmental studies and no further consultation with northern people. Has the government, therefore, adopted a more lenient approach to this mine or has Cominco, in fact, agreed to meet all the conditions which they previously found so stringent and oppressive.


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am not fully familiar, I am sorry to say to the hon. member, with the matter he raised. I will immediately find out what the status is and report back to the hon. member and to the House.



NATIONAL UNITY


Mr. Rod Blaker (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who I gather had a press conference this morning. I understand the Prime Minister said this morning in his press conference, with respect to the English language community in Quebec:
I think the Anglophone community is very worried in Quebec. I hope they will take a calmer approach. My approach is easily subject to caricature. I could conceivably be hurt politically if I shook my fist and acted like a tough guy. I hope that's not the Liberal motive in pressing me to take a stronger position. I have to demonstrate that the national government is not always going to pick fights with Quebec.
He went on to point out-


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


Roderick Blaker: My first question is: Do we now understand the reason the Prime Minister is not getting involved in this entire operation or referendum in Quebec? Is it because he is afraid he is going to be hurt politically? Is this the leader of my country? That is his test of leadership. Can he explain this?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will have to check the transcript. I believe that what I said this morning, and certainly what I intended to say this morning, is that I can run the risk-which I am prepared to run-of
Oral Questions
suffering politically outside Quebec if I fail to shake my fist and make empty threats to the government of Quebec.
I do not want to presume upon the time of the House, Mr. Speaker, but this is an important question. I think it highly important that we do not allow differences of approach to preserving and strengthening the federal system that exists on both sides of the House-that we not allow those legitimate differences to cause us to engage in the kind of accusation and ferocity of debate here that can harm both the image and the force of federalism in the province of Quebec.
There is an obvious difference of position and a difference of view, between members who supported the former government and members who support this government, as to the most effective way in which we can advance the cause of federalism in the province of Quebec.
I do not question the motives of hon. members opposite and I hope they will not question the motives of my government. I would hope that our conduct on this question in the future will be conduct that without question will advance respect for federalism in Quebec and across the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I have to say that I respect the Prime Minister's intention, but he does not seem to understand precisely what I am putting to him. Yesterday, Claude Ryan, the leader of the federalist forces in the province of Quebec, said that the Pequiste-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member respects the fact that we cannot get into debate. Does he have a supplementary question?


Roderick Blaker: Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday the leader of the Liberal forces in the province of Quebec argued that the Pequiste position about federal confrontation is false? Is the Prime Minister aware that every time he uses that argument, he supports the Pequiste argument?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think it will be helpful if no one here suggests that members of this House are doing things to help the Pequiste argument.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Secondly, to answer the question, yes, I am aware of the statement made by Mr. Ryan and, indeed, I agree with the statement made by Mr. Ryan. I think that is one of the major reasons that this government has adopted, quite deliberately, a policy of avoiding actions which can be seen as confrontations with the province of Quebec, while taking actions which can be seen as demonstrating the renewal of the federal system with a new federal government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 9, 1979
Oral Questions AIR TRANSPORT



POSSIBLE SALE OF DE HAVILLAND AND CANADAIR TO PRIVATE ENTERPRISE

John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday, I was rather astounded to hear the minister say, as quoted at page 1087 of Hansard:
In truth, if the former government was able to buy them-
Referring to Canadair and de Havilland:
-without parliamentary review-
Although earlier he said there was parliamentary debate.
-why is he suggesting that the sale should be subject to parliamentary review?
Is the minister seriously suggesting that the possible sale of de Havilland and Canadair, the fundamental elements of the government's privatization philosophy, will not be subject to parliamentary review?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the hon. member this way: I simly point out him that he and other members of Parliament will have ample opportunity to review these sales and other possible sales. At the present time, of course, there is nothing of a definitive nature with respect to either de Havilland or Canadair.
But I bring to the attention of the hon. member that under Supplementary Estimates (B), at page 44, vote 6b, there is provision made to discuss Canadair and provision made under vote L41b to discuss de Havilland. These will come before the committee as the committee sees fit. I welcome any questioning. If the hon. member wants to call me for any discussion with respect to the privatization of either of those corporations,
I would be most happy to oblige. The hon. member knows that his party has opposition days on which they may raise this subject. As I say, there will be ample opportunity, if either sale is contemplated, to have it reviewed by the House.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, my question is again to the minister. Can I take it from his reply that what he had to say was erroneous and that before any sale of these two corporations is undertaken by this government, we will have a chance to review the whole situation on the floor of the House of Commons?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I think the hon. member has misread what I said yesterday. I did not indicate that there would not be a parliamentary review: I simply asked why members of the NDP were so anxious, when at the time of the acquisition of these corporations they stood mute on the subject as far as parliamentary review was concerned.


John Carr Munro: Fine.
(Mr. Clark.]



THE ENVIRONMENT


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my question to the Minister of the Environment. We have a major environmental problem in Ontario. Since this problem also occurs in the province of British Columbia-the minister's province-I ask if he would give serious consideration to the problem of Eurasian milfoil. Is it possible to find funds so that an endeavour can be made to eradicate milfoil from the Trent system, and also from the province of British Columbia? Could we work co-operatively with the provinces in an effort to eradicate Eurasian milfoil?


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It is a matter that he, as a member of Parliament, has been pursuing. It is a matter of very great concern to my department and I accept the hon. member's representations. I can assure the House that active consideration is taking place now to see what co-operative programming can be entered into with the provinces along the lines the hon. member has suggested.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. On March 30 of this year he stated, in Kitchener: "It would be essential for us to have a system in place whereby any breach of the law that might be necessary could be authorized by a responsible official of cabinet."
Clearly, the Prime Minister at that time accepted that in certain circumstances a breach of the law by the RCMP would be sanctioned. Will the Prime Minister tell this House, today, whether this is still his party's position: and, if so, under what circumstances would such breaches of the law by the RCMP be acceptable?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the Solicitor General said yesterday-I believe it was yesterday, or the day before-and as I attempted to say in Kitchener-Waterloo, our determination is to establish a system where the rule of law prevails in the case of every action by a law enforcement agent of the Government of Canada.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, on May 4 of this year in Regina, the Prime Minister promised the Canadian people that he would, if elected, introduce a watchdog committee of members of Parliament from all parties to protect the public against RCMP abuses of civil rights. He promised that this committee would be introduced even if the McDonald commission had not yet completed its final report. Does the
November 9, 1979

Prime Minister intend to keep this promise to the people of Canada and, if so, when will this important committee be established?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are giving very serious consideration to the means by which a committee of that kind might be established. My colleague, the President of the Privy Council, is preparing a document proposing a variety of changes in committee organization in the House as part of a parliamentary reform package. One of the problems we have now, as the hon. member knows, is that this government has referred almost too much work to committees and we intend to refer even more with the establishment of certain select committees.
We do have certain difficulty in having to get agreement from the House to pass references quickly without debate, which can become too long once committees are established. We intend to reform the committee system of the House of Commons and we intend, in regard to the particular matter which the hon. member has raised, to give the most serious consideration to establishing a committee of that kind or some equivalent arrangement that will serve the same purposes.



FINANCE


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Matapedia-Matane):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance.
Given the fact that, according to a study made by the Economic Council of Canada entitled "Living Together , when the rate of unemployment for Canada goes up by 2 per cent, that for Ontario increases by barely 1 per cent while that for the Atlantic region or the Gaspe region rises by 4 per cent, can the Minister of Finance assure us that when he brings down the budget he will take tax measures to ensure that when expected difficult times come, the areas of the country whose economy is the weakest will not suffer more than the others from the recession, especially inasmuch as the Economic Council feels that tax and budget measures, to borrow their phrase, are like an elephant compared with the department of Regional Economic Development, which they call a flea?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly assure the hon. gentleman that I have areas such as he mentions very much under consideration, as does the government generally. We intend to make and continue to make a thrust to overcome so-called regional disparity. 1 will certainly keep his representation in mind. As far as that is concerned, any group of people who may be suffering in any part of the country will be kept very much in our mind.
Privilege-Mr. Lalonde



INQUIRY AS TO DATE OF BUDGET

Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary to the Minister of Finance.
Can the minister tell the House whether he has decided on the date for bringing down his first budget?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I hope to make an announcement next week about the date.



PRIVILEGE


Marc Lalonde: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Outremont on a question of privilege.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, during the oral question period this morning, you drew the attention of all hon. members, on both the opposition side and the government side, to the time taken up by the first round of questions and answers.
I can assure you, on behalf of the opposition, that we take your comments in good part and that we do realize that hon. members themselves are the losers when the first round lasts too long.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Outremont.


Marc Lalonde: I also want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that we are eager to co-operate with you and the whole House so as to make sure that during question period we will cover as many subjects as possible and give opportunities to all members of the House to ask the questions they want to raise about their constituents.
In addition, I would like to get assurance that we will obtain answers to the questions being asked. For example, regarding energy there were three simple questions asked this morning that could have been answered by a yes or no. The first concerned whether there had been contacts with the ambassador to ensure supply from Iran. The second one was whether there had been contact with the multinational oil companies to ensure there would be no diversion in supply destined for Canada. The third question was when the emergency board which was promised to be set up will be set up.
These were simple questions which could have been answered in ten seconds or less. What we had this morning was an example of what we have had since the beginning of the session.

Privilege-Mr. Lalonde


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Since the House met on October 9, the question of energy has been a prominent area of concern to all Canadians, not only to people in this House but all governments in this country. What we have been getting from this government has been a consistent refusal to reply, consistent tactics of obfuscation and waffling on very simple issues. All kinds of rumours have been circulating. There have been all kinds of contacts with the provinces about what the proposals are in the area of energy. However, this House and we, the representatives of the Canadian people, have not been allowed to get from this government what its proposals are and what its scenario is.
As long as we are going to be treated in this House the way this government has been treating the opposition on a matter as important as energy, we will have difficulty in abiding by a situation where we can have all the questions asked but we do not get answers. We have to assume what the answer is. We have to speculate in our questions about what the government intends to do. I hope the government will heed your admonition, Mr. Speaker, and give us answers in the future.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope that by my admonition in the hope of greater participation in the question period I have not opened up the opportunity to debate something which otherwise would not be debatable. In fairness, I should give one share of equal time to respond to that non-question of privilege by the energy minister or the House leader, as the case may be.


Hon. Walter Baker (President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am not rising to respond because it is not within my jurisdiction, but the operation of the House is within my jurisdiction. I want to bring to Your Honour's attention a practice that seems to have developed in the House which is unfortunate. It amounts to a practice of extending the question period under the guise of a question of privilege.


Mr. LeBlanc:: You should know.


Walter David Baker: I want to bring to your attention that a question of privilege, as I understand it, involves a matter that might very well have curtailed the right of a member to speak openly in the House of Commons. A question of privilege is not a grievance. Unfortunately, we do not have a process by way of grievance.
What has happened, unfortunately, is that under the guise of questions of privilege the question period as such has in fact been extended. I do not want to curtail or even suggest that the right of appropriate free speech ought to be curtailed in any way in the House of Commons. However, and 1 suggest this with respect, we do not want to allow too long questions on the one hand and too long answers on the other. 1 accept that.
I have had discussions with Your Honour openly on the floor of the House of Commons about this. We have to be very

November 9, 1979
careful with regard to the rules respecting the privileges of members. These rules ought not to be diluted in any way. There should not be an attempt to extend the question period in the way I have suggested by raising matters which are really grievances. This impedes the operation of the House of Commons.
One of the rights of members is to assume that question period will in fact be a question period, that members on either side will not be subject to grievance procedures by way of questions of privilege when there can be no grievance under our rules. There is a place for debate in the House of Commons. That legitimate debate will not be curtailed by effectively extending the question period.
1 raise this with great respect because, frankly, as leader of the government, and I guess leader of the House of Commons, if I can say it again, I am a little concerned about the practice that seems to have developed.
I want to say on behalf of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), the government and members of my party that if any of us stray into overlong answers in areas where we ought not in your judgment to stray, we accept that the Chair ought to intervene in those cases. Equally, it should be incumbent upon my friends to accept that, and I am sure they accept that with respect to questions.


Marc Lalonde: Give us answers.


Walter David Baker: 1 hope that will be observed.
I just wanted to give Your Honour an indication of what I believe to be the temper of the House of Commons. 1 sat in the opposition not too long ago.


An hon. Member:: You will be back soon.


Walter David Baker: I have experienced first hand the frustrations that can develop as a result of what opposition members traditionally allege are lack of answers. I say with respect that is not a question of privilege, nor is it a point of order. I believe we have strayed somewhat far in that. I have been watching it for the last few days and felt 1 should rise to make that respectful submission to you.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think enough has been said on both sides. This is essentially a non-procedural point.



MR. AN DRAS-STATISTICS CANADA-SUGGESTION THAT ANSWER OF PRESIDENT OF TREASURY BOARD MISLED HOUSE

Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from part of the answer given by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) with regard to our concern about Statistics Canada and the allegations thereto. I am not arguing on the single point where the President of the Treasury Board seemed to imply it was wrong that I had never gone to Statistics Canada, because under our regime Statistics Canada reported to the minister of trade and commerce and not to Treasury Board.
November 9, 1979

The government has changed that, which is their right, but it was an irrelevant comment.
Second, it is not based on the failure to recognize that I was trying to be constructive and not be flamboyant in what is a very delicate situation. 1 got back a lot of homilies from them. Third, I want to point out that this letter is dated November 6, 1979, which is the time of the information service and it is clearly their responsibility, not that of the previous government.
My point is more narrow. During the reply by the President of the Treasury Board, he implied that the letter from Mr. Celovsky with regard to the competence and integrity of Statistics Canada really was based on more narrow criticisms of personnel or administrative policy. That is misleading the House. 1 will grant that it may be an inadvertent action by the President of the Treasury Board. We will see in a minute.
It is misleading the House, inadvertently at best, or implying that he really has not read or understood the implications and the allegations by a quite respected gentleman, Mr. Celovsky, about Statistics Canada. If he read the letter, he clearly should understand that there are many more serious implications contained in it that simply personnel or administrative policy.
I want to put one paragraph on the record in support of my question of privilege that there was in fact, inadvertently or otherwise, a misleading of the House. The letter, as reported, reads:
A third example. For years the labour division has been putting together estimates of labour income derived from the bureau's various surveys and other sources. At the same time, in recent years, national accounts officials have struggled with the problem of ever larger residual errors. They naturally focused on one of the national accounts' largest components, labour income, and asked for revisions which are called in the jargon "macro-economic adjustments" but more colloquially known as "cooking" or "fudging".
That is not a personnel matter or a purely administrative matter. I can see no way in which that interpretation could be placed on this letter. It goes on to say-
So that the published labour income data have been constanly yo-yoed up and down and up again the inevitable result has been that the users of these statistics, including ministers of finance, are totally confused.
Mr. Speaker, that is not merely an administrative or a personnel matter as alleged by the President of the Treasury Board when he seemed to dismiss the seriousness of the situation in his answer to me. I will accept from the hon. gentleman that, in fact, he has not read the letter, or that he has failed to understand it, but he cannot have it both ways. This is a very serious situation and one which really should be cleaned up on a non-partisan basis out of respect for the information base upon which so many economic decisions are taken in this country, not the least of which relate to the budget which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) will, I hope, be bringing forward in the not too distant future.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: am, of course, more than willing to answer the point made by the hon. member but I think it would be helpful, Mr. Speaker,
Privilege-Mr. Andras
if you would indicate whether there is really a question of privilege involved here.


Mr. Speaker:: This is an appropriate time to do so. I indicated just recently that I have perhaps been generous in encouraging members to continue the question period, much as the President of Privy Council (Mr. Baker) has just mentioned, by allowing members to get up to discuss what was essentially a disagreement. I think I ought to take a firmer line on non-questions of privilege of this kind and when I find a member simply voicing disagreement with an answer given by a minister, I think I ought to be quite strict. However, we have customarily accepted, at least in a preliminary way, any question of privilege which is based on a complaint that there has been serious misleading of the House, whether inadvertent or otherwise.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Andras) said today it is his view that the minister misled the House, perhaps inadvertently, and customarily whenever that phrase has been used. We have allowed the minister involved to indicate whether or not there was misleading. I have to judge whether it is simply a matter of disagreement or whether a misleading has taken place, and I do not want to be too strict on that. If the minister tells me that in his view there has been no misleading of the House, I am prepared to accept his statement and set the matter aside. But when this point is raised a minister would often feel deprived if I did not give him a chance to get up and at least indicate whether he has the same opinion or otherwise so as to set the record straight.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am only too anxious to assure the hon. member that there has been no misleading of the House in that connection. He has read the letter one way. I have re-read it since he indicated he would raise the matter as a question of privilege. I still feel it is a question of personnel disagreement touching on various administrative matters within Statistics Canada.
Frankly, we are concerned here with a group of highly qualified people dealing in a very technical field, and I think it only natural there should be disagreement from time to time as to what is the proper statistical approach in mustering the various data they need and preparing it for publication. As I indicated, we have an overview of this subject; I have a person who is in direct liaison with Statistics Canada. I hope to meet with the gentleman who wrote this letter-I am sorry he is in hospital. I intend to get to the bottom of it, but in the meantime I can only say I believe this amounts to a disagreement involving various personnel within Statistics Canada and the administration of that organization.


Mr. Speaker:: The intervention of the minister places the matter within the area of a disagreement and not that of a question of privilege.

November 9, 1979
Social Security BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might rise on a point of order to designate Thursday, November 15, as an allotted day in accordance with discussions which have been held among the parties.


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 thank the President of the Privy Council for asking for that designation. Perhaps the House might like to know that the day will be ours.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 53, 88, 103, 141, 162, 206, 232, 354, 366, 373 and 381.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.



CANADIAN ARSENALS LIMITED-EXECUTIVES


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


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Supply and Services):: 


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday, as you will recall, there was a question of privilege raised with regard to the tabling of documents on the Nerlerk incident in the Beaufort Sea. I indicated there were documents available and I would table them today in both official languages.
President and General Manager Vice-president, Administration Vice-president, Operations Vice-president, Research and Development
Vice-president, Procurement
L. A. Bergeron	$45,000-$50,000
A. Plouffe	$40,000-$45,000
J. R. Greene
R. M. Ferguson J. Malka
* *
*



SOCIAL SECURITY


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, earlier under Standing Order 43 a motion in the name of the hon. member from Saint-Michel (Mrs. Killens) was carried by the House. The wording of the motion queried whether or not we would continue the application of the principle of universality with respect to the old age security program. I want to give full assurance to the hon. member and to all members of the House that the application of the principle of universality with respect to old age security is, indeed, secure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Begin:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The practice of having responses to statements by ministers is discretionary under the rules. The minister is making a statement in response to an order of the House. It is not a declaration of policy initiated by him which in my opinion would bring into play further statements from hon. members and then, in turn, a question period. He has been ordered by the House to make such a statement today. He has made it, and I do not think we ought to get into counter statements and questions, as provided for when another kind of statement is made by ministers.


Monique Bégin: Ten o'clock!
{Mr. Speaker.]



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS-PROJECTS IN RIMOUSKI

Mr. Allard: 1.	Since 1975, did the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs finance projects in the constituency of Rimouski and, if so (a) what were the projects (b) what was the (i) total amount (ii) amount in each case (c) what were the areas?
2.	Is the department planning to do so in the near future and, if so (a) what will be the amount (b) in which areas?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada
1.	(a) Food Talk, 1977*
Food Talk, 1978*
(b) (i) $31,207 (ii) 1977: $15,377 1978: $15,830
(c)	urban Rimouski
2.	The department has no plans at the present time to finance future projects in the constituency of Rimouski.
* Food Talk projects are funded under the Summer Job Corps Program of the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission. The main objective of Food Talk projects is to help low-income consumers get better value for their food dollars.
November 9, 1979



BRIGADIER GENERAL WALTER DABROS

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was Brigadier General Walter Dabros appointed Head of the Armed Forces Security Services and, if so (a) on what date (b) for what reason (c) what are the details of his experience, etc. (d) what is the name and job designation of any person who made the appointment or having anything whatsoever to do in dealing with the appointment?
2.	Was he removed from his duties as Armed Forces Security Chief and, if so (a) on what date (b) for what reason (c) what is the name and job designation of any person involved in the decision?
3.	Was he at any time involved in the giving of security clearance to high ranking public servants and, if so, what are the names and job designations of such public servants?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: 1.	(a) Yes. August, 1977.
(b) BGen Dabros was selected by the Chief of the Defence Staff as a suitable officer to assume the responsibilities of Director General Intelligence and Security.
(c)	BGen Dabros enrolled in the Canadian Army as a military policeman in 1951. He has served for twenty-eight years in positions directly related to intelligence and security functions.
(d)	Mr. Danson, then minister of national defence, General J. A. Dextraze, former chief of the defence staff and Mr. Nixon, the Deputy Minister of National Defence.
2.	Yes.
(a)	August 18, 1978.
(b)	BGen Dabros was among those officers selected to attend the course at the National Defence College commencing August 1978. This is an important career development course for senior officers. As BGen Dabros has eleven years to serve and has specialized in the security field, this course should serve to broaden his employment opportunities as a general list officer in the department.
(c)	Mr. Danson, then minister of national defence, General J. A. Dextraze, former chief of the defence staff and Mr. Nixon, the Deputy Minister of National Defence.
3.	Yes. As Director General of Intelligence and Security during the period August 1, 1977 to August 18, 1978, Brigadier General Dabros had over-all responsibility for the security clearance of all personnel, military and civilian, within the Department of National Defence. He had no responsibility, however, for the security clearance of personnel outside the department.



NATIONAL DEFENCE-CONTRACTS

Mr. Herbert: For each year 1976 to 1978, what was the amount of defence contracts let in each province?
Order Paper Questions


Allan Bruce McKinnon: National Defence Estimated Expenditures for Material, Supplies and Services-By provinces.
1975/76	1976/77	1977/78
(thousands of dollars)
Newfoundland	3,365	5,727	6,765Prince Edward Island	7,391	8,821	7,119Nova Scotia	59,893	77,272	94,914New Brunswick	23,247	26,348	32,830Quebec	182,313	216,351	263,554Ontario	354,013	439,981	442,412Manitoba	38,392	45,942	50,724Saskatchewan	10,446	10,772	10,874Alberta	45,816	58,138	58,368British Columbia	50,358	58,066	80,212



SMALL CONSUMER CONTRACTS

Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is the government aware of the legislation recently passed in the State of New York requiring small consumer contracts to be written in plain English and, if so, is a similar law being considered for Canada?
2.	Is the government considering introducing a similar law which would apply to all federal legislation and regulations and, if not, for what reason?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: 1. This legislation was brought to the government's attention when it was first adopted in New York and we have followed its development carefully. The standard form contracts that are often used in consumer agreements can be very difficult to understand, and plainness in these contracts is important in order that consumers know their rights.
While many sellers and businesses in New York had already undertaken a simplification of the language in their contracts, the law itself is not clearly understood and revisions to it are being considered in view of certain problems that it is causing. In Canada, as well, certain financial institutions and others have been making an effort to simplify their contracts to disclose the essential elements clearly to the consumer. In addition, in Canada the courts have disallowed the enforcement of certain contractual terms on the grounds that the consumer was not likely to have read or understood them in the circumstances.
In Canada, matters of contract law are in the realm of "property and civil rights" and are generally within the scope of provincial jurisdiction. Hence, unless a contract deals with a subject specifically within a federal head of constitutional jurisdiction, it would be up to the province to regulate the form and content of such contracts. Almost all consumer contracts for the purchase of goods and services are within provincial jurisdiction. To pursue this problem on a national front, the federal and provincial ministers responsible for consumer affairs created a federal-provincial task force on consumer legislative programs which is looking into this question among its other high priority issues.
1150

November 9, 1979
Order Paper Questions
2. Most legislation which has been on the books for some time has been subject to interpretation by practice and custom and by the courts. As a result, changes to this legislation to make it easier to read or more simple to understand would inevitably also lead to significant changes in meaning, interpretation and ambiguity. One would therefore have to move extremely cautiously in taking on the mammoth and expensive work of simplifying existing legislation. The resources already devoted to the very specialized task of legislative drafting are already heavily committed but there is in the miscellaneous statute law amendment program an ongoing process of legislative clarification.
With respect to legislation and regulations which are currently being proposed by the government, every effort is made to keep such legislation plain and comprehensible but the primary objective is to avoid ambiguity and to be certain that any legislative provision is open to only one logical interpretation.
Specifically, with respect to regulations, the House of Commons and the Senate have a standing joint committee on regulations and other statutory instruments which reviews all regulations before publication to ensure, among other things, that they are clear.



NATIONAL DEFENCE

Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Department of National Defence's payroll on March 31, 1979?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: (a) permanent-33,776 civilian employees; (b) term-4,885 civilian employees.



AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTS PRICE SUPPORT PROGRAMS

Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Between 1968-69 and 1978-79, what were the (a) cumulative (b) annual expenses incurred under the various Agricultural Products Price Support Programs?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: (a)	(b)
Fiscal Year	Cumulative	Annua]1968-69	$ 976	$ 9761969-70	78,086	77,1101970-71	475,761	397,6751971-72	996,309	520,5481972-73	1,415,298	418,9891973-74	1,420,432	5,1341974-75	1,518,176	97,7441975-76	1,933,017	414,8411976-77	3,054,947	1,121,9301977-78	3,090,491	35,5441978-79	3,345,771	255,280



ARMED FORCES PERSONNEL

Mr. Herbert: How many Armed Forces personnel are in (a) the National Capital Region (b) each province and territory excluding the National Capital Region?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: National Capital Region	6,381
Newfoundland	845
Prince Edward Island	951
Nova Scotia	12,131
New Brunswick	4,172
Quebec	10,459
Ontario	15,623
Manitoba	3,979
Saskatchewan	1,665
Alberta	7,024
British Columbia	8,257
Yukon Territory	6
Northwest Territories	306
Outside Canada	6,689
Total	78,488



ENVIRONMENT-HUMANE TRAPPING-TESTING

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was the Canadian Wildlife Service responsible for testing traps for fur-bearing animals sent in by inventors for approximately three years?
2.	Was the testing stopped by the Department of the Environment and, if so (a) on what date (b) for what reason (c) how many traps were waiting to be tested at the time testing stopped?
3.	Is the Department leaving the responsibility for testing entirely to the Federal-Provincial Committee for Humane Trapping and, if so, for what reason?
4.	Is the Minister aware of the urgency of the need for the invention of humane traps and, if so, would the Minister make public the measures being taken to speed up such inventions?
5.	What financial assistance, if any, is being given to inventors attempting to solve this problem and specifically, has any contract been issued to a research center, university etc. for the purpose of inventing a suitable trap or initiating research into other trapping methods such as the use of drugs?
6.	What was the total amount of funds contributed in the past five years by the Department to speed the search into alternative trapping systems?


John Allen Fraser: 1.	No.
2.	N/A.
3.	Yes. That is the responsibility of the committee.
4.	Yes. The Canadian Wildlife Service and the provinces gave impetus to the formation of the committee which is taking measures to speed up inventions.
5.	The committee provides advice to inventors. It has assisted some inventors financially. It refers promising designs to the engineering department, McMaster University, for analysis and development. It arranged for the placement of an advertisement in the Research and Development Bulletin of DSS for space-age proposals for trap testing and trap ideas, but no new suitable proposals were received.

November 9, 1979

6.	The department has contributed $65,000 directly to the committee. $80,838 has been provided in contracts to set standards against which traps can be tested by the committee. An additional $50,000 is to be allocated in 1979-81 on research for humane traps.



CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-NUMBER OF MEN AND WOMEN

Mr. Pepin: How many men and women were in the Canadian Armed Forces on (a) March 31, 1977 (b) March 31, 1978 (c) March 31, 1979 (d) October 9, 1979?


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The effective strength for the dates in question were as follows:
Men	Women	Total74,553	4,038	78,59175,103	4,553	79,65674,156	4,818	78,97473,480	5,008	78,488



CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS

Mr. Cossitt: Did the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs hold conversations with his Ontario counterpart, the Honourable Frank Drea, on the problem of odometers on used cars being turned back by certain dealers before resale and, if so (a) has it been agreed that a consumer fraud problem does exist (b) has it been estimated that this alleged practice is costing Canadian consumers between $300 and $500 million per year (c) is the government taking any steps in co-operating with other provinces to strongly deal with this matter?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The problem created by certain dealers turning back odometers of used cars was the subject of correspondence between the Honourable Frank Drea and myself in August of this year. We were seeking to ensure that Mr. Drea's proposed amendments to regulations under the Ontario Motor Vehicle Dealers Act were in general agreement with the appropriate section that deals with odometers in the Weights and Measures Act. Furthermore, the subject of fraudulent roll back of odometers was raised at the recent St. John's Consumer Affairs Ministers' meeting in September.
There most certainly is considerable fraud of this nature and the attempts to reduce the problem were well illustrated by many recent successful prosecutions. It is extremely difficult to estimate the dollar value of this type of fraud but figures have been used in the area of hundreds of millions of dollars. The government is taking steps to deal strongly with this problem through enforcement on a national basis of existing federal legislation and, where required, there is co-operation with the provinces.
Supply
Unfortunately, from our experiences, we know that identifying and taking action on odometer fraud is difficult and time-consuming. The long-term answer is a tamperproof odometer, and work on such an instrument has been done by some of the automotive companies, and is being investigated by Transport Canada. Until such time as such a solution is achieved, we will continue to use the existing legislation to tackle this type of fraud.


Yvon Pinard: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the parliamentary secretary to indicate to this House at the earliest opportunity, namely on Monday, if it is true that up to now he has answered less than 2 per cent of the questions on the order paper?


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Pursuant to Standing Order 54 I do now leave the chair for the House to go into Committee of the Whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, November 8, consideration in committee of Bill C-23, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1980-Mr. Stevens-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
The Chairman:: When the committee rose on Thursday, November 8, 1979, schedule A of the bill was under consideration, as clauses 2 to 6 inclusive were allowed to stand.
The committee might allow me to raise the question of relevancy. Yesterday when the committee sat, taking into account the late hour and the fact that there was only half an hour left, the Chair allowed quite a lot of flexibility in the consideration of schedule A. I allowed one or two numbers, with reference to the Department of Transport, wharves and breakwaters, to get into the question of fisheries.
However, I see again today the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and some hon. members who are concerned about fisheries, and I hesitate to let the committee proceed in the same way it did last night in using schedule A to go as deeply as they did into the field of fisheries. I wonder if there could

November 9, 1979
Supply
not be some consensus to stand schedule A and to go to schedule D, which would allow flexibility regarding all of the subjects involved.


Mr. Breau:: Mr. Chairman, we have no objection as to how it is done, but I suggest that another way would be to revert to clause 2, which covers the whole subject of appropriations. We have no objection, as long as we do not restrict hon. members from questioning ministers on any subject. Whether we stand schedules A, B, and C and go to schedule D or revert back to clause 2, which is a very general clause, I think it would be better to have wide latitude.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the intervention which has just been made, but it strikes me that Your Honour's suggestion is the better one. If we revert to clause 2, that also raises the whole question of twelve-twelfths. What we want to talk about are items in the departments. As a matter of fact, when we moved to schedule A, I thought the general understanding was that we would discuss all of the schedules. Your Honour is quite correct in saying that we have to be relevant, but if we stand schedules A, B and C and move to schedule D, it seems to me that the door will be wide open.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, as I indicated yesterday, we prefer to talk only about relevant subjects with regard to schedules A, B and C, but if hon. members wish to stand those three and go directly to schedule D, we have no serious objection. We would just like to get on with the bill.


Gérald Laniel: Hon. members should consider the fact that when we are considering clauses other than clause 1, we are operating under very strict rules. These rules are meant to prevent us from getting ourselves into a difficult situation and from ending up with amendments which relate to different clauses or different schedules at the same time. There seems to be a disposition, as I suggested, to stand schedules A, B and C and to proceed to schedule D. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: The House will now proceed to the consideration of schedule D. The hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake had the floor last night.
On schedule D-


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Chairman, last evening I was speaking of the horrors which would be wrought upon the Manitoba fishing industry by two nasty little fish, those being the gizzard shad and the rainbow smelt, should the Garrison diversion be allowed to go ahead as envisioned by its North Dakota planners. Reflecting upon my comments last evening I am struck by an uncanny resemblance between this environmental pollution and a recent political pollution which has also crept northward from the United States. On the one hand, we have an environmental pollution which, through an accident of human engineering, threatens to move northward, wreaking considerable havoc on the economy of Manitoba. This environmental pollution would take the form of vastly increased
[The Chairman.]
amounts of chemicals in the water, harming community water supplies, farming industries and food processing industries, among others. It would also come in the form of those two previously mentioned voracious garbage fish.
The parallel political pollution promises equally horrible results for Canada. This pollution is the new wonder child of the government opposite, the philosophy of neo-conservatism. This political pollutant had its birth in the murky waters of the United States, as did Garrison's garbage fish. And like those fish, neo-conservatism has moved northward, devouring much of what is good in our country. Indeed, I can expand the parallel. The neo-conservative-


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member because I am very much interested in hearing about the problems surrounding the Garrison diversion and the effect it will have on the very important Manitoba fisheries, but I suggest that the hon. member is breaching the rule of relevancy when he goes into a tirade about neo-conservatism.


Gérald Laniel: Well, actually I cannot be a policeman and be on my feet on every remark. However, and this does not really touch on the point raised by the minister, I am concerned because the hon. member was talking about the environment more than anything else. I was looking through the schedules to see whether the Department of the Environment is involved, and I can find no such reference.
Although the hon. member began on schedule A last night, I hope that his remarks will relate in some way to schedule D or to one of the items in schedule D.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Chairman, I will leave this subject for the time being since it is touching nerves on the opposite side.


James Aloysius McGrath: Just get on to the fisheries.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I will change the direction of my comments right now, and speak about a couple of matters of concern to inland fishermen, who may very well be falling victim to this nasty neo-conservatism. The first of these was discussed at some length last evening by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador with regard to offshore fishing. I would like to address the same problem as it applies to the Manitoba scene. In particular, I am referring to the 35 per cent subsidy on fishing boats. As the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador said last night, this has now been put in a holding pattern, and for some months none of the fishermen in Canada have been getting this subsidy.
In Manitoba at the present time this poses a rather serious problem. There are some 90 fishermen who have made representations to the department to get this subsidy. The total amount they are applying for this year is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $140,000 to $150,000. So far this year only $20,000 has been spent under this program in Manitoba. Last year $280,000 was spent, and in the previous year $180,000 was spent. Manitoba is getting the short end of the stick this year, as I see it. Furthermore, the problem is exacerbated in Manitoba because the Manitoba Credit Corporation will not
November 9, 1979

grant loans to fishermen unless they have a 35 per cent equity. In previous years this has been no problem because of the subsidy.


Herb Breau: Because of the good, Liberal program.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Yes, it was, but unfortunately it has gone down the drain. In Manitoba this not only affects fishermen but boat works in the province. In my riding of Selkirk-Inter-lake, two particular companies, Gimli and Lake Winnipeg Boatworks, are suffering considerably from it. They are both small businesses which rely on getting the boat business from local fishermen. When a subsidy such as this is suspended, these boat works feel the pinch. Right now these two companies are facing a bleak winter. In fact, it is very likely that they will have to lay off some of their employees and shut down completely for the winter.
Two other boat works in Manitoba, Lakeside Boatworks and Lake Winnipegosis Boatworks, both of which are in the neighbouring riding of Dauphin, have suffered more than the Gimli company because both have had to shut down their operations. The four Manitoba boat companies estimate that they have lost some $500,000 in business this year, which is a sizeable sum for small companies. It is interesting that 35 per cent of $500,000 come very close to the amount of the grants that have not been approved this year in Manitoba.
I should like to direct a question to the minister on this subject and ask him what, if anything, has been done to reinstate this program. If nothing has been done, can he foresee this program being reinstated in the very near future? May I ask whether it is normal procedure for him to answer now, or should I carry on and have my question answered later?


Gérald Laniel: It is the hon. member's choice. If the hon. member takes his full time, he can use it to make his comments now, or, if he wants to obtain answers to his questions right away, the time which the minister takes up is counted in the hon. member's 20 minutes. So it is up to the hon. member.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I have another matter to raise and it will not take me too long to pose the question. First I will give a little background on it, following which I will put my second question, and perhaps the minister will answer them both afterwards.
The second matter regards the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. In recent weeks, the Manitoba resource minister, Brian Ransom, has stated he may possibly allow commercial fishermen to opt out of the corporation. As the minister is well aware and, as I am sure, most members concerned are, FFMC was set up originally in 1968-69 in order to provide an orderly marketing of fish in the Northwest Territories, the prairie provinces and parts of northwest Ontario. It is somewhat ironic that another disciple of neo-conservatism, Sterling Lyon, has been the prime force in establishing this corporation. The need for this corporation became evident in the mid-1960s
Supply
when only a few American firms had the monopoly in buying and processing. This resulted in poor prices for fishermen.
The fear right now experienced by members of this party and by most fishermen in Manitoba is that without FFMC fishermen might gain some very short-term benefits, but in the long run the large U.S. firms will undoubtedly take over and again dominate the market and dictate prices. I understand that the minister's parliamentary secretary has been assigned the job of looking into FFMC and deciding its future.
I should like to ask whether the report has come back and what is the minister going to recommend. Will he recommend the dismantling of FFMC, or will he allow FFMC to stay in place but private interests to compete against the marketing corporation? My fear and the fear of many fishermen in Manitoba is that the cards would likely be stacked against the marketing corporation. Fishermen in Manitoba have generally expressed the desire to see the marketing corporation stay as it is. When private companies dominated the situation until the late 1960s, fishermen were often quoted a price at the beginning of the season, but come the end of the season the price would change and the fishermen would get the short end of the stick. They like the situation right now which works the opposite way. They are quoted a price by the marketing corporation at the beginning of the season, and at the end of the season the corporation has a higher price than anticipated, which is to the benefit of Manitoba fishermen.
To sum up, my two questions relate to boat subsidies for inland fishermen and the future status of the marketing corporation.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, first of all I should apologize to the hon. member for interrupting him. I did not realize it was his maiden speech. I would be even prepared to listen to him on neo-conservatism.
The hon. member had two concerns with which I can deal now, although it was my intention to wait until all hon. members had made an initial submission, following which I would reply. The hon. member has raised two specific questions: one dealing with the vessel subsidy program, and one dealing with FFMC.
With respect to the former, it is our intention to restore the vessel subsidy program for the balance of this year and to bring in a modified form of the program for next year. But I should tell the hon. member, as we indicated to the provincial ministers of the Atlantic provinces in Quebec, that it is also our intention to phase out 6f that program. This is not to suggest there is no need for it, but merely to suggest that we do not see it as our role that vessel subsidies should be administered by my colleagues, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Minister of DREE. We think that primarily it should be a provincial program supported by some program other than one administered by this department. There will be times, however, when it will be necessary to use various incentives to encourage the opening of new fisheries. That may be one of the means we would adopt to encourage people into a new fishery.

November 9, 1979
Supply
With respect to FFMC, my parliamentary secretary will be responding at greater length. There is a review under way and the parliamentary secretary has the responsibility for coordinating it within the department. We have met with most of the provinces at the officials level. There is one thing emerging, and that is that there is no consensus among the participating provinces on FFMC, which makes our decision more difficult. We are looking at all the options, but the evidence is not in yet in terms of the study. When it is, we will be making a decision with regard to the future of FFMC.
I should also remind the hon. member that it is my understanding that FFMC will be one of the topics before the standing committee next week when the estimates are once again before the committee. Perhaps at the time we will have an opportunity to go into the matter in greater detail in terms of what we found out so far as our studies are concerned. But I want to say to the hon. member that the study is under way, that until it has been concluded and there has been consultation at the political level, I cannot give the hon. member further information. I am afraid that is as far as I can go at the present time.


Mr. Cyr:: Mr. Chairman, may I call it one o'clock, but before we adjourn may I ask the minister whether he will be present in the House this afternoon?


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member should know that I am always in the House on Fridays.


Gérald Laniel: It being one o'clock, the committee will now adjourn until 2 p.m.
At one o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 2 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose at 1 p.m., schedule D of Bill C-23, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1980, was under consideration and the hon. member for Gaspe had the floor.


Alexandre Cyr: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Today, 1 have no intention of giving a detailed account of the situation of Quebec fisheries. I merely wish to advise the House that the fishing industry in the Gaspe area has known considerable success since I have been its representative in the House of Commons.
The income of fishermen has gone up in no small measure in recent years in the province of Quebec and northern New Brunswick and that, Mr. Chairman, thanks to the policies implemented by the former minister of fisheries, the hon.

member for Westmorland-Kent. However, Quebec fishermen, the owners of fishing businesses and processing plant employees are quite concerned about the recent steps taken by the minister of this Progressive Conservative government, and more particularly by the budget cuts that have already been made in or are being planned for the 1980-81 budget concerning small vessel ports. In the last ten years, the Liberal government has built wharves and harbours to meet the needs of the Gaspe fishing industry. But there is still much to be done because everything cannot be done at once.
The minister has many files in his Ottawa office that were sent him or handed over to him by the former minister which prove that there is still a lot of work to be done in Gaspe. I trust the funds will be available, Mr. Chairman, to build the buttress for the wharf at Sainte-Anne-des-Monts, to go ahead with phase II of the works at the Tourelle fishing wharf, the breakwater and the launching ramp at Cloridorme, the stonebedding for the small wharf at Cap-a-l'Ours, phase II of the Anse-a-Beaufils harbour, to improve the dredging and harbour facilities at Sainte-Therese, the wharf at Grande-Riviere, and to do major repair work on the wharf of Newport as well as its launching ramp. In addition, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans had promised to assist in the development of coastal and tourist fishing harbours in that area under the Canada-Quebec tourist development agreement. As I said earlier, the files are in the minister's office, and 1 trust that part of the 1980-81 estimates will go to that.
The Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board say the former government increased the Canadian deficit too much. In the past, the government took steps to reduce spending, to lower deficits, but it never took them, Mr. Chairman, on the backs of Quebec or eastern Canada fishermen. That was a privileged class for the Liberal government. During the last election the Progressive Conservative candidate in the riding of Gaspe and all Progressive Conservative candidates in eastern Canada promised they would give fishermen access to fishing harbours for major repairs and would have launching ramps built here and there. Where is that work going to take place with the budget cuts announced by this government?
Mr. Chairman, I have been asking myself that question ever since this government took office and particularly with respect to the position taken by former Progressive Conservative members sitting on this side of the House who are now on the government side and the new members coming from Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland-where are they to defend the interests of fishermen? We do not hear from them anymore, Mr. Chairman. They are mute, as gentle as lambs. I am talking in particular of hon. members from Prince Edward Island, the hon. member for Malpeque, the hon. member for Cardigan, the hon. member for Hillsborough and the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications, the hon.
November 9, 1979

member for Egmont. We have not seen them yet rise in this House to defend the interests of fishermen, more particularly inshore fishermen, and criticize the department's policy with respect to large trawlers having access to the gulf.
1 want to say to Quebec fishermen that if there are budget cuts, they apply not only to the province of Quebec but to all other maritime provinces. We rise on their behalf and 1 trust other members on the government side can do the same and speak loudly so fishermen can get justice from this new government. 1 now want to deal with the presence of large trawlers in the gulf. First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me say at the outset that the action taken by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans since he became a member of this government have done precious little to restore balance in the struggle for national unity. Since 1970, the previous government had made efforts to replenish the fish stocks in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and generally in eastern Canada, and we proved it when the 200-mile fishing zone was established. Moreover, when in 1976 the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent realized that the situation had become tragic and that all that was left was only small 15- to 18-inch cod in the gulf, he denied large trawlers access to the gulf.
Three years later, Mr. Chairman, the fishermen can now catch 25-, 30- and even 40-inch cod, something which had not happened for at least 15 years. To that end the federal government had to lower quotas in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and even reduce the fishing season for a few years. We have implemented 2 and 3 cents a pound programs to be able to subsidize fishermen, to help fish processors and processing plants, and even to subsidize large trawlers and help equip them to operate in the 200-mile fishing zone.
These programs cost $117 million to the Canadian taxpayers in four years. But they have been useful. We have increased the cod stocks in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, but the new minister has now opened up the Gulf and let in the big financial sharks, the large fish processing companies of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia.
The statement made by the hon. minister on August 27 took everyone by surprise. No matter that the hon. minister said in the House that there was consultation, I suggest that this statement took everyone by surprise. It may not have surprised either National Products or Nickerson or even the hon. member for South Shore, but it did surprise the rest of Canadians. The minister has stated in the House that the provinces were consulted through the groundfish advisory committee at a meeting held in St. John's on July 11. The minister, his officials and certain Progressive Conservative members of southern Nova Scotia seem to be interpreting rather strangely the minutes of the meeting of the advisory committee from which the hon. minister quoted in this committee last night, and they have also accused an official of the New Brunswick government of not having informed his minister that there were consultations during this meeting. The New
Supply
Brunswick government official will probably have the opportunity to read Hansard for last night and today and to reply to the minister.
I was rather disappointed last night when the minister accused an official of not having done his job. I then thought that if he was now accusing a New Brunswick government official of not having done his job, he might do the same tomorrow for the Quebec government or that of Prince Edward Island. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I contacted this morning the Quebec government in relation to the interpretation of the minutes of the meeting held on July 11 in St. John's.
I would like to give a summary of the facts for those who are not aware of the situation as I see that many students are in the gallery today. On August 27, the minister stated that there was a 10,000 metric ton surplus available to fishermen in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and he announced at the same time that
6.000	tons should be allocated to trawlers of 100 feet or more. This last part of the press release is what surprised everyone.
The minister stuck up for himself, as shown on page 2 of the minutes of the meeting, and I quote:
The members are, on the whole, in favour of increasing the present TAC; however, the possibility of higher TAC and quotas for vessels over and under 100 feet is giving rise to contradictory views.
Mr. Chairman, if that is called consultations with Quebec, I wonder what is meant by consultation. At 12.45 today, answering the question of an hon. member for the NDP on the price of salt fish, the minister said there should be consultations with the provinces and even consensus before making certain changes. I agree with him. That is the policy that should be implemented. But it was not when time came to allow 100-foot trawlers or more into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Now, here is the message I received from the representative of the Quebec government, Mr. Bourque, who was at the committee meeting. I quote:
We discussed the 4T increase from 36,000 to 46,000 tons.
A representative of the Quebec fishing industry, Mr. Richard Lapointe, suggested it. A consensus was reached with regard to increasing the quotas from
36.000	to 46,000 tons but not on their allotment, and the report states that. Later on, there was no consultation concerning their allotment. This is why the government of Quebec made representations on September 5, 1979 to the hon. James McGrath in a telegram which reads as follows:
From: Rodrigue Tremblay, Minister of Industry and Commerce To: James McGrath, Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
Date: September 5, 1979.
We arc pleased about the increase in cod quotas in 4T and 4Vn to 10,000 metric tons which was announced in your release of August 27, 1979.
On the other hand, we are opposed to the allocation of part of those 10,000 metric tons to vessels of 100 feet or more that are based outside the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
This float of vessels of 100 feet or more based outside the gulf has benefited from a very generous increase in cod quotas in 4VSW and has made good catches in 2J3KL since the beginning of 1979.

November 9, 1979
Supply
We have accepted that vessels of 100 feet or more based outside the Gulf of St. Lawrence have quotas in 4RS, 3PN and 4V in 1979. However, this should be the last year.
With due respect we remind you that we want that the fish in the Gulf of St. Lawrence be reserved exclusively for vessels based in the gulf.
Rodrigue Tremblay
Mr. Chairman, this morning the representative of the province of Quebec also told me that the owners of big trawlers, National Products and Nickerson, regularly come back before the committee. At every meeting they appear before the committee and ask to be allowed to enter the Gulf of St. Lawrence but they are turned down. There was never any comprehensive study or debate in the advisory committee, Mr. Chairman, about the access of trawlers to the gulf.
The hon. minister knows that Quebec is not the only province involved in this battle. Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are in it too, as my colleague from Gloucester has underlined last night. In the end Quebec has always accepted a compromise in the debates between federal and provincial governments. But opening Gulf of St. Lawrence area 4T to trawlers cannot be an acceptable compromise for the province of Quebec because there have been no consultations. Compromise implies consultation. Without consultation, no compromise. Therefore the Quebec government, with which I am not always in agreement, is strongly opposed to the minister's action. Moreover, one of the representatives on that committee, the general manager of the Pecheurs unis du Quebec in a statement that cannot be read today for lack of time-he will be appearing soon before the committee anyway-himself indicates there has been no debate on the committee other than producers, boat owners-which means large companies- suggesting they would like to fish in the gulf. He states he heard of it only upon issuance of the minister's release, whereby big trawlers were allowed access to the gulf. Mr. Chairman, this is not a world where there are only government and big business. Labour unions also exist. I have here a telegram sent by Mr. Odilon Gionest, president of the Newport plant local of the national union, in which it is stated, and I quote:
We wish to inform you of our objection to the entry into the Gulf of St. Lawrence, starting from November 1, 1979, of trawlers 100 feet long and over, to catch 6,000 metric tons of cod.
We feel the fish so caught will automatically reduce next spring the fishing potential of trawlers under 100 feet.
He goes on requesting that representations be made. I have hundreds of other telegrams, Mr. Chairman, that I could read into the record.
I have only a few minutes left to ask the minister to reconsider his policy, to act like a good Canadian and remember the humble fisherman, as he used to do indeed. In a speech on northern cod delivered on August 30, 1979, in Corner Brook, Newfoundland, he said the following:
Our policy, my policy, on the matter is quite simple and specific. The coastal fishermen have priority of access to that resource. For them, for workers in processing plants, for their families, for communities where they live, the right

and opportunity to have access to that resource is essential, because they have special ties with those stocks and the government of Canada recognizes this.
Mr. Chairman, if the Government of Canada recognizes the fishermen's priority of access to the resources in the gulf, I would like him to say so today and withdraw those policies that he put forward and by doing so, it would be in accordance with the meeting held in October.
That will conform to the report of the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Sub-Committee which, on page 6, recommends:
Trawlers over 100 feet be phased out of the Gulf groundfish fisheries between 1980-1986 to coincide with phase-out of the French treaty.
[ Translation]
And it goes on to say that entry should be denied to certain vessels carrying equipment that can destroy the ocean floor. Mr. Chairman, in light of the position taken by the minister I would not want to leave unsaid the disappointment felt by Quebec fishermen, producers and all those concerned by the fishing industry. I would ask him to read all the telexes sent on July 5, 11, 17, 23 and 24 by Quebec United Fishermen asking him for this 10,000-ton stock increase; never was there any question of allowing trawlers over 100 feet to take this fish which is reserved for inshore fishermen. I put my trust in the hon. minister's good will to put an end to this dispute.


Fred Alward McCain: Order, please. 1 regret to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.

Mir. Rose: Mr. Chairman, as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is here this afternoon, I should like to quickly ask him four very important questions concerning fishermen on the west coast. Since I may not use all my time in asking these questions, I want to ask about another cultural matter and perhaps we can deal with these together.
1 was very interested in some of the debate last night, especially the contributions by the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent, the former minister of fisheries. The present minister was on the fisheries committee at the time the Davis salmon licences A and B licensing scheme was introduced. I believe, although I cannot recall for certain, that he opposed that. I know I did, because I felt we should be licensing people rather than boats.
The industry is in chaos at the moment on the west coast- especially the salmon industry-because of overcapitalization and certain other problems.
My first question to the minister is to inquire whether he has any plans to discourage this overcapitalization or to change in any other way the licensing procedures which, I take it, he opposed when they were introduced. If he has, I would certainly like to hear about them.
November 9, 1979

As far as overcapitalization is concerned, it means a bigger and bigger investment must go into gear and ships of various kinds to chase fewer fish. Therefore, it lowers productivity if productivity is figured on the basis of dollars invested compared to fishery return, even though the price has gone up over the last few years.
Does the minister plan to change the type of licences being issued? Is he concerned about overcapitalization within the industry? I will put all my questions, and if the minister can answer them and there is any time left, 1 would like to go on to a different subject, but still within the bounds of the sections we are on.
The Fraser gill netters, many of whom I represent and have represented over the years, are losing their identity. They cannot depend on the catch, although I must admit that last year was better than the previous year. In order to have a decent income they are forced to leave their natural identifiable area as gill netters in the Fraser. They must go out further in order to justify their investment. I believe they had 16 days last year, which is hardly enough.
I believe the minister has requested some suggestions from the industry for a better allocation. I think it is unfair to leave that whole matter entirely to the industry. I would be interested to know if there was any kind of government suggestion forthcoming, based on the report and recommendations of the Sol Sinclair report that has been tabled. At this time I know of nothing that is being implemented.
I have two questions as follows: When will we have implementation of Mr. Sinclair's recommendations? Does the government have any suggestions regarding catch allocation? This will avoid warring with the industry as well as problems with the Americans over tuna and other matters such as that.
I am concerned along with some of the people I represent about the back door approach to the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Of course, our Canadian fish companies have been largely controlled by American interests, but now Japanese interests are investing up to 25 per cent, for instance, in Canadian fishing companies. It seems to me there may be a possibility of a takeover by the Japanese without even going through the formalities-and that is all F1RA is in the main anyway, a formality-which is not to our particular advantage.
Last night the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent spoke about the real concern that we have about vertical integration in the fishing industry. In other words, the company owns the boats and the licences on those boats in many cases. They often allocate these boats. This reminds me of the Ernie Ford song "You owe everything to the company store." The minister might recall that when we were in Prince Rupert these contracts were described as unconscionable. In this regard does the minister share with the ex-minister his regret that we have allowed such a large measure of vertical integration in the fishing industry? Does the minister have any particular plans to reverse this? I think that is probably a clear question.
Supply
I will dispense with the rhetoric of how terrible it is today, that it is all the minister's fault and that everyone over here is an angel. However, since he is the minister-he must bear the responsibility, and if he wants to accept the fault, that is fine. The former minister expressed his regret that in his province fishermen have no bargaining rights. Except for UIC payments, I do not believe fishermen have any bargaining rights anywhere. They do not have the most primitive rights of trade unionists because the courts have considered them as coadventurers. Every time they do strike it is considered a conspiracy.
I know the Minister of the Environment has been approached by the fishermen. He has met with representatives of the fishermen's union. By letter he has indicated that he intends to contact the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans as well as the Minister of Labour to see if, after 100 years of neglect by both old line parties, somehow during this session of Parliament there might be some form of equity given to the fishermen. I do not mean restoration of rights because they have never had rights in the first place, but there should be some kind of legislation to consider the needs of fishermen, who by and large are almost serfs on these vessels. Because they happen to get a share in the catch does not mean they are co-adventurers.
I suppose only a legal mind could somewhow justify their being co-adventurers. They are more like feudal serfs.
I hope the minister intends to do something about this or take some kind of lead to see if there are some decent, modern bargaining rights for some of the most oppressed workers in the country. These people do get unemployment insurance. We can give the previous government credit for that. I admit that some fishermen in some years do very well. However, if one takes a look at the average earnings for the industry, they desperately need something, so that each time they feel they have a grievance and go on strike they do not have to go through police barricades and face the courts. I join with the former minister from Westmorland-Kent who regretted that there were no bargaining rights in his province. I support his view. Do the fishermen have to go through this procedure every time in order to get decent, modern civil rights or labour rights accorded other workers? I look forward to the answers to my questions.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I listened very carefully to the questions posed by my hon. friend. I am pleased to welcome him back into the House and I look forward to his continuing participation and contribution to the debates in this place. I will try to answer his questions as succinctly as I can, bearing in mind that we will examine the questions more carefully to determine whether or not more comprehensive replies are warranted. If that is the case my parliamentary secretary will bring these replies to the committee at a later date.
With respect to the first question on A and B licences and the concern expressed by the hon. member regarding overcapitalization, he probably knows that there is a moratorium at the present time. There has been no increase in the number

November 9, 1979
Supply
of A licences. As a matter of fact A licences have decreased from 5,800 in 1969 to 4,400 in 1979.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit some clarification at this point?


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, I was not concerned about the gross numbers but the continuation of this scheme. While there may be fewer boats, more sophisticated gear is being used. The requirement to obtain sophisticated gear means that many are overcapitalized.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, as I say, I can appreciate the concern of the hon. member. My understanding is that the trend is to smaller boats because of the moratorium. I will endeavour to get a more comprehensive reply and the parliamentary secretary will bring it in. I anticipated that we would be spending the afternoon discussing the southern Gulf of St. Lawrence respecting section 40 and cod. However, I will make sure that the hon. member gets an answer to his questions on the A and B licences as well as the whole area of his concern with respect to overcapitalization.
With regard to the recommendations of the Sinclair report, as the member suggests that report has been around since 1978.


Roméo LeBlanc: Late 1978.


James Aloysius McGrath: To the best of my knowledge it was never tabled in the House. Nor was it referred to a committee of the House. It is my intention, hopefully, to have the Sinclair report referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry so that the committee can examine the recommendations of Sinclair in light of the realities of the late seventies and the expectations of the eighties. 1 am hoping that the committee study into the Sinclair report and using Sinclair as a reference-


Mark Willson Rose: Not that Sinclair next to you.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am sure that Sinclair would make an equally positive contribution if I called upon him to do so.


Herb Breau: You should refer him to the fisheries committee.


James Aloysius McGrath: The reference of the Sinclair report to the standing committee speaks to the whole need for a reappraisal of licensing policy, and in fact the need for a new licensing policy which is the cornerstone of fisheries management, whether we are talking about the east coast or west coast.
The hon. member referred to foreign investment and the concern on the west coast caused thereby. I appreciate that concern. Indeed, I had an expression of that concern on the occasions I had to visit the west coast since becoming Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It is a growing cause for concern. However, the problem is one for the Foreign Investment Review Agency. Quite frankly, 1 do not believe the situation is

as serious as many think it is, although I am not in a position to make that determination. That is merely a gut feeling I have as a result of the consultations I have had on the west coast with fishermen and those involved in the industry.
With regard to vertical integration, I am concerned about that, the impact it would have on the industry to restrict competition and the possible impact on the price subsequently paid to fishermen.
As to whether it has reached the point where that concern has to be expressed in a more tangible way, I am not in a position to make that judgment at the present time. It is a problem on the east coast. It could very well be a serious problem.


Mark Willson Rose: The effect it has had on licensing.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is right, and the whole business of the management of the fishery and entry into the fishery. Having said that, I will give an undertaking to the hon. member that I will, through my parliamentary secretary, endeavour to obtain a more comprehensive reply to the questions posed by the hon. member.


Mark Willson Rose: There was one other point with regard to bargaining rights. I wonder if the minister would address himself to that.


James Aloysius McGrath: With regard to bargaining rights, Mr. Chairman, that is a problem in some provinces. It is a problem that falls within the area of provincial jurisdiction. There are bargaining rights for fishermen, certainly in my province. This has been very successful. It has made it much easier for the minister of fisheries to get on with the management of the fisheries where you have a strong voice speaking for the fishermen.


Roméo LeBlanc: Right on.


James Aloysius McGrath: The union in Newfoundland has been very successful in that regard and has been very responsible in exercising the authority it has in speaking for all of the fishermen and those who work in the fish plants of Newfoundland. That I think augurs well for the industry. I would like to see that carried right across the country.
By the same token, the industry never speaks with one voice and that is a problem. You can very rarely get consensus on the industry side. I believe the industry is now making an effort to get its act together. They know how important that is in terms of consultations with the Government of Canada and in terms of having meaningful input into fisheries policy and the day to day management of the fisheries.
I hope the hon. member will be satisfied for the moment. We will endeavour to examine his questions to determine whether more comprehensive replies are warranted.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, I thank the minister for his replies and look forward to the more detailed ones. I am a bit confused about his suggestion that it is up to the provinces to
November 9, 1979

ensure the bargaining rights of fishermen. Deep sea fishing and salmon fishing come under federal legislation.
1 am sure the minister will recall a session in which the union from British Columbia attended upon the fisheries committee. That was some years ago, maybe seven or eight. They protested this treatment as co-adventurers, as though it might have had something to do with federal influence. I am not prepared at the moment to say it was entirely federal. I am certain that part of it does impinge on federal jurisdiction.


Roméo LeBlanc: It was a Supreme Court judgment.


Mark Willson Rose: 1 am informed by the former minister that it was a Supreme Court judgment, a federal judgment.
1 would now like to turn from fish to films.


An hon. Member:: Filming fish?


Mark Willson Rose: No, not filming Fish. I want to continue my representations to the President of the Treasury Board over the costs the National Film Board has had to face and their opportunities for the future as one of Canada's outstanding institutions. I say to the President of the Treasury Board publicly something that he already knows. I want everyone listening to know that we know too. It was not the original cuts that were imposed by the Conservative government which caused the trouble in the first place. It was the cuts imposed by the previous government which now, with inflationary conditions, amount to about 20 per cent.
This great Canadian institution has won at least five Oscars and I do not know how many other Academy Award nominations for shorts, documentaries and other innovative Films. They provide all kinds of well trained Film makers and various other kinds of artists and technicians for the private industry in Canada. We are told it is virtually on its last legs because it desperately needs money. It has had to Fire at least 125 people as a result, some of the best people we have. I would say another Canadian success story will be headed for the block unless we do something about it.
The minister is quite familiar with this matter. The infortp,a-tion I have is that approaches have been made to the minister for supplementary funding of about $1 million and they have received a kind of counter offer of $330,000. I remind the President of the Treasury Board that the cuts that have been imposed are all the more crucial because compared to all other agencies of government over the past ten years it has not grown at all significantly in terms of numbers or in terms of budget.
When I came here ten or 11 years ago the budget for the whole of the year was roughly $12 million. We thought that was terrible, that the sky was falling. That budget has now quadrupled. In those same ten years the National Film Board, an agency that has had all kinds of international acclaim, has not grown at all. There has been little or no growth in the past ten years. By cutting the budget 12 per cent, which through inflation has grown 20 per cent, you are cutting its throat. I know the minister and the government do not want to preside
Supply
over the funeral of the National Film Board. Canadians would never forgive them. A $330,000 amount of saw-off may keep the patient breathing, but certainly will not perpetuate the quality and reputation we have come to expect from this agency.
Furthermore, the Secretary of State is anxious to regionalize the offerings and also the film-making on behalf of the National Film Board. There is no chance of that happening. There is not enough money to keep the office in Montreal operating properly. I am told there are Film-makers answering the phone down there, which is rather nice in some ways because you can probably get hold of one of them occasionally; but apart from that little half satirical aside it is a very serious matter. I have letters from Lincoln Plaza, New York, from the television workshop, pleading with the Prime Minister not to allow the National Film Board to go under. Media Probe in the United States made similar representations-again this is a New York production outfit. They know the contribution in terms of training, leadership and innovative styles for which the National Film Board is responsible in the documentary field as in others.
May I close, then-


Herb Breau: Any time you like.


An hon. Member:: Right now!


Mark Willson Rose: We have a special case here, not just an ordinary case but one that calls for government attention because it has been neglected. The funds have been cut by the former government. I say to those people on my right who are anxious for me to be quiet, no wonder they do not want me to talk about it, because they did it to them. They have been trying to outre-strain the restrainers for the past two years. When they say things like that I am not likely to sit down before my time has expired unless I have severe chest pains.
The cuts have hurt the film board more than just by the 10 per cent or 12 per cent. There has been no growth in the last ten years, but since other departments of government which might have been making communications Films, media films, advertising films, public relations films, if you like, have not been placing orders with them, the cuts are that much more damaging. I leave the committee with the plea that the President of the Treasury Board stand up here smartly and tell us that he has repented, that he is sorry he did it and that for the good of the nation he intends to restore those funds.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am not sure whether the hon. member will feel that what I am about to say is part of a process of recanting or not. I certainly agree with him that the estimates of the National Film Board were reduced under the former government. As I recall it, their total budgetary funding in the fiscal year 1979 was about $34.1 million and in the estimates now before us it is $30.3 million. It is true this has put the National Film Board under pressure. We are well aware of that, and we are particularly sympathetic.

November 9, 1979
Supply
1 am a little uncertain, though, about the counter offer which, according to the hon. member, Treasury Board made with respect to the request for a further $1 million of financing. As I recall the circumstances, the minister did make a request for a further $1 million of financing, and we got into a discussion about the extent to which funds might be available in the board's budget in other categories and which, because they had lapsed for other reasons, might be used. That is where the matter now stands. We are awaiting information as to the extent to which funds which had been overlooked might be available. We are sympathetic to the plight of the film board, but faced with the staggering deficit which confronts us we are very reluctant to make further commitments if they can be avoided.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Chairman, first I should like to make a general observation with regard to what the minister of fisheries seems to be trying to do here. It seems to be an extension of the whole program of this government, a very elitist program, which follows quickly on the heels of the review of FIRA where they seemed to be wanting to bring in industry from outside at will without any checks or balances, as in the case of Petro-Canada where they turned the oil industry over to the multinationals. With high interest rates, small business cannot compete.
I see the President of the Treasury Board is smiling. Well, he should, because if anybody can be branded with responsibility for the elitist tone and the elitist programs of that government, it is certainly himself. The minister smiles. He knows that at various times 1 have presented requests from the Atlantic provinces, for example from the coal industry; in Sydney they had to cancel seven or eight vessels already this year because of lack of coal. But that does not matter to the minister. It does not matter that the coal can be sold. It is not the program of this government to invest in areas which need investment; it is the program of the government to invest in areas which do not, to make the rich richer. Is that not right? I must say there is one thing they do very well. When members of the government speak, their lips do not even move. I think that is remarkable.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: With regard to the fisheries, I must say that the minister of fisheries seems to be preoccupied with the case of the processors, to the detriment of the whole fishing industry. I should like to ask the minister of fisheries how many processors he has seen go bankrupt in the last four years. The processors are certainly to be considered because they are very important to the industry. But it is the inshore fishermen who are most important of all and I say to the minister that he has completely neglected them. He has neglected not only their occupation but their way of life.
It seems to be a consolidation process on the part of the government to ignore completely the lifestyle of these people, their right to work in the villages and areas in which they have been working all their lives, to try to take away the means they

have of earning their living in their own communities. I ask the minister of fisheries: what does he say to the people in the small villages of Atlantic Canada when he goes to visit them? What does he say to them when they tell him that the cost of a 53-inch long-liner is now $500,000 and that the government has taken away the means of financing these vessels? What does he say to them when they ask him how are they going to earn their living?
I ask the minister to reconsider his policy with regard to financing of vessels for the inshore fishery and to reconsider the policies which affect these people. I would ask him to look again at the policies he has implemented since coming to power with regard to the crab fishing industry. By letting large vessels into the gulf he has severely threatened this industry, one which is just beginning to emerge as a profitable means of employment for the fishermen of Cape Breton Island.
I would ask him to reconsider his stance with regard to the squid fishery. He listened very nicely to the processors when they told him that although there is presently a glut of squid, they do not buy squid.
That is not the end of the argument. The case for the small inshore fisherman has not yet been heard in this matter. The reason there is a sufficiency of squid at the present time is that processors were able to stock their freezers prior to this particular time with squid, and they were able to purchase at lower rates than are now prevalent in the market. What can small inshore fishermen do? To whom can they go? They cannot go to the minister because he is deaf to their requests.


Roméo LeBlanc: They cannot go to the government of Nova Scotia.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: It has been proved that they cannot go to the government of Nova Scotia. Fishermen want to have the right to sell their squid over the side. That is not within the realm of feasibility, in the minister's estimation. How can the minister say that there is a glut in squid? Processors are saying that because they do not want to buy any more. How can we determine this?
We know the habits of certain fish on the Atlantic coast, but what do we know about squid stocks? How do we know when they are going to be back again? Where can we get information as to where they go? What information do we have that the market is saturated at the present time? If in fact there are buyers, why not allow fishermen the right to sell this fish over the side? If they are going to be captives of processors, not only will they lose but the processors will lose as well.
If the minister and the government are going to allow the small inshore fisherman to disappear and not allow him to carry on his fishing as he would like, how is he going to earn a living? How are processors going to be able to justify the fish plants they have in the midst of these pockets of inshore fishing? Those processing plants are going to close, and there will be a ricochet action. That will all be the result of the present policy of this government, and I think small inshore fishermen are right in being unanimously opposed to the
November 9, 1979

policies of the minister. Those policies are certainly detrimental to the whole Atlantic region.
I saw the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion here earlier, and I am sure he would agree that these jobs are very important to the Atlantic region. If it is going to be the policy of the government to consolidate fishing into a small number of pockets here and there and centralize everything-it seems to be the case with the policy of going along with processors- certainly the Atlantic economy is going to suffer.
The Prime Minister, who is here now, said earlier that he is interested in small town Canada and that he wants to see it flourish. I think the Prime Minister would agree that in order for it to flourish there must be jobs for people. The situation with regard to squid deserves much more attention than the minister's department has given it.
In former times the question of Korean hake was studied. It was determined that there needed to be some assistance when the fact that Korean hake could not be sold on the United States market was evident. The former government took this problem into consideration, and the problem was met with the assistance of the government. The situation with regard to squid at the present time is not very different from the situation with regard to Korean hake a few years ago.
There are very important ramifications to what is going on at the present time. I received overtures-and I am sure the government has as well-from the province of Nova Scotia regarding the problem of the fish catch on the Scotian shelf. The province of Nova Scotia says that the fish stocks in the Scotian shelf are depleting, and because they are depleting the province of Nova Scotia is asking that large vessels be brought into the Gulf. The province of Nova Scotia is saying that if those vessels do not come into the Gulf, the Gulf fisheries will cease to exist for Nova Scotia fishermen. You cannot tell that to the small fishermen of Cape Breton, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland or Gaspe.


Roméo LeBlanc: Or Pictou County.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Or Pictou County. These men are making good use of the fish stocks in the Gulf. These are stocks on which they depend because they do not have vessels to go the Labrador coast or to the Grand Banks. The large fish companies do. They have the wherewithal. In fact large vessels from Nova Scotia were fishing on the Grand Banks of Newfoundland long before that became the industry it is in Newfoundland today. I am very worried that a precedent will be created by the minister's policies and that the minister's policy of allocating certain grounds for particular provinces and particular areas is going to make the case for Newfoundland when its representatives say that they want complete control over the fisheries of that province.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am going to do just the opposite.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: The minister will never convince me with his policies. This is a very dangerous situation.


James Aloysius McGrath: I agree with you.
Supply


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: That is very good; I am glad the minister agrees. I accept his acknowledgment on that. I appreciate it, and I think the inshore fishermen of Nova Scotia appreciate it. We hope that the policies of the minister will reflect his thinking in this regard. This is a very serious situation. The policies of the government are creating very bad precedents.
The fish stocks in the Gulf belong to the people who have been fishing those stocks, regardless of what province they live in. This is an historical right of these people, and they do not want to start a competition in the Atlantic region. They do not want a war, literally, among the provinces as to who can fish in what jurisdiction.


James Aloysius McGrath: Agreed.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I would like to see the present situation remain.


Mr. Watson:: Mr. Chairman, I have a question to direct to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans with regard to an article which appears today in The Citizen which refers to a statement by Dr. Harold Schiff, who is Canada's foremost ozone expert and who has been acting as chairman of a U.S. National Academy of Sciences committee studying the fluorocarbon problem.
According to Dr. Schiff, the ozone depletion problem caused by the emission of fluorocarbons is much worse than anyone expected. After a three-year study it has been determined that apparently it is twice what it was thought to be in 1976.
I realize that the minister is not in a position to give any kind of an answer today on what his department is doing about one particular part of the fluorocarbon problem, the possible effect the increase in ultraviolet rays caused by the breakdown of the ozone zone has on photoplankton which, as the minister well knows, is a nutritional mainstay for fish and other ocean creatures. Since this is a problem which affects several ministries-it affects human health, so the Department of National Health and Welfare would be involved; it affects agriculture; it affects the environment; and there are implications for consumer affairs-would the minister undertake to get together with his associates in cabinet with a view to making sure that all the expertise that is available in Canada which could be working on this problem will take a look at it?
Could we have an undertaking that the extremely competent fisheries research establishment will take a look, if it is not already, at the question of possible dangers to photoplankton? With regard to this threat would the minister undertake to consider with his cabinet colleagues a legal ban on the use of fluorocarbons as propellants, as well as their use in the spraying of polyurethane insulation? Would he undertake to do both those things?


James Aloysius McGrath: Of course, Mr. Chairman, I can give an affirmative reply to the hon. gentleman. In so doing I should tell him, however, that co-ordinating responsibilities in this area-and I have read the article to which the hon. member

November 9, 1979
Supply
referred-are vested with my colleague, the Minister of the Environment. I will make sure that the hon. member's comments are brought to his attention.


Mr. Maltais:: Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to start by talking a little about my riding and I think it is the first time since Parliament reopened that we have been referring to that region. The constituency of Manicouagan as such is perhaps the largest in Canada. It stretches 600 miles along the shores of the St. Lawrence, and 1,250 miles from its south end up to Fort Chimo. It includes as well the Island of Anticosti. Most of the people I represent actually live between Sept-Iles, Blanc-Sablon and Anticosti island. It is therefore an area where there are many fishermen and yet which has been largely ignored in terms of its fisheries.
Since the House is in committee of the whole, I can stress these two peculiarities concerning the fishermen of my constituency, namely, the issue of their equipment and the issue of their fishing rights. From the interventions of my other colleagues I gather they are a lot more advanced in terms of fisheries than we are on the middle and the lower north shore as we call these areas. I would greatly appreciate the minister paying particular attention to what I am going to say because we seldom have an opportunity of raising these issues which are very real, given the fact that the area I represent is still at a very primary stage of its development.
We are facing a major problem when it comes to fishing equipment as well as grants for trawlers and small fishing boats, because we are having difficulty being recognized as people who depend exclusively on the fishing industry. When I refer to that area between Sept-Iles and Blanc-Sablon, as I explained earlier, that means 400 miles of coasts not serviced by road. This is very important. Therefore, those people who live in about 15 communities located all along those 400 miles of coastline depend exclusively on the fishing industry to make their living, and obviously their earnings are seasonal.
I urge the minister at least to take notice that he should do something for those fishermen so that they can modernize their equipment. The minister should also find ways of providing acceptable subsidies, because in many respects they are considered in fact as independent fishermen. There are no fishermen's organizations, of course, because of the long distances in such a large territory. I think it will be most important to make a detailed survey of the area I represent because we cannot talk in terms of fishermen's organizations now. I do not say that these would not be desirable, but they would just be unthinkable for the moment.
The fisheries policy which had been followed for some ten years has been very profitable for the people in my area, but the cuts that were made everywhere, which were justified in many regards, have brought us back 20 years in my area. The fact that we are so remote compared with the people of eastern

Canada should make our area the primary target for fisheries planning and basic equipment. I hope that fact will be recognized because for us it is fundamental.
The second point I want to raise in this debate relates to access to the sea. Of course it is fundamental for a fisherman to have immediate and easy access to the water, and here we are still requesting, even begging for boat launching ramps. For the people of an area who depend exclusively on fishing, that is unacceptable. The facilities requested do not cost much but they are absolutely necessary. We got the most help perhaps for fisheries, boat launching ramps, and fisheries organization and equipment from the Canada Works program.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Maltais: I must point out that we have been forced for the last four years to take advantage of a program aimed at helping other people and other groups, and in view of the priority that fisheries represent in our part of the country, we had to use up considerable amounts of the Canada Works program to meet the needs of fishermen. I believe that is unacceptable and I think the fisheries department should accept its responsibilities. I think that everyone understands very well the request I am making. The matter should really be examined closely and we should find within the Department of Fisheries or other departments enough money to be able to help those people.
Another point is the famous decision taken by the minister to allow trawlers of 100 feet or more into the Gulf of St. Lawrence. Everywhere there is an outcry. First of all, people were not consulted. Further, since the policy of the former minister of fisheries and environment was brought forward, the stocks were replenished and there were many more catches than before, which was greatly appreciated by the fishermen.
As I said earlier, the danger we are concerned about now is that the fishermen who are not organized will suffer definitive revenue losses and might not be able to meet the local demand because the larger and better equipped trawlers will make more catches. I believe that this kind of decision is really tragic for the people of this area. And I am even more surprised that certain provinces in eastern Canada have remained silent. The $117 million program established by the preceding government was extremely profitable and the province of Quebec was already benefiting from a five-year development plan.
This plan was developed in co-operation with the federal government of the time, at least as concerns budgets, and I now ask the minister whether his decision concerning certain cuts will directly affect the five-year plan of Quebec. As you will recall, some time ago the Quebec premier said that the major problem in decentralizing the Quebec fisheries department was to convince provincial public servants to move to the Gaspe area. He said it was more difficult to make the public
November 9, 1979

servants move to Gaspe than to make the fish go upstream to Quebec City.
In view of the decision to allow trawlers to fish inside the Gulf, I wonder if some of the fish will still be able to make it upstream as far as Quebec city. I sincerely want to warn the minister about the risks of such a decision and to tell him that I believe that, in the interests of fishermen, it would be extremely important to review this position so that those who have been making their living in this industry for several generations can still do so because such a decision is extremely depressing for future generations. It will have, as a direct consequence, an exodus of fishermen from these areas. The budgets of former ministers of fisheries were aimed at keeping in these communities the people who are only asking to go on working in this industry. I believe that if the minister continues in this direction there would be grave consequences as we would risk witnessing an exodus of fishermen and an increase in the number of unemployed elsewhere in Quebec and Canada.
I believe that this would have extremely harmful social consequences and that the first duty of the minister should be to evaluate these consequences when making any decision, whether of an economic nature or as concerns allowing groups of companies to fish in the Gulf. When we try to solve the problem of the fishing industry by using these companies in this way, we can only cause even more serious related problems in the areas of unemployment, an exodus from these communities, unemployment insurance and social welfare. Therefore, if the government really wants to help fishermen remain in their own communities and develop economically, I believe that it should go back on its decision to allow trawlers of 100 feet or more to fish in the Gulf. In any case, since I am myself newly elected, I want to transmit directly to the minister the representations made to me by individuals, not companies, individuals and co-operatives. I believe that this message has been made clear since the President of the Treasury Board is in the House, and I believe that we have heard all the facts in view of what my other colleagues from fishing constituencies have been saying since last evening. I therefore urge the government to review this decision and make an announcement as soon as possible so that we can give happier news to the fishermen.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Chairman, this is the first opportunity I have had to intervene in a discussion on fisheries since the beginning of this Parliament, following the last election. I want to take the opportunity to tell the minister that of course I was disappointed with the results of the election, but when I heard he was appointed Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, I thought at least that was a ray of hope. I am afraid that ray has vanished. The minister may yet be prepared to listen, but I am afraid the rabble rouser of the previous opposition has become the pussycat of the cabinet.
Supply


Some hon. Members:: Meow, meow.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: There was a good program in the Department of Fisheries for boat subsidies and the construction of small craft harbours, both of which fell victim to the hapless hacker at Treasury Board. It seems our Minister of Fisheries has been able to do little about it. In fairness I must say that during the recent provincial byelection in the province of New Brunswick, the minister was able to pry some funds loose from the Treasury Board for boat subsidies. It was not enough, not anywhere near enough, but he was able to do that to allow the Tory candidate in that provincial byelection, and the provincial minister of fisheries, to make the announcement.
An. hon. Member: He still lost the election.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: He still lost the election.


An hon. Member:: I hear it was close.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Closeness only counts in the game of horseshoes. No wonder it was close. The government of New Brunswick threw all the resources of that province into that byelection in order to win it, but it could not buy the votes of the people. Unfortunately fisheries has become a political ball game. Also that is happening in the Department of Employment and Immigration where we have to wait six or seven weeks for approval of project applications, if they are not connected with provincial byelections. If they are connected with provincial byelections, they are approved within two days so that the Tory candidate can make the announcement. That is the kind of political game they are playing.
When the minister was in opposition, he was very self-righteous. He constantly criticized the former minister, the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent, who in fact was one of the capable workers on behalf of fishermen, for not having enough money in his boat subsidy and small craft budget, etc. What did this minister do? As soon as he is elected, he allows the hapless hacker to take it all away. Some of the money from the point of view of boat subsidies has been returned to fishermen, but the criteria have been changed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I know the hon. member perhaps was inadvertent in his comment when he referred to the hapless hacker. It is the happy hacker.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: 1 am not prepared to comment on the state of happiness or unhappiness of the minister. I know that the fishermen are concerned with his actions; they are very unhappy. I have referred to him as hapless, and I shall continue to do so.
Since the election on May 22, the government has not approved, to my knowledge, a single penny for the construction of small craft harbours. I represent a riding in which about 40 per cent of the people depend upon the fishery for their

November 9, 1979
Supply
livelihood. We had a very active and progressive program of construction and maintenance of small craft harbours before May 22. Since that date the only activity on any small craft harbour was the one put in place before the election, whereby the Canada Works program is paying for the cost of labour and the Department of Fisheries is paying for the materials. I hope I have not made a mistake in stating that, and all of a sudden the funds for materials will be cut. In any case, we are not receiving the emphasis on fisheries on the part of the government which we should.
Being from Newfoundland the minister has high hopes for the development of the petroleum industry in the offshore waters of that province. I understand that, and I hope it happens. But I remind him-and I hope he will remind the Minister of Finance, the local practitioner of buffoonery in the House-that long after scientists have come up with alternate sources of energy, and petroleum no longer has the value it has today, the products swimming around in our marine waters will be vital for the sustenance of the population of the world. It will still be the most valuable resource of the eastern provinces of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Right on.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: I hope the government will change its attitude and not continue with the one which seems to be prevalent now, that it is petroleum versus fish, because it should not be so. All of the resources of this nation should not be going into one basket. We should continue to develop fisheries, but unless we have funds from the government to provide the necessary tools for fishermen to do their jobs, they will not be able to do them.
Also we have witnessed the spectacle of the large processors dictating their positions to Fishermen as to what they will receive for their products, when, and where they will be able to sell it. We have witnessed the spectacle of the local, small, individual processors, small businessmen whom the government pretends to represent, being told, "No, you cannot enlarge your plant; you cannot get a subsidy from DREE. Even though DREE is willing to give it to you, we are not willing to agree because there are not sufficient quantities of fish." They are being told this when in fact right now plants do not have the capacity to hold the fish which fishermen want to sell them. Where are the minister and his officials when such idiotic decisions are made?
Will the policy for fisheries in Atlantic Canada be dictated by the large processors, the three or four large companies which must have made healthy donations to the Tory party? An important question is: will it be decided by the minister and the department in consultation with the people who risk their lives to bring in fish stocks?
The government has been in power for approximately six months, and already we see that patronage is more important than progress; the large processors are more important than fishermen; it is more concerned with the desires of provincial

ministers and local Tory hacks than with the series of fishermen and the orderly development of the fishery.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Maurice Adrian Dionne: How long will this continue? When will the minister stop being a pussycat? When will he become the rabble rouser he was in opposition? When will he stand up to the Minister of Finance?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate the hon. member's anger; he wants to exhibit it. But I should like to indicate that there have been consultations among House leaders with respect to the availability of ministers for questioning during consideration of this bill before Committee of the Whole. Arrangements have been made for the following ministers to be present: the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, the Minister of Transport, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans who is here now, the minister in charge of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Arrangements were made to have these ministers available to answer questions from hon. members. The process that we are engaged in is a very good one in terms of the ability of members of Parliament to question ministers. I do not want to interrupt the hon. member, because I know he feels strongly about the subject, and he can make his own judgment as to how he wishes to use his time, but the ministers are here and prepared to answer questions.


Gérald Laniel: Of course I have no authority over the contributions made by hon. members. These agreements do not restrict the right of members to express in their own way their opinions.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Chairman, in total, including the interruptions I have suffered from ministers of the Crown, I have used up about seven minutes. I know that the chief government whip will be happy to hear that I am just about finished, because he does not like to hear the truth any more than some of the ministers. They do not like to be shown up for the kind of petty patronage players they are.


Mr. Nystrom:: They learn from you, Maurice.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Now we have the happy socialists to my left tripping in. I am sure that the hon. member who is interrupting knows a lot about fish. Probably the only fish he has ever seen are the ones in the Parliamentary Restaurant.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Especially Liberals.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: 1 was about to wind up my remarks when I was interrupted by the government House leader. The government and the other opposition
November 9, 1979

party seem so anxious for me to sit down that I think I will say a few more things.
We are tired, after a period of only six months, of having this government use public funds for purposes of patronage rather than progress. If these ministers, who were such tigers when they were in opposition, would present on behalf of the people for whom they now have responsibility the same kind of vigour and determination that they displayed in opposition, when they constantly complained that the government of the day was not providing enough for them to do the very thing which I am trying to do this afternoon and for which I am now being chastised by the government, then the fishermen of eastern Canada would be a lot better off.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, there are a number of questions that I would like to ask, especially since the well-dressed Minister of Employment and Immigration is with us. The President of the Treasury Board has disappeared, but I am sure that somebody will report to him.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I hesitate to interrupt, but I had hoped that the hon. gentlemen opposite, to whom I have listened with great respect and patience, would allow me an opportunity this afternoon to reply to some of the remarks which they have made over the course of today and last night. If it is their intention to go into other areas, I will be denied that opportunity.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, had the minister been a little more patient, he would have realized that I was trying to come to his help. What I wanted to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the President of the Treasury Board is whether or not they would allow funds, which are intended for creating employment, to be allotted, for example, in modest amounts for equipment and material to the budget that the minister has for small craft harbours. The paper which was given to the departmental officials in committee this week indicated that in one year alone some $44 million in combined Canada Works and small craft harbours money was allotted to improve the facilities that fishermen use. I would like to know if the minister has been able to convince his colleagues that something should be done in this area.
I can think of no better way to contribute to a community than by having the fishermen themselves participate in the building of some of their facilities. These fishermen have done some remarkable work in the east coast provinces. Members of Parliament, I am sure from both sides of this House, have supported the idea of giving fishermen funds to improve their own facilities. I am not talking about building huge wharfs. I am talking about improving facilities such as bait sheds, and community stages which, with the help of modest amounts of money, can simplify the lives of fishermen.
I would like to ask the minister if he has been successful in convincing the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who particularly has a large amount of money in his budget for job creation, to consider the replacement of small wooden boat vessels as a
Supply
great source of employment on the whole east coast. In the fiscal year 1978-79 our administration added $7.5 million to the vessel subsidy program to bring the total up to $10 million. This year, in addition to the normal $2.5 million in the budget of April, we decided to add an additional $6 million or $7 million. Can the minister tell us whether that money has been frozen or whether it has been allocated?
The improving of the fleet of the fisheries is a very important priority, especially the smaller vessels, because these non-incorporated fishermen do not have the tax write-offs and other advantages that the major corporations have.
I would like to say a word about the decision to allow the large trawlers to return into the Gulf. I have listened to the minister's arguments and to the debate, and I wonder if the minister bases his decision on the arithmetic on the landings of different parts of the fleet. I know that some of these decisions are difficult. I have scars to show for some of my decisions while I was in that portfolio. The scientists alone cannot carry the responsibility. They may make a judgment, based on the arithmetic and possibly on some abstract laws of economics, that it perhaps might be better to have all the fish caught by a very small number of vessels such as large factory freezer trawlers, but what would that do to our communities?
I have with me the figures on the landings which were given to the committee this week. The large vessels which will come in and compete for a modest amount of fish are mainly from two provinces, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. In Nova Scotia inshore fishermen in 1974 had landings of 39,000 tons. In 1975 they had landings of 36,000 tons; in 1976, 35,000 tons; in 1977, 35,000 tons, and by 1978 they had only reached
44.000	tons in landings. However, the large offshore vessels, which through their representatives this week before the committee were crying that they were hard done by and which have paid spokesmen to lobby for them, in 1974 had landings of 122,000 tons; in 1975, 122,000 tons; and in 1976, 125,000 tons. The takeoff point is 1977 where they had landings of
130.000	tons.
Listen to this. These poor, bereft, forgotten, large boat owners from Nova Scotia landed a 161,000 metric tons in 1978. These gentlemen have not done too badly from what they used to call the "disastrous policy". They used to advertise in the The Globe and Mail because they could afford to do that.


James Aloysius McGrath: That includes inshore fishermen.


Roméo LeBlanc: I can only read from the minister's own department's document-"Offshore-Hauturier" for 1974, 122,527 and for 1978, it is 161,026.


James Aloysius McGrath: Read the footnote.


Roméo LeBlanc: If the figures are wrong, I am quite willing to make the correction.


James Aloysius McGrath: Read the footnote.

November 9, 1979
Supply


Roméo LeBlanc: The footnote does not destroy what I have been trying to say. Let us look at the arithmetic for Newfoundland which is the home of a lot of the large vessels. Again, the minister's own document shows "Offshore- Hauturier", 121,956 in 1974; in 1975, 122,758; in 1976, 156,451; in 1977, 159,204; and in 1978, 154,353 metric tons. We know that in 1979 the large offshore trawlers have been doing very well and I suspect the amount will be away above this.
It is the inshore fishermen who need to be protected by the only person who can do it. The minister must protect the fragmented and disorganized inshore fishermen of the east coast. I have one simple difference of opinion with the minister.
There are other figures that have to be put on the record which are also taken from a document issued by the department. These figures relate to the stern trawlers, the poor forgotten element of our fisheries, and show the average yearly landings per trip. In other words, if there are a lot of fish, they take a lot on every trip. In 1976 the Newfoundland stern trawlers were taking an average of 176,000 pounds per trip; in
1978,	they took 216,000 pounds per trip, and by 1979 they were taking 263,000 pounds per trip. That figure only covers January to August, 1979, so it will go much higher.
This week the Nova Scotia trawlers organized, but it is interesting to note that the inshore fishermen were not represented. The provincial minister, Mr. Cameron, said they had been "suckered" into this movement. Maybe the small fishermen of Nova Scotia know about the figures. In 1976 the large stern trawlers that had been complaining they did not get enough fish, were taking an average of 207,000 pounds per trip. By 1978 they were getting 276,000 pounds per trip. In
1979,	the year of disaster when they need help-when they came to see the minister, aided and abetted by the provincial minister-these large Nova Scotia stern trawlers landed 286,000 pounds per trip.
The minister has to make difficult decisions, Mr. Chairman, and I recognize that he is subject to many pressures. As I said last night, however, at some point he will have to make up his mind if he is going to defend those who do not have a strong voice. I heard him say again, this afternoon, that the industry also needs strong voices. Mr. Chairman, I have never failed to hear the voice of the industry, especially the large companies-


James Aloysius McGrath: You are misrepresenting. I said it needs to speak with one voice.


Roméo LeBlanc: I have never noticed the industry silent on the issues, Mr. Chairman. In fact they can afford to advertise, and from the figures I have just quoted for landings, I can see why-


An hon. Member:: At taxpayers' expense.


Roméo LeBlanc: I have given the figures for the offshore fishermen in New Brunswick and should like now to turn to the figures for the inshore fishermen, also taken from the

document the minister tabled this week at the committee. In 1974 the inshore fishermen of New Brunswick were taking 3,329 metric tons; in 1975, 3,079; in 1976, 3,737, but by 1978 landings had dropped to 3,144 metric tons. These are the people against whom the minister is now deciding to send large, offshore trawlers, who have done as well as I have indicated. I hope I can leave enough time for the minister to answer these questions. I should like to hear his explanation of why he has done this.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I welcome the opportunity to reply, although I have less than 15 minutes to do so. I had hoped to be given the full 20 minutes because the hon. gentleman who just took his seat has had two interventions. He spoke last night, and today repeated essentially what he said at that time.


An hon. Member:: I am going to get up on a point of order if you talk like that.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, that is the hon. gentleman who likes to call me a pussycat. 1 have been around here long enough to know that a pussycat is a reasonably ineffectual fellow-


An hon. Member:: Exactly.


James Aloysius McGrath: I like to look upon myself as a tom-cat because a tom-cat has the ability to survive. That is the important thing.


An hon. Member:: What else does a tom-cat do?


James Aloysius McGrath: The question is about cod in zone 4T. It is basically a question of philosophy. I have listened to what I can only call, regretfully, the hypocritical intervention of my hon. friend opposite. I was saddened by the hypocrisy of my predecessor. He asks why I opened the Gulf and why the 100-footers were allowed in the Gulf. The hon. gentleman could answer that himself, because he closed the Gulf in 1976. When he did so, he issued a statement to the effect that the prime objective was to protect the small vessel fisheries, and the economic foundation of many coastal communities in the Gulf, while making allowance for larger vessels from elsewhere which traditionally fished there. There was a clear implication in that statement that when the fish stocks recovered, the larger vessels would be allowed back in. That is what they read into it.


Roméo LeBlanc: Your arithmetic does not prove that they have recovered.


James Aloysius McGrath: If the hon. gentleman wants to talk about arithmetic, I would draw his attention to the fact that at the time of the closure of the Gulf the TAC was at 15,000 metric tons and today the TAC is 49,000 metric tons. It has recovered to the point that we can now allow the larger vessels to go back in there.
When the hon. member for Gaspe spoke this afternoon he talked about "sharks". These sharks were supported before the
November 9, 1979

committee by two very important trade unionists, a representative of the Canadian Brotherhood of Railway, Transport and General Workers Union, and the president of the Canadian Seafood Workers Onion. They represented Canadians who derive employment from-


Roméo LeBlanc: One company.


James Aloysius McGrath: It does not matter whether it is one, two or three companies; the fact is that these people are employed and depend upon these companies for a living, as do the people employed in the plants.
I listened very carefully to the remarks of the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys, and was most impressed with what he had to say. I do not know whether it was his maiden speech or not. He spoke of the danger of provincializing cod stocks. I see that as a clear danger. The moment you provincialize cod stocks, you balkanize the east coast fishery, the Government of Canada has lost control, and there is no way it can adjudicate between the provinces. In fact there is no way to effectively manage that stock.
It is interesting to note the representations made to the committee by the government of Nova Scotia. It referred to the provincialization of cod stocks and rejected that as a concept. If we were to keep the Gulf closed to offshore trawlers it would mean, in effect, that the southern Gulf would be exclusively open to inshore fishermen from Cape Breton and New Brunswick. The same argument can be applied to any cod stock. The important thing is that there was a clear understanding at the time the Gulf was closed that trawlers would be allowed back in-


Roméo LeBlanc: When stocks justified it and the inshore fishermen had taken a fair share.


James Aloysius McGrath: The inshore fishermen were consulted, and determined that they could take an additional 4,000 metric tons of the new TAC. That is what they were allocated, and that is what they got. That left 9,000 metric tons, and 6,000 of that was allocated to the trawler fleet. This was not done because of any pressure from Nova Scotia. There was none. This was not done because of any pressure from the large processing companies of whom the hon. gentlemen are trying to paint me as their great advocate-indeed, I had not heard from them. There were no representations from them whatsoever. The allocations were made. The hon. gentleman knows full well-he sits there smiling with that self-righteous look upon his face as though he was the only one in this House who cared about the inshore fishermen. That kind of hypocrisy does not become him because he was a good minister of fisheries. 1 suggest he should not sit there and pretend he is the representative of all that is right and good with respect to the fishery.
The hon. gentleman from Gloucester made a great rhetorical intervention in this debate. I read what he had to say and discovered there was nothing in it. There was just 20 minutes
Supply
of bombast and rhetoric. He made no substantial contribution whatsoever.
The question of section 4T cod has been gone over in committee. It has been dealt with in the House during the course of the question period. The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador surprised me when he said he was against opening the Gulf. Let the hon. gentleman go to Burin-St. Georges and defend that position. I would like to see how long he would last if he went there. The fish plants on the south coast of Newfoundland depend to a large extent on that fish stock. He knows it. Indeed, of the 17 or so trawlers operating in section 4T in the southern Gulf today, 15 of them are from southern Newfoundland fish plants.


An hon. Member:: What is going on in Burin-St. Georges?


James Aloysius McGrath: What is going on in Burin-St. Georges? The hon. member who asked me that knows full well that a byelection is to be held. I am afraid the NDP will come in as a very poor third. Their candidate is not doing well. If he was, hon. gentlemen would be helping him out today. Because they are not, it tells me everything about it.
I listened very carefully to the remarks made by the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent. He did have some substantive and important remarks to make. He talked about the 200-mile limit and what it meant to the resurgence of the fish stocks as well as the new pressures it has created on fisheries management. As a result of the growth of the stocks, new complex problems have been created. The hon. gentlemen then went on to talk about freezer trawlers. A picture was painted that there has been some great change in policy on freezer trawlers. There have been no changes in freezer trawler policy. We are still operating under the same policy. The only freezer trawlers that were licensed were licensed by the hon. gentleman opposite when he was minister of fisheries.


Roméo LeBlanc: To catch northern shrimp.


James Aloysius McGrath: To catch northern shrimp, and with unrestricted groundfish licences.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


James Aloysius McGrath: With unrestricted groundfish licences.


Roméo LeBlanc: Not unless it was a replacement.


James Aloysius McGrath: No. There are no restrictions whatsoever on these freezer trawlers which are now operating. To catch northern shrimp they have unrestricted groundfish licences. The hon. gentleman should admit that. These are the only freezer trawler licences that have been issued. In effect, what I am saying is that with all the inherent faults with fisheries management today we are essentially operating under the same policy put together by my hon. friend but with one very notable exception. That is, the hon. gentleman opposite likes to present himself as the champion of the inshore fisherman. I do not quarrel with that, but when he does it to the exclusion of the rest of the industry, it can only create confrontation. It is

November 9, 1979
Supply
creating confrontation. That has been the legacy of the hon. gentleman. There is no co-operation in the industry. When the hon. member was minister he set one group against another. He said it all when he said this: "I suspect at some point he will not be able to speak comfortably for both."
The day that I cannot speak comfortably for both segments of this industry, both of which are vitally important to the economy of the Atlantic provinces and, indeed, the west coast, then I cease to operate responsibly as Minister of Fisheries of Canada. That was the mistake the hon. gentleman made. He was merely the spokesman for one segment. That is why we have problems.


Roméo LeBlanc: I do not apologize for it one bit.


James Aloysius McGrath: That is why we have the problems we have today. The hon. gentleman from New Brunswick speaks about patronage. He did not identify where the patronage was. The only patronage that has caused me any trouble was when the hon. gentleman opposite was Minister of Fisheries and he yielded to pressure put on him by his colleague, the then deputy prime minister. He issued crab fish licences in Cape Breton which caused no end of trouble. Eleven licences were recommended by the committee, and the hon. gentleman yielded to the pressure of the then government house leader and issued five licences purely on the basis that the applicants were prominent supporters of the Liberal party. That kind of patronage has to end. The hon. gentleman knows what I am talking about. It has been around for the last six months. If he does not know what I am talking about he has failed to follow the ombudsman's program on CBC. It has aired this problem twice.


Roméo LeBlanc: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If the minister is going to make a retroactive charge based on one of the most ill-informed programs that I have seen on television in a long time, I hope he will produce the evidence.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I can produce the evidence by putting the names of the fisherman on the record. However,
I do not think it will serve any useful purpose to do that. Licences were issued as a result of political pressure, and that really surprised me. I can assure the hon. gentleman, and my friend from New Brunswick who made the charge of patronage, that there has been no patronage since I became Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I can assure him that there will be no licences issued as long as I am Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on the basis of political pressure or on the basis of the political persuasion of the applicant for the licence. I think that is a reprehensible practice. It tends to undermine the management of the fishery. It is difficult enough-


An hon. Member:: Does the Premier of P.E.I. agree with that?


James Aloysius McGrath: Perhaps the hon. gentleman will tell me what is he talking about, when he asks if the Premier of P.E.I. agrees?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, in answer to the minister's question-


The Acting Chairman (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please-


Roméo LeBlanc: -when he ruled in favour of one fisherman they thought it was on the basis of representation from the Premier of P.E.I., who is a Tory premier.


Denis Éthier: Order, please. I am sure that both hon. gentlemen will be able to continue when the committee reconvenes on Monday. It now being four o'clock p.m., it is my duty to rise and report progress.
Progress reported.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader the business of the House for Monday.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it is the intention of the government to call as the first order of government business the redistribution reference about which I spoke. I hope that will not take very long. This will be followed by Bill C-10, which is without amendment from the committee, for third reading. We will then again take up the business of this bill which we were dealing with this afternoon.


Herb Breau: Will the minister say whether we will follow the same priority list that was talked about previously? Will we have here the minister of fisheries or the minister for DREE?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the question the hon. member asks is quite relevant. I indicated there would be ministers available yesterday, ministers available today, and ministers will be available on Monday, if we get to the bill, for as long as it is considered necessary. There have been discussions between the opposition House leader and myself with regard to curtailing the debate. I asked how long we would be.
Ministers are busy. They have to spend some time in their departments and at meetings. I want the House to understand that from time to time it may be necessary for a parliamentary secretary to be here. The parliamentary secretary will be prepared to answer questions. The purpose of this process is to get questions from members of the House of Commons and to do our best to answer them.
I have undertaken with my friends and have made arrangements, after discussions, to have ministers available, subject to those unavoidable things that ministers may have in their lives.
I ask for the courtesy of the House, given that availability and the fact that officials are also waiting to answer questions. Speeches can be made at any time. We are anxious to answer questions.
November 9, 1979


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that we were very co-operative in not debating the two motions. The reason we wanted to make speeches was because we did not take the time at the first stage. I remind the President of the Privy Council that in the case of Bill C-10 and with other bills it will go a lot quicker if we get the opportunity to discuss them in this forum with the ministers.


Walter David Baker: I appreciate the point. Because of that courtesy extended to me, we are making available ministers and parliamentary secretaries for the purpose of answering questions. The process will work in that way. 1 also say there is a reasonable limit to the process. I will be discussing with the opposition House leader and my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, their judgment as to what the limit ought to be. I hope we can get some reasonable definitiveness, without curtailing the rights of the House.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, partly following on my colleague's comments, I should draw to Your Honour's attention that while we have had two days on this bill, there has not been one question specifically in relation to any of the items in the bill. It has been a discourse prompted by certain members of the opposition without literally touching on one point that is in this bill.
1 suggest, with all due respect, that some consideration be given between now and Tuesday, or Monday if the bill is reached then, to this whole question of speakers having some relevance to what they are questioning on or speaking about. Surely it is a misuse of the whole parliamentary process to have a bill before us, where we are at the clause by clause stage and have agreed to stand all the provisions down to schedule D, and that, notwithstanding that co-operation, there has not been a question dealing with any item in the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 do not want to drag this out, but it seems that is an unfair comment that should not be left on the record unanswered. Let me answer it by speaking on behalf of my friends in the Liberal party, not on behalf of my own friends.
The President of the Treasury Board says there has not been a single question about any item in the bill. Fisheries and Oceans are in the bill. That is what my friends have been talking about all afternoon. There are in schedule D, estimates for fisheries and oceans. It is in order to ask questions about what is in the schedule. I do not know what the President of the Treasury Board is talking about.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. Rather than have further comments, perhaps this can be raised at the next sitting of the Committee of the Whole.
It being past four 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, public bills, private bills.
Constitution


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, today I think we will discuss notice of motion No. 11 presented by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). Could all the other notices of motion be stood by unanimous consent of the House?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The House has heard the hon. parliamentary secretary's request. Shall all motions before motion No. 11 be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mark R. MacGuigan: That, in the opinion of this House, a new constitution for Canada should specifically commit Canada to the goals of
(a)	promoting international peace and security;
(b)	maintaining just and honourable relations between nations;
(c)	fostering respect for international law and treaty obligations;
(d)	encouraging the settlement of international disputes by arbitration; and
(e)	transferring agreed national powers to world authorities when this would
facilitate world peace.


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


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I would not object if the House were ready for the question, but I think we want to have some discussion on this issue. The very purpose of putting it on the order paper was to give us an opportunity for some extended discussion.
I am very pleased to move this motion, not only on my personal behalf but on behalf of the World Federalist Parliamentary Association which, in a sense, is the real sponsor of this motion. Perhaps I might begin by again reading it and then making some further comments. It is moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, a new constitution for Canada should specifically commit Canada to the goals of
(a)	promoting international peace and security;
(b)	maintaining just and honourable relations between nations;
(c)	fostering respect for international law and treaty obligations;
(d)	encouraging the settlement of international disputes by arbitration; and
(e)	transferring agreed national powers to world authorities when this would
facilitate world peace.
The parliamentary association of world federalists is a grouping of members and senators, some 100 in number, who are devoted in a broad way not only to the cause of world peace but to achieving world peace through forms of federalism in the world. I have had the honour of being the chairman

November 9, 1979
Constitution
of that group in Parliament since May, 1976, and I plan to lay down that burden at the annual meeting on November 28. I would like to say I have had very excellent co-operation from the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), the vice chairman of the organization, and the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald), who preceded me as chairman.
This is really a multi-party and a two-House venture which enables us to come together to try to organize the activity and the thoughts of Parliament toward supranational activities and agencies. The ultimate goal is, of course, world government in the sense of a federal world government which preserves the governments of the individual parts but also leads us gradually toward some kind of world unity. But we need more direct and proximate goals, subsidiary goals, if you like, so the World Federal Parliamentary Association along with world federalists in general has a number of intermediate goals which it supports as being realizable in the short run. Among such have been the reform of the United Nations, the internationalization of the seabed question, and the objectives of the motion I propose this afternoon, one seeking to place in our constitution, which I believe all Canadians are determined to renew at this time in our history, a statement indicative of our desire in Canada to participate in international authorities and to subject ourselves to world law to the extent that it exists, and, to the extent it does not, to try to make it exist.
I might mention in passing that the World Association of World Federalists also adopts similar subsidiary goals and that the title of the next international conference, to be held in Tokyo next July, is "Toward a New International Order in the Third Development Decade". A great deal of stress is being placed by the World Association of World Federalists on the question of world development.
I would also like to mention that the Canadian Parliamentary Association has been very instrumental in the establishment of a new association of parliamentarians devoted to the cause of world federalism which goes by the title of Parliamentarians for World Order. A number of meetings have been held, initially at Canadian initiative, over the past few years in Washington, New York, London and Paris, to mention the major ones. The new parliamentary association will probably devote most of its efforts to working through the United Nations and its specialized agencies, and we shall be able to take a stronger position with respect to international issues than is possible for an organization such as the Inter-Parliamentary Union which is less dedicated to a particular goal and more dedicated merely to providing a forum.
The motion before us today was inspired by the submission last fall to the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada, of which I had the honour to be joint chairman, by the World Federalists of Canada, and was prepared by Mr. T. James Stark, chairman of Operation Dismantle, and Dr. Hanna Newcombe, co-chairman of the Peace Research Institute, Dundas. The introduction to that document reads as follows:
In so far as a number of other countries have constitutionally dealt with the important issue of national sovereignty and the need for "collective security" and international order, the World Federalists of Canada ask that our government look toward the future in the formulation of our new constitution and make general provision for the resolution of these two interdependent interests.
In support of their proposal, the World Federalists of Canada cited action taken by a number of other countries which I think worth drawing to the attention of hon. members. For example, article 25 of the constitution of the Federal Republic of Germany reads as follows:
The general rules of public international law shall be an integral part of federal law. They shall take precedence over the laws and shall directly create rights and duties for the inhabitants of the federal territory.
That is a very strong provision to place in a national constitution. It makes international law an integral part of domestic law and subjects domestic law directly to the rules of international law.
The constitution of India provides in article 51:
The state shall endeavour to:
(a)	promote international peace and security;
(b)	maintain just and honourable relations between nations;
(c)	foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealing of
organized peoples with one another; and
(d)	encourage settlement of international disputes by arbitration.
It will not escape the attention of hon. members that the proposals I am making this afternoon in my motion are very close to those which are contained in that article of the Indian constitution. The principal difference is the addition, in the motion, of a fifth category in accordance with the request of the World Federalists of Canada which in its brief to the Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada went on as follows:
We recommend that in recognition of the interdependence of all nations and peoples, Canada declare its willingness to transfer by legislation certain sovereign powers to a world authority such as the United Nations or a federal world government as and if such actions would facilitate world peace (collective security) and a more just and human world order.
That is the source of the fifth part of the motion which is presented here today.
The special joint committee had a great deal to do in a very short time last year and was not able to consider this proposal in its only report-we had expected that the committee would be reconstituted last winter but that never happened, so the committee never really had a chance to go into this question. But I do wish to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the provisions of Bill C-60, a principal subject matter of consideration by the committee, did not contain any reference to international law or to the international order. There is in Bill C-60 a statement-"the stated aims of the Canadian federation shall be-", Then follows a series of stated aims, all of which are very fine, but none of which expands our horizons to the world scene, even though one of the subclauses does use the phrase "to expand the horizons of Canadians as individuals and enhance the collective security and distinctiveness of the people." The explanation of that sentiment in the detail which followed made no reference to the international order, and it is such a reference that this motion would seek to incorporate in a future document of this kind.

November 9, 1979

One may well ask why such a document should contain such a reference to the international order when in fact it perhaps might not have any direct influence on Canadian policy, we being a peace-loving people who have in any event been very co-operative in the international arena? We have been prominent in supplying, for instance, support for peacekeeping forces. We are generally known as one of the "good countries" in the world which is always prepared to try to help on the international scene.
However, to take such a view would ignore the symbolic value of a statement of this kind, and that, of course, is what is contained in a statement such as that in Bill C-60. The section to which we would wish to make an amendment if that bill were before us was entitled "Statement of Aims of the Canadian Federation". The authors of that statement of aims laboured hard to try to encompass in their wording all of the various symbolic aspects of the meaning of being a Canadian. I think what we are asking is whether we can really express ourselves as Canadians, in the sense in which we really are, without saying something about the international order too, given the fact that Canadians have played such a co-operative role in the world and undoubtedly will continue to do so.
So, if we are to express our reality as it is, then surely we owe it to ourselves and perhaps to the world to make this kind of statement in our fundamental document. It was Aristotle who said that a constitution is not just a way of organizing offices in the state. It is something much more than that. It is ultimately the principal means of stating the way of life of a people. That is just what I am suggesting here, that this fundamental document should express our way of life as it is, and our way of life in Canada surely does include a devotion to the principles of international law and a very strong desire on behalf of our people to act as good neighbours in the world.
In this sense I think it is extremely important that our fundamental constitutional document should state this. It should pay lip service to it. It should pay service to it by declaring it as an ideal to which the Canadian people aspire.
Mankind has in its long history been perhaps more motivated by symbols than by any of the hard realities of daily life, often perhaps because we wish to get away from those hard realities and sometimes, unfortunately, because unscrupulous leaders try to distract us from the hardships of some daily realities by using symbols as a way of extricating people's thoughts from their daily round.
Wars have been caused by symbols such as the concept of Lebensraum, Jenkin's ear, or whatever. Symbols have been matters of extreme importance in the history of mankind, and if we in Canada are to be expressing in a symbolic way what Canada is about, surely, a very important part of that expression is to say where we stand in relation to the rest of the world. No man is an island, no country can stand alone, and no country can express itself in a world which is as interdependent as everyone recognizes our world to be without expressing the relationship to the whole.
Constitution
These are the reasons, among others-and I know other hon. members such as the hon. member for Edmonton South will wish to state others-why the Parliamentary Association of World Federalists felt that this motion should be put for debate before the House. This is not a motion which has been appearing every year. It is not a traditional motion, as are many motions we see in private members' hours. I think some of those motions have been around for probably ten, 12 or 15 years. This is the first time this subject has been debated. We have put it on because we believe it is very important, and we want to bespeak the support of the House for it.
We want as strongly as possible to urge the government, if it should in the near future, I hope, be coming forward with new proposals on the Constitution of Canada, to recognize that this is one of the most important things to be stated in the aims of the Canadian federation.
I will now leave the rest of the time to other speakers. I merely want to say that I have been very grateful for the support I have been given in the ultra-national role, if I may put it that way, which the Canadian Parliamentary Association of World Federalists has assumed.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) should be commended for bringing forward this very important motion. He has done an ingenious thing here this afternoon by wedding two of his principal concerns in his career in Parliament, namely, his concern about world federalism and his concern about constitutional reform. He has brought those two concerns together in an admirable way, and I thank him for deepening the attention of the House about matters which go beyond the immediate crises and exigencies which occupy all our attention on a regular basis.
This debate is useful because it brings to the floor of the House of Commons a reflection of the work of one of the parliamentary associations to which all of us belong in one form or another. There are various conferences held in various parts of the world at regular periods. Very seldom do we have an opportunity to consider the findings of the parliamentary associations which are, at the very least, performing an educative function for members of Parliament on world conditions.
This debate gives me an opportunity to make a plea once more-as has been done in the past-to have the reports of parliamentary associations automatically referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence for its consideration, because I think it is in that way that a structured input of the findings of associations can benefit us all.
Today the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville has leaped forward, thanks to the luck of the draw, and has been enabled to bring forward a motion that is very timely, because he is also reflecting on a meeting which was held only last Friday at the United Nations in New York when members of Parliament from 31 nations took part in a discussion of global conditions, which occupied the attention of the United Nations. This

November 9, 1979
Constitution
meeting was sponsored by the International Parliamentary Union and the parliamentarians for a world order to which the hon. member has referred. Indeed, the hon. member for Wind-sor-Walkerville, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean), and myself were present.
I may say in passing that we missed the company of the Secretary of State (Mr. MacDonald). If he had not been otherwise preoccupied with the things I see on his desk now, I am sure he would have been there too, for indeed the Secretary of State has been one of those parliamentarians who has taken a vigorous leadership role in the development of the world federalists parliamentary association. Indeed, that work owes much to him and his predecessors for developing it.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: It is in better hands now.


Douglas Roche: If it is not in better hands, it is in other hands at the moment.
However, before I leave the World Federalist Parliamentary Association, I remind the Secretary of State and others that the distinguished Dr. Frank Leddy, former president of the University of Windsor, will be addressing the annual meeting of the World Federalist Parliamentary Association on November 28 at 12.30 p.m. on these premises.
With all that said, we come now to the substance of what the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville is asking us to consider. Another reason for the timeliness of the remarks he made today is the forthcoming foreign policy review being conducted by the government in association with the special joint Senate-Commons committee which will be set up to consider the totality of the Canadian foreign policy. Indeed, the subjects he has drawn to our attention today-on which 1 will be commenting in more detail in a moment-are the kinds of subjects that should be considered by those who are charged with considering, in a parliamentary sense, what Canada's foreign policy ought to be as we head into the 1980s in a world that is going to be more discernably interdependent than it now is.
In the 1970s we have seen the kind of world that is emerging, indeed one could say exploding, the major trend of geopolitics affecting north-south relations, the emergence of China, the whole question of the Middle East, Southern Africa, the world economic system, the energy question, reallocation of resources, the sharing of resources. All these questions have had a major impact on whether or not our world can be made not only a safe place but a stable environment in which we and those who come immediately after us will live.
It is opportune for us to consider the questions that the hon. member has brought forward, but I have to say that it does not take constitutional reform or a new constitution in order to highlight the questions of promoting international peace and security-which is the first of the five specific comments the hon. member has made in his motion-because the present constitution does not impede the attaining of those goals. What is really necessary, before we become embroiled again in

the questions of constitutional reform, is to do a better job as government and Parliament in informing the Canadian people, in giving more attention here as a government, to those questions that are at the heart of world peace, security and justice in this changing world. That does not take constitutional reform.
When we consider the five goals that are being presented to us today in the motion, we must remember that those goals are in fact incorporated in the United Nations Charter which was, of course, subscribed to by Canada as a founding member and, I might say, as a leading member of U.N. We know that Canada has played a substantial role in the development of the United Nations.
While I welcome the motion put forward by the hon. member, indeed its consideration at the proper time and with proper provincial input into the questions of constitutional reform with respect to international obligations, I think it would be preferable to highlight at this moment the work of the United Nations as a body established in the international community to further the very goals which the hon. member and myself, and indeed our colleagues, want to see furthered. For you see, Mr. Speaker, however slow the pace, it is a certainty that the United Nations is already putting into place the beginnings of an international legal order.
The U.N. Declaration and Covenants on Human Rights- and I speak of economic and social as well as political and civil-provide, for the first time, humanity with a profound philosophical base expressed in practical terms. Here we have an official recognition, a world recognition, of the respect that ought to be accorded to every human being in the world in virtue of his humanity. In reaching out to the open seas and to outer space, the U.N. treaties today that we have at our service emphasize the common heritage of mankind.
The urgent needs of the world are being met by the vast extension of United Nations practical work, the programs in addition to the covenants which are pieces of paper. Eighty per cent of the United Nations effort and budget go into the development questions that are at the heart of the hon. member's motion today. Indeed, our daily life would grind to a halt without those international institutions which we now have in place regulating air transport, the control of epidemics, posts and telegraphs, weather reports, or the responsibility for satellites. All these are operations within the United Nations system, whether we consider U.N. activities in Geneva, in Vienna, in Nairobi, in New York or other places where U.N. commissions and boards are hammering out the infrastructure for the world community that is emerging before our eyes. So I do think we do not give the United Nations sufficient credit, nor do we give ourselves sufficient credit, as Canadians who have participated not only at the start of the United Nations but indeed in the old League of Nations, for recognizing the movement forward of humanity at this very moment.
1 know that the world is in chaos in many respects. We are having just one indication today of the kind of chaos that exists in the world and that has affected the life of this government, indeed the life of the government of the United
November 9, 1979

States. One does not have to go through a long catalogue to remind oneself of the parade of injustices and discrimination and of all the negative things in the world. They are there and we cannot turn our backs on them, but while we consider that,
I think we should also be as reflective of the creative things that are happening in the world to help bring mankind together. This is not just an empty vision I am presenting to you. It is a reflection of the reality of the many movements throughout the world which are perhaps spinoffs of the United Nations and spinoffs of other international associations.
In the past few years I have had the opportunity of travelling to quite a number of countries. When I go into their societies and cultures I find something very interesting happening in our world. There is more positive development taking place than is reflected in the headlines which tell us about the confrontations and the terrible things that are happening. There is more creativity present than we realize, and 1 think that is a reflection of what the United Nations principally has been able to achieve.
I am just suggesting here that perhaps it would be helpful if we, as parliamentarians, gave more emphasis to the creative side of the world which would give a greater sense of encouragement and hope to Canadians generally, if an argument can be put forward that Canadians are kind of turned off international development, because progress does not seem to have been made when you measure it by a very limited yardstick. Therefore, it would be helpful to remember that there are 168 non-governmental organizations in this country which drew in excess of $50 million in matching funds from the Canadian government last year. These 168 non-governmental organizations reflect the work of thousands of Canadians who stand for the very things mentioned in the motion and which we see as an ongoing operation.
I should like to remind the House that on November 6 the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) said that the government attaches great importance to the work of non-governmental organizations, and that the support of government for these organizations will increase, and not decrease, in the years ahead. That is very good news, particularly for those many Canadians who are concerned with the direction of the government in foreign policies geared to promoting creative development in the international world community, which the hon. member drew to our attention.
Briefly I should like to consider some of the points in the hon. member's motion. The question of promoting international peace and security is handled in the Charter of the United Nations. When we talk about peace and security, we would be remiss if we did not remind ourselves of the role of Canada in peacekeeping forces in several areas of the world. Indeed it is a tradition for Canada to maintain its participation in international peacekeeping forces. That is one example of how we have contributed to the promotion of international peace and security.
Constitution
In the second part of his motion the hon. member calls our attention to the need to maintain just and honourable relations between nations. Of course to that we say "amen". In addition to maintaining an extensive diplomatic network, Canada has adhered to many conventions regulating the conduct of relations between nations. We helped to draft a convention on friendly relations between states. We adhere to the 1961 Vienna convention on diplomatic relations, and participated in establishing the 1963 Vienna convention on consular relations. It was ratified in 1974, not only to protect its own citizens, but also to regularize this aspect of relations between states.
When we consider the next item, fostering respect for international law and treaty obligation, we see that Canada strongly supports the rule of law in international affairs. The strong participation of Canada in the ongoing Law of the Sea conference is an example of our participation in this endeavour.
The fourth item is encouraging the settlement of international disputes by arbitration, which is the most important aspect of this motion. But we must remember that Canada accepts the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice. In certain instances we are prepared to accept arbitration as a means of settling international disputes. Arbitration clauses are often included in our bilateral agreements with other countries. Many of the items mentioned in the motion are before us in an ongoing manner.
The hon. member drew to our attention particularly the fifth item in his motion which deals with transferring agreed national powers to world authorities to facilitate world peace. The United Nations is building the framework for such a world order. It is a very slow, one might even say methodical, process. We are in motion on that. But we should remember that in any transferring of national powers to world authorities, the role of the provinces would be paramount, in any consideration of that subject, because some of the powers being considered now lie within provincial jurisdiction.
In closing, I commend the hon. member for his motion, for making a plea for the interparliamentary association to which we belong becoming more vigorous and following the lead of the World Federalist Parliamentary Association in bringing to the floor of the House and before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence their findings, so that all members of the House can share in the activities of these very worth-while associations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the speech and the remarks of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan). It sure beat his lectures at the University of Toronto Law School which I attended.


Mark R. MacGuigan: You should have heard Atkey's.

November 9, 1979
Constitution


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I notice the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) sitting opposite. I was spared his lectures.


Mr. Atkey:: There is a lot of time.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I applaud the initiative of the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville. Had I been permitted, I might have brought some apple pie to the chamber from Jean Pigott's bakery, because the motion is somewhat apple pie-ish, if I can use a term that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) might applaud.
We on this side of the House cannot argue about items (a), (b), (c) and (d) of the motion. They seem to make sense, and we are in favour of those items. Item (e) is the interesting one. It reads as follows:
transferring agreed national powers to world authorities when this would facilitate world peace.
The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville asked us to put this in the Canadian constitution. It is interesting that he brings up the matter of transferring powers from the Canadian government to the world government in this new constitution of ours at the same time as we see in the House, day after day, the present government transferring powers to the provinces. The clause itself is too vague, and I am sure the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville would agree if he were lecturing in law again. Already we have transferred out of Canada a lot of effective powers and control. For example, we have transferred control of our energy policy outside of Canada.
In the last three weeks in the House we have dealt with the problems of a west coast oil port and a gas pipeline to the United States. We have dealt with the problems of acid rain, and we are about to deal with some communications problems in radio and television and the Americanization of Canadian airwaves and programs. We were supposed to hear from President Carter today, but unfortunately he had to postpone his visit. We were awaiting his arrival because it was necessary to go to him to solve many of our problems. In effect, Canada has transferred a lot of power and control over domestic matters to international authority, mainly American.
Another area I should like to mention is that we have lost control over the flow of information because we transferred computer and transmission data, television broadcasts and control of television influence, to the United States. Last night I met with some American public broadcasters who were here in Ottawa to get some Canadian programs because they had Canadian listeners. So not only is our broadcasting being Americanized, but American stations are interested in Canadian material. Having made those points about the de facto surrender of sovereign Canadian powers to foreign authorities, mainly American, it seems to me that-getting back to world federalism-there is no need for a new constitution. But it is clear that the old one is out of date and that many changes are necessary.

One of the major ministers of the government, Senator de Cotret, sits in the Senate. As a newcomer and an outsider to Ottawa, this to me is very obscene. A 35-year old man is made a Senator and given a pension for life. Why could that money not be given to people who are in need, such as pensioners or parents of single families?
We can solve some of the immediate problems mentioned in the resolution, such as promoting international peace, maintaining just and honourable relations between nations, and encouraging the settlement of international dispute, by arbitration, without constitutional amendments. We can do this by many of the strategies which have been proposed over the past fews weeks in the House, such as taking control over our own resource revenue, being responsible for our own culture and communication, fashioning an industrial strategy, and taking care of the problems of our own native people. The hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant), for example, brought up the horrible situation today of a Canadian war veteran who had died in a very sad state of affairs. Perhaps if these policies were implemented, we would not be slipping away from sovereignty.
I wish to make a point with regard to constitutional reform.
I know that the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) has said that the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville is concerned and has made this matter a cause in his parliamentary career, but where I come from in the west, constitutional reform is not an important issue. This issue seems to be more important to the people here in Ottawa than it does to the people in the west. Before I became a member of Parliament I met the hon. member for Edmonton South in New York. I have always been an admirer of the hon. member and I hope that some day he gets a chance to be our Secretary of State for External Affairs. I say that very sincerely, because 1 was impressed as an ordinary citizen seeing him in action in New York.
The hon. member talked about the future and spirit of world government, and that is really what this resolution is about. I share that spirit and that hope that there will be a world government. This has always been a platform of our party, and perhaps of other parties as well. It is important to my party that we have a very strong international association. Indeed, the international socialist meeting was held in Vancouver last year, and that spirit was clearly evident there.
I believe that we will see a world government one day. It may not be in my lifetime, or even in the lifetime of our children, but when it arrives I think that it will come, as the hon. member for Edmonton South stated, through the back door in a functional way, with the social agencies having gradually intertwined themselves through the nations of the world.
Martin Luther King once said, "Through our scientific genius we have made of the world a neighbourhood; now through our moral and spiritual genius we must make it a brotherhood". I believe that this resolution serves that end, and I support it for that reason.
November 9, 1979


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in the moments remaining I would like to be identified with those who have expressed their appreciation to the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) for the introduction of this motion. The intention of the motion is, I believe, synonymous with the direction of our times. We live in the reality of a world which thrives on interdependence. It is significant that all five goals referred to are incorporated in the character of the United Nations of which Canada is a founding member. Canada has continually sought to play its part in all aspects of the United Nations.
It is significant that the United Nations is working toward a forum not just for governments, but for parliamentarians who go back to the grassroots level and who would like to help interpret some of these global issues for the people of our world.
Along with two other members of this House it was my privilege to be part of the Canadian parliamentary delegation to the United Nations Inter-Parliamentary Union conference in Sri Lanka at the end of August. There I saw illustrated interdependence. The United Nations had brought together over 66 nations. These nations were not bound to attend because of constitutional change, although in some cases it was for that reason, but through their common covenant in the United Nations. These nations were there to look ahead into
Constitution
the 1980s and to determine how effectively development assistance funds could be used in bettering world order. As a representative of a member nation of the Commonwealth, I was reminded again of our interdependence and our mutual linkage with the Commonwealth. I was mindful that Canada-through the input of C1DA-has, without duress, been sharing in the development programs of the world.
There was one other ingredient that came home to me, and that was the role of the Canadian voluntary community in that partnership and in developments toward a world community. It is my hope that in the forthcoming review of our foreign aid policy we will have an opportunity to give expression to Canada's direction for the 1980s and that coming out of that review, to be held with representatives of all parties and of the other place, there will be a momentum created by the initiatives suggested in relation to the constitution, so that there will be represented the will of the Canadian people at all levels of government and through non-government organizations.


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