1979-01-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a question of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the harsh, crass and insensitive recommendations made by the Prairie Rail Action Committee which suggest 2,280 kilometres of prairie rail lines be abandoned permanently, and since these decisions were made irrespective of any social impact on the communities to be affected and without any consideration of an alternative method of transportation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this parliament censor the Minister of Transport for his needless and damaging support of the report by the Prairie Rail Action Committee, a report which contains false and inaccurate comments, and who did so prior to the full and usually impartial consideration of the document by the Canadian Transport Commission.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Richard Janelle (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a very important question of pressing necessity.
Considering that the staff of the unemployment insurance offices are unable to provide adequate information to the
recipients concerning the new unemployment insurance legislation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House regret the lack of foresight of the government following the passage of Bill C-14, since the officials who are supposed to enforce that new legislation have not yet received any specific instruction.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact the latest quarterly provincial forecasts published by the Conference Board in Canada predict 10.4 per cent unemployment for Prince Edward Island in 1979, 12.9 per cent for New Brunswick, 10.6 per cent for Nova Scotia and 11 per cent for Quebec, and that the Conference Board forecasts show no other provinces in Canada will even approach these high unemployment rates, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae):
That the new so-called ministry of development come up with some special projects to alleviate the unconscionable unemployment in Canada's eastern provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

January 25, 1979


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Bell Canada has just announced a very inflationary 37 per cent increase in its profits for 1978, which is the highest return on common shares for this corporation in its history. This has occurred in a year when a rate increase was allowed by the federal government. Because of this terribly inflationary, double-digit increase in profits, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin):
That this government take the necessary steps to roll back the recent rate increases granted to Bell Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mrs. Simma Holt (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Despite the protracted, strenuous protests of British Columbia members of parliament and thousands of citizens to the construction and development of a second, redundant CBC station within 20 miles of Vancouver, the CBC has gone ahead, constructed the building, ignored a recent cabinet veto of a 1979 broadcast schedule and is preparing right now to begin broadcasting March 31 from Victoria. In view of this situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Raines):
That the. government act immediately to halt this unauthorized spending of public moneys against the will of the people and of the executive body of the Government of Canada itself and to halt this repetitive waste of time of MPs and citizens and of taxpayers' dollars in fighting this CRTC-CBC battle over and over again.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Fonse Faour (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In light of the outbreak of tuberculosis on two Indian reserves in New Brunswick-14 known cases and 40 suspected cases-a situation verging on epidemic proportions, and since the Indian Act regulations of 1953 specifically deal with t.b., instructing the federal government to be responsible for prevention and treatment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to immediately order the regional director of his department in Amherst, Nova Scotia, to take the necessary steps to stop this outbreak and provide adequate care for those already affected.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance, who is the first minister of finance in this country for literally some 110 years to have permitted the Canadian dollar to plunge to its lowest average level which occurred in 1978.
Would the Minister of Finance indicate, now that the governor of the Bank of Canada, Mr. 3ouey, has indicated that a further decline in the dollar would be still more inflationary to the country's economy, whether or not he still believes a floating dollar is a floating dollar?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: The answer is yes.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in line with the minister's little quip, is he aware that international analysts are now saying the Canadian dollar may touch 79 cents this year? Their quip is "79 for 79" in Canada for our dollar. If the minister is aware of this, will he indicate to the House what constructive
January 25, 1979

steps he intends to take to ensure that such a humiliated dollar will not be permitted to occur in this country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have stated many times the policy of the government on the exchange rate. I think that what governor Bouey stated yesterday is something with which I am in accord. He is a very competent governor of the bank. I think the hon. member should get busy making sure that on his next trip he does not lose his luggage as he is losing his mind today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the minister that at least I have not lost my credibility, or the value of the Canadian dollar.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If the minister intends to continue his reckless program of borrowing, having expended $5 billion of our reserves in defending what he calls the floating dollar, would he indicate exactly what he means when he states we are now back to a clean float? What is a clean float, bearing in mind that this month alone, especially in the last two days, he has lost another $40 million to $50 million of our reserves defending what he calls the floating dollar?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: As long ago as a year and a half I said that the floating dollar is the dollar established by the market. The Bank of Canada has always intervened to make sure there is an orderly market. I hope that some day members of the opposition who like to make a lot of points on this will get up and say if they want us to peg the dollar, and where. They have never had the guts to have any policy on that.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you call on the Governor General?


REASON FOR INCREASING RATE OF INFLATION
Mr. Robert de Cotret (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Finance and it is on the subject of the Canadian dollar.
Given that it is quite obvious to anybody who follows exchange markets that the value of the currency is highly dependent on price stability in the domestic economy, and considering that the minister has predicted a lessening of inflationary pressures in 1979, can he explain why the advance price indicators-I mention here the industry selling price index and the wholesale price index-continue to show an increased rate of inflation? Where is the underlying trend to lower inflation rates which both he and his predecessor have talked about?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If the hon. member would look at the CPI figures released a few weeks
Oral Questions
ago, he would realize that inflation, which was 9.8 per cent, is now down to 8.4 per cent.


Robert René de Cotret: As the minister is well aware, the CPI trails both the indices to which I have referred: both of those show dramatic increases for the latest 12 months' period.
On the question of the dollar, I should like to ask the minister, who has spoken repeatedly-along with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-about our magnificent trade surplus, the following question. The current account is the determinant of our exchange rate, not the trade position. Does the minister concede that the dollar cannot achieve stability while the current account position continues to increase as it has over the last 12 months?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We are working very hard to make sure that the current account is as much in balance as possible. Trade is a very important component, and in fact I am quite sure this year will be a record year for us in trade. However, I should like the hon. member to explain to the House, since he is so preoccupied with balancing the ledger, why his own leader is proposing an even bigger deficit than we have at this time.


Robert René de Cotret: As the minister knows, a substantial portion of the current account deficit arises from interest payments. The interest payments on the funds that the minister has borrowed and intends to borrow from foreigners will add to that deficit by a considerable amount. Why does the minister think such extensive borrowing is justified now, when it will only lead to a more intractable current account deficit in the future?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we are borrowing abroad at this time because the provinces and the institutions are doing so to a lesser extent than they used to, and thus we are just substituting our borrowing for theirs. Formerly, money was borrowed through intermediaries such as the provinces and companies. However, the level of savings is now such in Canada that most institutional and provincial financing is done within Canada; we are therefore only substituting our loans for theirs on forrign markets. The hon. member should know that Canada always has to import foreign capital because it needs it to develop.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General. Could the minister confirm or deny the existence of publications called "The Special" and "The Whizzer" which are circulated to ministers and deputy
2544

January 25, 1979
Oral Questions
ministers, and which allegedly list dozens of groups and individuals in Canada that his department feels are subversive?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, over approximately the last four years we have had a weekly internal security service summary that has been circulated among people involved in security in various departments. This has been reflected in my annual report. The matter is not surprising; it has been in place for that length of time and is most helpful.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, in view of the 1971 blacklist of 26 individuals which was also circulated by his department, and in view of Mr. Bourne's statement this month that a group would be labelled subversive, and I quote, "if we felt their intentions were contrary to our interests", what guarantees can the minister give that the civil liberties of all Canadians are being protected at this time?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, the major preoccupation of my department and this government is, indeed, the protection of civil rights of Canadians. The statement made by Mr. Bourne is one that falls directly within the responsibility afforded us by section 16(2) of the Official Secrets Act. I would call upon the hon. gentleman to review that act and to see the definition of "subversive activity" therein.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I am sure all Canadians sleep a little easier knowing the Solicitor General is protecting their civil liberties. Mr. Bourne also said, in the same statement:
I think you'll find most peace organizations, if they are labelled as such, are manipulated by the Soviets.
I wonder if that is the view of the minister in this matter.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would indicate to the hon. gentlemen that the comments made by Mr. Bourne in that particular context were reflections of Mr. Bourne himself. I would like to review the context within which the comments were made.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, barely a few moments ago, in reply to the question of an hon. member of the official opposition, the Minister of Finance said that we needed foreign capital to develop our country. I totally disagree with that statement. Mr. Speaker, recent reports show that the payment of dividends and interest, which represented a net capital outflow of $4.3 billion in 1977, and $5.5 billion last year will reach, according to various estimates, from $6.6 to $7 billion this year. Can the Minister of Finance confirm those figures? In addition, in view of the disastrous effects that outflow of capital has on the Canadian dollar, does the minis-

ter intend to take specific, efficient and short-term steps to stem that tide?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not in a position to give the hon. member a specific answer on the figures he gave, but if he wants to put his question on the order paper, I can see to it that he gets one. As for government policy, we have no intention at this time of imposing controls on foreign exchanges in Canada. We want the flow of money between Canada and other countries to be very free, both into and out of the country, and we feel that it would be untimely at this point, if I fully understand the question of the hon. member, to consider the imposition of foreign exchange controls.


GOVERNMENT POLICY RESPECTING BORROWING FROM ABROAD
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Everybody is aware that the present economic situation in Canada is really bad, and the minister is apparently unwilling to do anything about it. In view of the fact that the government has always favoured borrowing on foreign markets to support the Canadian dollar and that this approach has been unsuccessful and served only to postpone facing the problem of our growing indebtedness, does the minister not feel that this policy ought to be changed because of our extraordinary high level of indebtedness and he should consider a monetary reform as soon as possible?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I feel that if the hon. member would only examine the statistical data closely, he would realize, for instance, that the rate of indebtedness of the Canadian government compared with our gross national product was lower in 1978 than it had been in 1960. Although I am quoting these figures from memory, I think that Canada's debt in 1960 represented 30 per cent of our gross national product, while it represented only 18 or 19 per cent in 1978.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. In view of the concern being expressed in the prairies regarding the report of the Prairie Rail Action Committee, can the minister advise if he endorses the report and its recommendations?
January 25, 1979


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the action we followed on receiving the report was to examine it to determine whether the positive recommendations seemed supportable, and to act upon those. We have done that. As a result, some further miles of branch lines have been transferred to the basic rail network and now we will be putting in a program for rebuilding.
Some of the recommendations which suggest abandonment are being treated in the same way as the recommendations of the Hall commission were treated in that regard. That means a standover for the Canadian Transport Commission to look at and to be disposed of by that commission.


Douglas Charles Neil: In view of the fact that it is not mandatory for the Canadian Transport Commission to hold public hearings with respect to the abandonment of rail lines, will the minister direct the Canadian Transport Commission to hold public hearings in all cases where requests are made by concerned municipalities, towns and organizations?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I have the power to so direct. However, I am happy to tell the hon. member that the Canadian Transport Commission has already made that kind of decision in an area where certain lines were recommended for abandonment, particularly by the Hall commission and partly by the Prairie Rail Action Committee. Probably what the Canadian Transport Commission has been doing is treating the materials which were fully submitted to the Hall commission as being rather self-supporting for their work, with support from this House because, after all, members on both sides said "Bravo" to the Hall report, "Let it go forward."
Now, as more time has elapsed since the work of the Hall commission, I think the case is made for further examination, with more attention to public viewpoints. I am happy to join the hon. member in drawing this fact to the attention of the Canadian Transport Commission through this forum.


SUGGESTION PRAC WENT BEYOND TERMS OF REFERENCE
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the same minister, on the same subject. In view of the very close relationship the minister has had with the hon. member for Assiniboia, particularly with regard to presenting goverment positions to this House, and in view of the fact the hon. member for Assiniboia stated last Friday that the Prairie Rail Action Committee report went beyond its terms of reference, will the minister advise whether the hon. member for Assiniboia was speaking for the government when he made that statement?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen that statement. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre has just claimed across the House that he made that statement. I want to determine whether they were both saying the same thing before making any further comment on that matter.
Oral Questions


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Just to refresh the minister's mind on this matter, 11 months ago, on February 28, speaking for the government on that occasion, the hon. member for Assiniboia said the Prairie Rail Action Committee had three urgent tasks: the first was to recommend additional, immediate transfers of lines from the suggested prairie rail authority category to the permanent network in order to facilitate the building of grain companies, and so on. That was honestly a government statement. He has now come out a year later and said that this report by the Prairie Rail Action Committee repudiates the Hall commission report and recommends the abandonment of an additional 1,400 miles of line which Hall recommended belongs to the authority of the Prairie Rail Action Committee.
Obviously, my question is whether the minister is now repudiating the statement made by the hon. member for Assiniboia a year ago when he was speaking for the government and laying down to the House the policy and the purpose of the Prairie Rail Action Committee.


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker, I certainly am not. I rebut the argument by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain that the Prairie Rail Action Committee was in any way in conflict with the Hall commission. It is true that the Hall commission left a great number of lines in doubt. That is a point which hon. members opposite like to gloss over. The Hall commission did not say how long those lines were going to remain.
All the elevator companies, including the pools, came to us immediately and said that that continued period of doubt was going to be very serious, because they would not know whether to construct facilities on the lines in doubt or larger facilities on the neighbouring lines which were certain, and they wanted these issues resolved. Accordingly, we appointed the Prairie Rail Action Committee to continue the work of determining which lines should remain and which lines should be referred to the Canadian Transport Commission for further examination by that commission.
This is precisely the approach which the Hall commission used in regard to the lines before it and it left in doubt a certain category having resolved the issues in regard to the other categories. This work, therefore, was continuing to provide certainty. Of course, where the real certainty comes is in the rebuilding program, because not only are we declaring certain lines to be there and permanent, but we are rebuilding them with many millions of dollars and that is what is really going to make for a good transportation system on the prairies.
80047-20(4

January 25, 1979
Oral Questions NATIONAL SECURITY


REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON USE OF INFORMATION CONCERNING SUBVERSIVE ELEMENTS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General and it relates to the documents known as "The Whizzer" and "The Special", and the publicity attaching to them recently.
Acknowledging that most, if not all, democratic countries make use of documents of this nature in terms of identification of individuals or groups presumed to be engaged in subversive activity, but acknowledging also that that use is restrained by the need for accuracy of information within a document, by the extent of circulation of the document and by the use to which the information is put by its recipients, will the Solicitor General take this opportunity, or undertake to give a statement at an early date as to the use to which the information contained in these two documents is put by its recipients?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. gentleman that all countries have systems whereby information is exchanged. That is essential if we are to protect ourselves internally, as we do in Canada, from subversive activities.
As the hon. gentleman knows, the Weekly Internal Security Service Report which has been referred to is prepared by a branch within my department, the police and security branch, in order to permit various security heads within departments to be mindful of activities which chould be interpreted as being dangerous and threatening to our internal security. I can assure the hon. gentleman that the distribution of "The Whizzer", the Weekly Internal Security Service Report, is very limited and is only for the purposes envisaged under section 16(2) of the Official Secrets Act.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, relating to the Official Secrets Act and its application to this particular document, the Solicitor General will recall another document to which the act applied, not too many weeks ago. It is now the subject of a prosecution. Literally dozens of copies were distributed all across Ottawa and some even came into the hands of representatives of other governments.
Will the Solicitor General be more definite in terms of circulation? Without wanting to know the names of the individuals on the circulation list, 1 ask the minister whether he can tell us, or undertake to make a statement at least in general terms as to the number circulated and the general nature of the recipients who are on the circulation list.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would not wish to comment on the original statement made by the hon, gentleman in terms of the distribution of the document he has identified, because that matter, as the hon. member recognizes, is sub judice.
In terms of the distribution list for the weekly document, I will take that matter under advisement in order to see if that information can be provided to the hon. gentleman. If I cannot
[Mr. Lang.l
make that information public, undoubtedly I can make it known to the hon. member privately.

[ Translation]


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
In view of the uncertainty which prevails regarding the future of Canada's shipbuilding industry and in view of the many representations I have received from union spokesmen and shipyard officials, I would like to know if the government has made a decision concerning the 20 per cent subsidy to help shipbuilding in Canada and make us more competitive on the international market? If so, how long will it be maintained?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we have done a considerable amount of work on the drafting of a new shipbuilding policy. The Board of Economic Development Ministers and the President of the Board of Economic Development Ministers want to make a comprehensive statement on the whole subject, possibly next Thursday.


SHIPPING
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. My understanding is that the Minister of Transport made a statement about a Canadian merchant fleet and the refusal of this government to have anything to do with a Canadian merchant fleet.
In making that announcement, I wonder whether the minister took into account or discussed with his colleagues, particularly the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the feasibility of offering meaningful tax concessions to those who might be interested in putting together the capital necessary for the creation of such a fleet.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the matter of the exact nature of our shipping policy was fully discussed within the government and it was decided not to move with major tax incentives or other forms of support at this particular point in time. However, I think it should be pointed out that a good deal else was done with regard to our shipping policy and we remain convinced that it is best for our shippers and our major exporters and importers to have available world shipping at the lowest possible rates.
January 25, 1979

We are taking steps to protect ourselves against various world arrangements which might tend to work to our disadvantage, and we are also arranging to protect the Arctic for Canadian shipping in a way which should assist entrepreneurs in Canada to move ahead into the field of shipping and to be in a position to move forward with even more effort in the future.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, aside altogether from the apparent contradiction between what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce just said and what the Minister of Transport is now saying, that a shipping policy is in place, I wonder whether the Minister of Transport is aware that in failing to consider this course of tax concessions, he not only fails to evaluate the gains for Canada in terms of employment, not only in construction and in manning but also in the fact that he and this government are condemning Canada to adding at least several hundred million dollars to the already unfavourable balance of payments.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, obviously this was precisely the kind of issue which we did address. The hon. member is quite wrong in sensing any contradiction between the approach of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and mine. My colleague was addressing himself to the shipbuilding question, which is quite distinct from a line of flagships which might or might not be Canadian built. That is quite a distinct and different question.
The fact of the matter is that we looked at the question of a Canadian fleet and what it would mean in terms of jobs inside Canada. That is a thing one can look at every time one proposes any form of protective or special policy to try to move jobs here. We know that we are, in effect, employing a certain number of foreign persons aboard foreign ships in moving goods to and from Canada, but it is precisely because that is the lowest cost way of moving our goods and because that is good for our exporters and importers and, therefore, very good for providing many other jobs in Canada that we are retaining the policy which has stood us in such good stead as a major exporter and importer for many years.


SHIPPING SERVICE ON EAST COAST
Alphonsus Faour: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. Canadian National operates a coastal marine shipping service out of several centres along the coast of Newfoundland, including the city of Corner Brook, serving the northwest coast of Newfoundland and the southern coast of Labrador.
Can the minister advise this House of the status of this service for the coming shipping season? This service provides jobs in Corner Brook as well as a necessary service to coastal Newfoundland and Labrador. Its continuation has been brought into some question as of late.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there have been questions over a period of time about the
Oral Questions
particular service out of Corner Brook, and various discussions with the Newfoundland government. The question is always whether or not a particular service can be supported in view of the cost of that service, whether it is indeed essential. When services are essential, even when the cost is considerable, this government goes out of its way to ensure that they are continued. On the other hand, when alternatives are available and the cost of the service is extreme, we have some concern for the taxpayers as well.


Alphonsus Faour: My supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. Can he assure the House that, whatever the decision on this particular service, it will be made forthwith, thereby relieving the uncertainty which surrounds the situation?
Further, can he again assure us that no jobs will be affected in Corner Brook and that postal communities will continue to receive adequate and efficient shipping services?


Otto Emil Lang: I will certainly see how far I can go to answer some of those questions as soon as possible. Obviously, the degree of service, the amount of alternative service, is one of the very important considerations we will look at before taking a final decision.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. Last January 17, the chairman of the Montreal Urban Community, Mr. Pierre Desmarais II, made public a study on the effects of transferring the Dorval operations to Mirabel. Given the conclusions of that study, I would like to ask the minister if he is aware of this study which gives evidence of negative effects of such a transfer on the labour force of the cities concerned and if, in light of this document, he can tell us if the explanations contained in the study do in fact relate to the negative effects mentioned in the report?


Otto Emil Lang: Let me say, first of all, that the report in question is completely false in suggesting that any decision has been taken in regard to this matter. A variety of issues in relation to service in the Montreal area are being considered, and reports are to be made to me in the very near future.
So far as the question of Dorval is concerned, even in advance of receiving those reports I can assure the hon. member that, while we foresee growth of traffic tending to be concentrated in the area of Mirabel as it develops and accommodates that additional traffic, we do not see a significant decrease or downplay of the role of Dorval. Therefore, anyone

January 25, 1979
Oral Questions
who creates the fear that there will be a serious economic impact in that area I think is doing a serious disservice. At the very least they should await the report. The press statements made after the statement to which the hon. member referred were correct in that I had not yet received the report. That is still the situation.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, the minister is surely aware of the concerns of the municipalities involved as well as that of the community over this report, and I trust that the minister can give us today the assurance that he will soon table a report on Dorval's future. I think that the mayors of the municipalities involved would like to know how work is progressing and when the transfer of operations will take place, and that they are counting on the government's co-operation and understanding in this major project.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the fact that we were going to undertake these studies specifically at this time was made known many months ago. Obviously, as soon as there is something to be said about the studies and reports, that will be done.
Because of the concern which has been created by some false statements in the press, colleagues of mine, especially from the city of Montreal as well as from the ministry, a good number of them, will be meeting to look at this question to try to put to rest the fears which have been aroused.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs a question. It could have been put to the Minister of Justice.
Has the minister had legal officers of the Department of Justice or of his own department check the Combines Investigation Act to determine whether the amalgamation of or takeover of some large corporations has violated the spirit of the act by unduly affecting competition-here I use the words in the act-thereby creating a monopoly in consumer goods and increasing the price to consumers across the country?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The hon. member has not mentioned any specific companies, but under the act, the director of investigations is obliged to examine any takeover or merger which is likely to come into conflict with the legislation or which is in conflict with the legislation. He is continually doing that, and he obtains legal opinions from the Department of Justice and from his own officials on these matters. But we are not able to

confirm or deny any specific investigation while it is still going on, because it might impede it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Was the takeover or the amalgamation of the Bay and Simpsons-Sears looked into from the viewpoint of a monopoly being created in consumer goods? The minister did not come to grips with my question. Did he seek the advice of his legal officers on that matter, and does he take the position that the act also applies to the takeover of Crown corporations such as Petro-Canada?


William Warren Allmand: I can say that very close and serious attention was given to the proposed takeover of Simpsons by Hudson's Bay. As a matter of fact, the director of investigations received an undertaking from Hudson's Bay with respect to that particular takeover. As 1 mentioned in answer to the previous question, we do get very detailed legal opinions on the serious mergers and takeover bids and we pay very close attention to them.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Mike Landers (Saint John-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is one of which I have given notice to the Secretary of State.
In view of the fact that Robert Cooper, host of the CBC program "Ombudsman", admitted on January 16, 1979, that he filmed and recorded the chief of police of Saint John, New Brunswick, without the chiefs knowledge, and allegedly used similar tactics with the fire chief and at least one other individual, what does the Secretary of State intend to do about this clandestine method of conducting interviews?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, these are, indeed, very serious allegations which I will bring to the attention of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and report to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ANNUAL TRADE DEFICITS-GOVERNMENT POLICY TO RECTIFY
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
As railway freight loadings, which are a very accurate barometer of industrial activity in this country, dropped by 3.5 per cent during the past 12 months, and as our already huge annual trade deficits in fully manufactured products have increased by 3.7 per cent during the same 12 months' period, would the minister take the first opportunity on motions to
January 25, 1979

outline to the House just what he and his department plan to do to restore our industrial activity in this country to a healthy level and lift it out of the present morass in which it has been for quite some time?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that when the figures for 1978 and the final fourth quarter are in, they will clearly point out the tremendous growth in the export of fully manufactured goods, a tremendous trade surplus-in fact, the largest ever in the history of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Jack) Henry Horner: But if the hon. member would like a detailed explanation on what the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is doing to assist the trade of Canadian goods, fully manufactured and others, I will take the first opportunity to make a speech in the House on the subject matter, and if the hon. member is not here I will make certain that the details of that speech are made known to him.


George Harris Hees: I will certainly be here, Mr. Speaker. Do the figures which the minister said will be used to justify the things he has told us come from the same source that inspired him to tell the businessmen of China that Canada had a truck to sell them that is capable of carrying, in one load, three million tons? Under great pressure, he was forced to revise that figure down to 300,000 tons. There was still very great and loud pressure from the audience and finally he reduced the figure to 300 tons?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, in order to make the entire statement accurate, the capability of the truck being manufactured by General Motors Diesel in London, Ontario, is 370 tons.


George Harris Hees: You could not even get the last figure right.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton.


George Harris Hees: Three times up, and three times you struck out, Jack.
 * *


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport: it has to do with government regulation of the airline business.
In light of the fact that deregulation of the industry has been very successful in the United States, showing larger profits for the companies and lower rates for consumers, will
Oral Questions
the minister indicate what action his department will take to cut back the amount of government interference and regulations in this vital segment of our economy?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we have made clear our policy in encouraging the Canadian Transport Commission to look at flexible approaches in relation to charter fares. We have seen the airlines and charter companies respond to this. Also, we have seen the Canadian Transport Commission respond by relaxing a good number of rules.
Of course, the commission is concerned about the maintenance of adequate scheduled services, particularly between smaller cities, which is not absolutely assured under a completely deregulated situation. It is these interests which have to be balanced. They are seen as needing to be balanced in various jurisdictions under provincial control, such as the trucking field where provinces from one end of the country to the other have tended to retain regulation of licences and the like and have not chosen to follow the example of the United States and move in the other direction.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour: it concerns the aircraft operations group which is responsible for civil aviation, and public employees.
Can the minister tell the House why this group has been without a contract since 1975? Also, can he tell us whether any recent offer was made by the government based on the principle with which the minister agrees, comparability with the private sector?


Hon. Martin O'Connell (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker,
I will have to look into that matter and report back.


John Allen Fraser: In the absence of the President of the Treasury Board, I should like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. Given the fact a senior official has stated that civil aviation inspectors are the backbone of the organization, in conjunction with other related officials, and the guardians of aviation safety in the country, will the Minister of Labour keep in mind his commitment to comparability, personally investigate this matter and report back to the House at the earliest possible moment?


Mr. O'Connell:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to do that.
On the question of comparability, it is the government, or all of us on this side who are seeking to convince public service unions that they ought to accept the principle of comparability. We brought forward a bill which stated the policy of the government in legislative form to implement the principle of

January 25, 1979
Oral Questions
comparability. It is not us who are dragging our feet; it is the unions which do not want to enter into comparability. It sits strange with me that the hon. member would suggest that that is the principle which is at stake.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Wetaskiwin.


John Allen Fraser: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Because of recently changed formats in the 70-page application form, and in order that small business as well as large business can take advantage of solar equipment manufacturing grants, would the minister be prepared to extend the deadline for these grants beyond tomorrow?
[ Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question, which enables me to say that those who used the old form for this project will not be penalized. They just have to use that old form and give the required information.


SUBSIDY PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY SERVICES-ACCEPTANCE BY PROVINCES
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In 1978, the minister proposed to the provinces a subsidy program for community services for the years 1979 and 1980. A budget of $150 million was to be provided for 1979 and a budget of $250 million for 1980. It was to be the responsibility of the provinces to accept that program and to establish what community services are eligible, and the province of Quebec was to have $47.1 million for 1979 and $78.5 million for 1980. Can the minister tell the House whether all provinces have accepted that proposal and did the province of Quebec make its proposals for the distribution of the budget among the municipalities of the province?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I can say that all provinces have accepted that program in principle. As a matter of fact, agreements were signed with some of them and discussions are proceeding with the others, and we hope to be able to sign at last the agreements with all the provinces in the near future.


POST OFFICE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General: it refers to the information indicating that the cost of the major postal plant in Montreal now has increased fron $141 million to $179 million and will likely go to $200 million.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: In view of the large sum of money involved, and the minister's explanation that they were caught with their pants down a little on the technical points of the construction, will the hon. minister be a little more specific as to how this squandering of public funds took place?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I think there is nothing exceptional in this project. If the hon. member for Brandon-Souris would read the article, he would see that I was well quoted and not misinterpreted. I explained exactly what happened in major construction projects. For example, this project happened between 1975 and 1979, and the same happened when I was mayor of Quebec city. It also happened in private enterprise. In those four years there was the Olympics project, the James Bay project, and there was inflation. The spread between the estimations and the actual cost at completion of the job was perhaps 20 per cent, 25 per cent or even more during that period. Such increases are nothing extraordinary, even in private enterprise.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Arising from that explanation, would it be fair to conclude that this is just another example of the Canadian public being taken to the cleaners by the government?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, further to the questions asked by the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport.
On June 15, 1974, the Prime Minister said that as long as elevator companies considered continued rail service was warranted, the government would not abandon a single rail line, and the minister made similar comments on June 8 and June 11.
Since the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool requested that 22 of the 25 subdivisions in Saskatchewan be retained as a means of removing uncertainty, and since the Prairie Rail Action Com-

January 25, 1979

mittee's version of uncertainty is to remove lines, in line with the commitments of the Prime Minister will the minister reject the recommendation of PRAC dealing with the 22 subdivisions in Saskatchewan?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, a good deal of the examination has gone into the question of service to particular elevators since the time of the statement by the Prime Minister.
In looking at the question, the Hall commission knew, on one hand, that elevator companies would not willingly indicate that they would give up service on any particular line but, on the other hand, many times they made it clear that they were required to significantly give up service in particular areas and cut back in the number of remaining elevators.
Obviously, at that point the Hall commission recognized that they could not let one elevator company keep a couple of elevators on one line and the other company keep a couple on the other line, when comparable service to farmers could be provided by those elevators being rearranged in a different way. Hence, the Hall commission reached certain conclusions about lines to be abandoned and lines to be retained.
The Prairie Rail Action Committee has been continuing this work with an eye on the over-all cost of rebuilding the lines. The point is that unless the lines are rebuilt, they will die and it is not just a matter of keeping the lines but a matter of rebuilding them. This is very expensive and it has to be looked at seriously, and I think that that is the process we have engaged upon.
I say again to the hon. member and the elevator companies that if they have a particular case to make, they can be assured of the opportunity still to make that case to the Canadian Transport Commission. That is where the next decision point lies.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the case has been made two or three times on every line. The president of the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool calls the PRAC report an insult to farmers, not to mention the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool.
In the area of removing uncertainty, will the Minister of Transport reject the recommendations of PRAC which go beyond its terms of reference and put those lines in the basic network or leave them there and, secondly, will the minister tell the House whether or not it is true that even after a line is designated to be kept by his department or the CTC, it still requires examination by the CTC every five years thereafter which, in effect, perpetuates the uncertainty?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the lines which we have transferred to the basic rail network do not require any further examination until the year 2000.
I am glad the hon. member almost referred to me as the "minister of transfer" because one of the things my department has been doing is transferring line after line to the basic rail network, to the point where today 80 per cent of the
National Unity
prairie rail system receiving grain is firm, permanent and transferred to that basic network; and that is after years of nothing having been done about the issue.
In addition, we have a program for rebuilding those lines so that at the end of the seven-year or eight-year period, those lines will not just be lines on a map-which is all the hon. member has been talking about, years gone by-but they will be substantially rebuilt, with the ballast and the rail necessary to carry fully loaded hopper cars, and we will have a rail service fit for the twentieth century and the twenty-first century, not for the eighteenth century to which the hon. member belongs.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 60, I am tabling three notices of ways and means motions and ask you to designate the order of the day necessary for the consideration thereof.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder at this point if I might ask the deputy government House leader for the legislative intentions for the balance of today, tomorrow and into next week?


Mr. Cafik:: Mr. Speaker, today we will deal with Bill C-35, the government reorganization bill, followed by Bill C-2, the health resources fund amendments, and then Bill C-13, the Electricity Inspection Act and Gas Inspection Act amendments. On Friday we will move to Bill C-9, the public referen-dums bill.


NATIONAL UNITY
Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to table in both official languages the report of the task force on Canadian unity entitled "A Future Together", along with its observations and recommendations.
This report is a landmark contribution to the collective search by Canadians for a more harmonious and secure relationship between our linguistic, regional and cultural com-

January 25, 1979
National Unity
munities. I am confident the report will take its place as a document of the first importance, and it is a source of great satisfaction to me that the report should be the product of an initiative taken by this government.

Our creation of the task force took its place alongside our other initiatives to advance Canadian unity and the renewal of our federation. The report comes after intensive negotiations between the federal and provincial governments, and at a time when we are about to hold a second first ministers' conference on the constitution. It can only reinforce the urgency which our government and several of the provincial governments have attached to constitutional reform. While the commissioners recognize the profound and urgent character of the crisis of Canadian unity, they have written a report marked by the optimism and even serenity arising from their faith in the immense value of Canada for all its people. The wisdom of the commissioners is evident in their ability, arising from a strong will and a spirit of compromise, to submit a unanimous report. This is all the more remarkable given the comprehensive scope of the task force's analysis and the short period which it had to complete its work.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that we in this country and in this House should express deepest appreciation to the co-chairmen, Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin and Mr. John Robarts, to the other commissioners, to the staff of the task force, and to all those Canadians who contributed to the report.

I am sure that all members of the House, all members of the provincial legislatures, and many thousands of Canadians will want to read and reflect carefully on this report. Given the nature and urgency of our present crisis, I believe we should try to use this report to improve our understanding of the nature of our problems and to seek as much agreement as possible on the principles and methods of their solution. Individual passages or recommendations in the report will give rise to some disagreement, but I believe it is incumbent on us to try first to understand the over-all analysis and principles of the report before we take issue with this or that specific point. We will find a solution to our national crisis only through a wise spirit of accommodation. My plea is all the more important because the report is so remarkably well integrated, with its different elements depending closely on one another.
Although the government for its part will want to study the specific recommendations carefully and take issue with some of them, I can tell the House now that the government accepts the broad lines of the task force's analysis of the problem and endorses the basic principles which it believes should underlie the renewal of the Canadian federation.
[ Translation]
First, the report is clearly federalist in its orientation and it advocates the entrenchment of basic rights in our constitution. Thus it is consistent with the two essential pre-conditions

which this government has advanced for renewal. The commissioners' commitment to federalism in the Canadian context comes as a conclusion to its analysis of the nature of Canada and of the principles which should govern our relationships.
The commissioners deeply believe that federalism, better than any alternative, is sufficiently consistent with the realities of Canada and the aspirations of Canadians. What is more, they state their conviction that any proposal to create a new arrangement with an independent Quebec joined in some sort of association with the rest of Canada would be inconsistent with the realities of the country and therefore unacceptable and unworkable.
Second, the report bases its analysis on the intricate structure of Canada: a structure which combines both a multifaceted dualism, and a complex regionalism.
Third, the commissioners set forth three objectives for Canadians which I am sure will receive wide support and which recall the government's own position set out in "A Time for Action." These objectives are, and I quote:
-to treat diversity as a national resource rather than a social problem;
-to encourage greater sensitivity to the Canadian dimension of our lives; and -to seek to understand as well as possible the major forces operating on Canadian society and to develop public policies and institutions on the basis of that understanding.
Finally, I must admit to taking special satisfaction from the way in which the commissioners have largely supported the official language policies of the government and their recognition of the great gains these have produced. I am quick to acknowledge that this policy was largely supported on both sides of this House, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the report of the task force will ensure that the Official Languages Act continues to receive broad, non-partisan support.
I will stop here. This day belongs to the members of the task force and the thousands of Canadians who contributed to their report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I want to express our appreciation of the work that has been done by members of the task force and to express the view that we have before us a document that is exceptionally helpful, not just in the detail it proposes but also for the sense of direction it brings to the discussion about the future of this united nation and about the change in tone that is going to be necessary if we are to accomplish the goal of ensuring that the nation continues strong and united.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I think that one of the signal accomplishments of the members of the task force in this report is not simply that they have made another contribution to the debate, but that

i

January 25, 1979

they have, rather, enlarged the focus of the discussion and of the serious questions on the agenda of Canada at the present time.
I must say that I regretted the initial preoccupation, in some preliminary reporting, with the response of the commissioners to the hypothesis relating to the possible development of a majority will in the province of Quebec to separate. I know that many of us have learned the danger of dealing with hypotheses. 1 am sure the task force would not want, nor would any of us in this House want, the very important substance of their recommendations to be detracted from by that particular observation.
Certainly there is no question about the position of this party nor, I think, about the position in this parliament regarding the determination of Canadians to achieve reforms in our federal arrangements that will accommodate and reflect the lively determination of various regions to find their own amusement within the context of a strong and united nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Someone across the way interjects that I did not say "federal", Mr. Speaker. In this party, and I hope in this chamber, it is not necessary for us to underline the reality that what we are looking at is a federal arrangement, a federal arrangement that will work, that can be strong and can accommodate the aspirations of all Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This task force is important in what it is and it is important in what it has done. It is a group of authoritative Canadians who do not have vested interest to protect, except a vested interest in the continuation of this country, and who are reporting to us today after extensive and direct consultations with the people of Canada.
What the task force has done is to propose several specific changes, some of which will be highly controversial here and certainly some of which will be highly controversial in the other place. The great service is that in this debate it has moved us above specifics to reflect the widespread belief that exists in Canada that some significant and fundamental changes are necessary if we are to maintain and preserve this nation.

As is known, Mr. Speaker, as leader of a national party I have had many opportunities to travel across the province of Quebec and to discuss with Quebeckers about possible changes in the nature of the society of a federalist country. I often noticed that for most Quebeckers it was not enough to speak only about specific changes, about detailed changes as in the case of culture and communications. What people seek in Quebec as well as in Alberta is an indication of a will to consider somewhat more deeply such changes that can help keep together the federal system and at the same time contribute to the well-being of Quebeckers and other citizens across Canada.
National Unity

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important that we move from a stage where we have been perhaps too occupied with details and recognize that there is, not simply among elected officials, among commissioners and task force members, but among the Canadians this task force has been consulting, a very real determination to contemplate some significant changes in the form of our federal nation in Canada.
One thing that it is very important for us all to recognize as we look at this report is that there are a number of matters which will require detailed discussion and which will ignite some significant disagreement in this chamber and in the country. I do not think it is appropriate to enter into that detailed discussion at this time, but I think it is worth drawing attention to some aspects of the report which are particularly important.
I am struck by the fact that for virtually the first time in a decade we have an extensive work done by an authoritative group on the serious and fundamental problem of the division of power in this country. Indeed, I think it is fair to say that this document reflects the first major study of the direction that a new distribution of power might take.
I think a very valuable contribution of the task force is the emphasis that has been placed, properly and importantly, on the need for improved co-operation among governments at federal and provincial levels to ensure that our economic policies are integrated and are moving forward together.
Again, I think it very valuable for the debate that is in progress in this nation that we have from the task force their recognition and description of the provinces of Canada as the principal vehicles of regional expression, including, and perhaps particularly including, the province of Quebec.
I think it is very important for us in this House to consider very seriously the changes that have been proposed in some of the national institutions, including to consider with an open mind some of the changes that have been proposed for the means of composition of this particular parliament. Those specific proposals put forward by the task force have been very helpful. Other proposals will lead to very serious concern in some parts of the country, particularly those relating to the rights and status of minority language groups in various provinces, and will require further discussion here and elsewhere.
It is important that we acknowledge that the road toward a strong and united nation requires a recognition that we are engaged here in a process. It requires, as the task force members pointed out, a much greater understanding of our country by Canadians. Each of us comes simply from one corner of it; we need to give much more attention than we have to means of getting Canadians to travel across the country, to make them more informed about regions other than their own. It clearly requires a high investment in tolerance and understanding in this country. It means that we have to build upon

January 25, 1979
National Unity
the successes we have had-and we have had some successes. But it means that we have to be prepared to put aside preconceptions that have not worked.
I would like to say at this time, Mr. Speaker, that I think we have followed for too long the pretence that a language policy or an amending formula or any other single act would unite this country, or indeed that a referendum or any other single act would destroy this country. So life is not as simple as theory is.
The task force report confirms the view that for some time now the constitutional policy of the central government has been dramatically out of step with reality in this country. Of course, some of the government's initiatives have been valuable, and the task force quite properly applauds, for example, the progress that has been made in easing and encouraging the access of Francophone Canadians to the services of, and to significant roles within, the national government.
But if individual programs have seen some success the general pattern of the decade since our centennial has been for the people and the parts of this country to move in one direction and the central government to move in the opposite direction. The stark conclusion of the work of the task force is devastating. I quote from page 35 of the English version:
One of the principal sources of the crisis is the erosion of the belief that the current arrangements of the country promote the common good.
Sir, what is important for parliament to recognize is that it is not simply a case of some of the current arrangements becoming out-moded, although that has happened; it is also that some of the new arrangements imposed by this government go against the grain of the country. This government has resisted regional aspirations when they should have embraced those aspirations. They have concentrated political power when some of that power should have been dispersed. They have been so preoccupied by their intellectual view of what Canada should be that they have ignored what this nation is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: All of us who have the opportunity to travel the country know that we have every reason for confidence. Indeed, all of us who have the opportunity to travel the world-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and if I may in passing, I suggest to hon. members opposite that if they want to know the world better, it would be best for them to travel themselves and not rely upon journalistic reports.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Certainly anyone who has the opportunity to compare the resource potential and the cultural potential of

this nation with the potential of other nations knows that we have every reason for confidence in the future of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are very much a country to grow in. [Translation]
And I think that there is a statement in this report which must be emphasized. It is to the effect that Quebeckers are now less concerned about their survival and more about their development. That is a very significant change in attitude. They have moved from a negative to a positive approach. More than ever Quebeckers feel proud and sure of themselves. And I am convinced that most Quebeckers are aware that a new Canada would facilitate their development which I feel is of paramount importance to all Canadians.
Reforms are necessary, but the best spring board to achieve this development of the Quebec people is a country filled with opportunities, and Canada is such a country.

The first ministers are meeting again in constitutional conference in a few days. I would certainly hope that if it fits their agenda it will be possible for them to consider the report that has been put down by the Task Force on Canadian Unity. But I also hope the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will indicate his willingness today to refer this report to the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada that has been established by this House and by the other place so that it will be possible for the House of Commons, which is the central legislative agency of this country, and the Senate to carry on discussion of some of the very important new dimensions that have been given to this debate by the report which we have been honoured to receive in this parliament today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that in my view and that of my colleagues all Canadians should thank the commissioners for the very fine work that they have done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: As has already been indicated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark), the commissioners have taken a serious and comprehensive look at the problem of national unity, recognizing it has very complex economic, social and political dimensions. The commission has ably explained our heritage and our difficulty in language that Canadians can clearly understand. But importantly Mr. Speaker, they have provided Canadians with an opportunity to look at our complex situation in a very positive context.

The report of the task force certainly contains precise recommendations, but it is mostly with a wide open approach that it indicates the way to build a new Canada and ensure
January 25, 1979

national unity. The task force strongly affirms its commitment to federalism. It also emphasizes that the uniqueness of Quebec's culture may be preserved and fully developed within a united Canada. We agree with that statement.

The report shows that Canadians throughout our various regions, and not simply in Quebec, have legitimate grievances with both the present structure of federalism and with the ongoing nature of government policies. It has proposed a number of workable solutions to these grievances. I find it refreshing that the task force recognizes the problem of national unity is not simply a constitutional matter and that the development of the national economy for the benefit of all Canadians in all parts of the country is a crucial element in keeping us united.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The commission recognizes the necessity for an industrial strategy, and makes it clear, contrary to some of the reports that have appeared in the press, that to achieve this there can be no substitute for the federal government having the major economic power in this country. This is a point which I have been stressing for many months and I welcome the report's clarity in this regard.
As for some of the specific proposals and recommendations contained in their report, I want simply to say that there are a great many which are positive and beneficial as well as some, as should be expected, which ultimately a number of us will have to disagree with. In terms of the positive ones, I think particularly of the highly imaginative and constructive approach it has taken in recommending a list of several categories of powers to be distributed between the federal and provincial governments. I repeat, this is one of the most imaginative and constructive parts of the report and requires the most serious consideration by members on both sides of this House as well as the provincial governments.
I think also of the acceptance of the proposal I made on behalf of my party to strengthen regional input in Ottawa by adding additional members to the House of Commons on a proportional representation basis from the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: In the days between now and the first ministers' conference, my colleagues and I will be studying the report very carefully indeed. I will therefore refrain at this point from making any further comments on specific recommendations of the commission. I want, however, this afternoon to draw particular attention to the framework for constitutional reform suggested by the commission because I think it is singularly appropriate.
At one point in its report the commission lays out three objectives of constitutional change. They are as follows. First, to ensure that our central institutions can effectively serve our common interests as a nation. Second, to provide means of
National Unity
greater institutional responsiveness to regional and provincial desires for more effective local control and for a more effective influence on decisions that are to be made and ought to be made in Ottawa. Third, to provide for the majority of Quebe-cois an effective federal means of ensuring that their distinctive cultural and social ideals can not only be maintained, but can flourish.
I speak on behalf of my colleagues, and I suspect in this context on behalf of all members of the House, when I say that those of us who have the heavy responsibility-and it is heavy-for acting and voting on these matters could not work from within a better framework in dealing with the constitutional aspects of national unity than that provided for us by this commission. I repeat my thanks.
I want to conclude my remarks this afternoon by stressing that constitutions can provide a nation only with a framework. No constitution, however good, ever held a nation together. A country as complex and as rich as ours, in particular, can work only if its politicians make the right policy decisions and convey the right set of attitudes over a period of time.
The question of continuing political leadership in the broadest sense is therefore crucial to any federal state. In our own day, I cannot overemphasize the relevance of economic policy on the one hand, and an honest, Canadian nationalism recognizing what the commission has called our duality on the other. As I said in a debate on this subject which took place in parliament a year ago, we as politicians should be noting with pride the remarkable creative accomplishments by French and English speaking Canadians, particularly, but by no means exclusively, during the past two decades.
Simultaneously, we should at long last be charting a course in which Canadians would gain economic control of our country. In short, given the proper constitution, we politicians must convince Canadians in Atlantic Canada, Quebec and the west that we as a people, can create a country that is both just and exciting. Ultimately, it is that which holds a nation together.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the commission on Canadian harmony, as I would call it, has tabled its report. Since I have just skimmed through it, I cannot voice an enlightening opinion on its substance. Even the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) expressed reservations in his statement because he had not had time to read it entirely and ponder over it. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, that all my colleagues will realize that I am entirely justified in making this point clear.
In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, this report comes in just at the right time because a federal-provincial conference likely to determine the future of our country will be held in February. This is why I urge all members to study this report carefully because it was prepared following investigations and hearings held across the entire country. As the right hon. Prime Minis-

January 25, 1979
National Unity
ter put it eloquently, the commissioners have succeeded in presenting a unanimous report even if they were of different views. Some of them had reservations about certain points but they overcame this in their desire to present a unanimous front to help the federal and provincial governments work out a new constitution.
Mr. Speaker, in the name of my party, I also wish to thank the members of the task force who have done a very commendable job and who had to work many evenings to table a report that will serve as a guide to the federal government, the Canadian parliament, as well as the provincial governments of our country.
Mr. Speaker, I would like that a copy of this document be made available to all Canadians so that they could realize the seriousness of the situation and be sufficiently informed when the time comes to take a final decision to accept or reject a new constitution which would guide our country in a future of harmony and progress.
Mr. Speaker, when I was a schoolboy and saw a large colour painting of the fathers of confederation, I was impressed by the solemnity of their faces and the magnificence of their clothes. I could feel these Canadians had worked to give our country a constitution we could be proud of and which would enable us to live in harmony on our land, and that both English and French-speaking Canadians would share this land, secure from the quarrels that divide us and make us unhappy. Today, in the statements that have just been made by the spokesmen for the various parties, I heard the word "Quebec" which kept cropping up in their vocabulary. Well, Mr. Speaker, I for one would not like you to be concerned about Quebec owing to the possibility of a government who wants to hold a referendum to decide whether Quebec will remain in the confederation or not.
Mr. Speaker, our nation is a more serious reality than that. We must, and that is our responsibility, give our country a new constitution. It has been long enough since we started discussing whether or not we are going to repatriate the 1867 constitution. And I believe, and I already said so in the House at the time of the debate on the right hon. Prime Minister's motion in July 1978, that it is important for us to give our country a new constitution. I ,made proposals at that time concerning the way the new constitution should be prepared, either by the public, or by our civic groups, by all serious organizations in our country, as long as they are not political groups, which would be able to submit consistent views in order to help our politicians in their efforts to draft a new constitution which would give any Canadian equal chances, regardless of his language, religion or province of origin.
And I am convinced of one thing, Mr. Speaker, that is every province in our country wants self-determination. I can see here in the task force's report a passage which roused my curiosity earlier today, a very meaningful passage, at page 74

of the English version, in the chapter entitled "The Quebec economy and federation." What did the commissioners say?
Quebec's dissatisfaction with Confederation goes beyond economic considerations. It is rooted in the Canadian federal system which in the eyes of Quebecois has somehow failed to give Quebec the desired degree of political autonomy in several important policy areas. While the issues are exceedingly complex they largely revolve around political matters such as the distribution of powers.
In that respect all governments in Canada, whatever their political colours, must plead guilty. We have to admit that openly because the constitution of 1867 was not applied to the letter and the central power in many cases took away from the provinces the areas of jurisdiction that presented provincial governments from fully exercising their responsibilities with respect to their subjects. I am not blaming anyone here, I am merely stating a fact, and the commissioners continue to want that. And yet, in the debate surrounding the possibility of seeing Quebec separate from the rest of Canada, economic questions play a large role.
Mr. Speaker, if economic questions play a large role, we must include financial questions. I am sorry, I read again in yesterday's La Presse that the government of Quebec was going to borrow another $150 million in the United States. Mr. Speaker, as long-and here I urge the right hon. Prime Minister to think seriously about this-as the Parliament of Canada and the government do not take the responsibilities so that the matter of the creation of the money supply in this country is not the responsibility of chartered banks but the responsibility of the government through the Bank of Canada, we are going to have problems of that nature. Canadian harmony will not be possible because the various governments go beg abroad the permission to develop our natural resources for the benefit of Canadians. I am sorry that the commissioners-at least I did not see it-did not deal with that aspect of the problem that divides Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by commenting on what the Prime Minister said in his statement earlier. He insisted on the objectives set out by the task force on page 4 of considering that diversity as a national resource and not a social problem. On that I agree, we cannot all be the same. There are as many diversities as there are individuals. There are as many diversities as there are cultures. And in spite of that, it could be possible to live in harmony if we used the means to make us more mutually harmonious, to understand one another better and have equal opportunity to live decently right across this country, whether it be in Newfoundland or Vancouver, Quebec city or New Brunswick. That must be provided in a new constitution, and I for one, as a Canadian, am prepared to make the necessary efforts and to encourage greater sensitivity to the Canadian dimension of our lives as it is said at page 4 in the Prime Minister's statement. I agree with that but it should not be only empty words.
We will have to act, we must show courage, and our policies should not be dictated by financiers who are growing ever

January 25, 1979

richer at the expense of the government, at the expense of the poor. That situation must come to an end and this is the only way to have harmony in Canada. I am prepared to co-operate with the Prime Minister and with parliament. We should stop praising each other, we should tell the truth. We must now suggest means and solutions. Many times people have laughed at Social Credit members and their financial options. That was called "funny money", but considering what our dollar is worth today it is no longer funny.
Everyone bows before international finance. This has gone on long enough. It is time to stand up straight. Let us show that we are proud people who can take our responsibilities, that this parliament, its 264 members, its Prime Minister and ministers are able to take their responsibilities, and we shall see that there will be harmony in our country whatever our age, our religion, and our linguistic policy may be.
The Prime Minister has made enormous efforts. There have been resignations in his cabinet. However, these efforts must continue because it is essential that, from the east to the west and the north to the south of our country, each Canadian who wishes to speak English or French can do so with dignity without being embarrassed and that each Canadian can communicate with the Canadian government institutions in the language of his choice. I am not ashamed to say so, Mr. Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In order that we might be assured that the very valuable report by the task force not be lost to this parliament, I wonder if the Prime Minister would give us an undertaking now that it would be his intention either to reconstitute the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada and refer the document to that reconstituted committee, or refer it to a standing committee of the House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government, in the Speech from the Throne at the beginning of the session, indicated that it was anxious to bring the constitution and the whole unity problem before parliament for debate. The Leader of the Opposition is suggesting one way, to which I will give consideration; but I suggest we should wait for the first ministers' conference, which will be held in about ten days, and see the results of it, following which perhaps we will find it more profitable to introduce the debate in some other form in the House.


Hon. James Richardson (Winnipeg South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). As the Prime Minister knows, the Task Force on Canadian Unity travelled extensively in Canada and heard many views. I know something about those views because I participated at the meeting in Winnipeg and made a presentation to the task force, but the report that we have before us today in many respects does not reflect the view of the
National Unity
Canadian people which I heard expressed not only in Winnipeg but in other places. On the other hand, it seems to follow very closely the pattern of the old Bill C-60 which was before the House and "A Time for Action" to which the Prime Minister himself referred a few moments ago.
My question to the Prime Minister is whether he believes that this report which we have before us today is a reflection of the will of the people of Canada, or is it just a reflection of a few hand-picked members of the task force?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


James Armstrong Richardson: I ask the Prime Minister in all sincerity, through you, Mr. Speaker, is he hearing from the people or is he hearing from a few members of the task force who are echoing his own words?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will point out to the hon. member that the task force was not just composed of a few members but was made up of a large group of Canadians from all walks of life and all parts of Canada, and they spoke with one unanimous voice. I think it is demeaning to them to suggest that they are merely echoing the government's policies. If the hon. member were to address himself to some of the recommendations, he would see that there are some divergencies, some honest ones.
As to whether or not they speak for the people of Canada, I think they did their best to reflect remedies which would be good for Canada. That is not to say that all Canadians are aware of what those remedies are. I think the hon. member is an illustrious example of one member who does not seem to be aware of what is necessary to keep Canada united now.
As to who speaks for Canada, I imagine no one speaks for Canada more than the parties in the House, and the four leaders of the parties have said that generally they support the task force report. So it would seem to me that the hon. member is rather in a minority in suggesting that this report is not important and does not correspond to the needs of Canada at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister, both in the context of what the report recommends and of the forthcoming first ministers' conference, if it is still the government's plan, if it does not get very substantial agreement at the first ministers' conference, to go ahead and propose during the life of this parliament a form of legislation to the House, amendments to the constitution as they pertain to areas that are exclusively within federal jurisdiction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if a consensus developed at the first ministers' conference, I think the House would want to look at it and decide in what way it could appropriately move forward with this consensus. I cannot predict what will happen at the first ministers' conference, but the leader of the NDP asks if we would move on some things. It would really depend.

National Unity
I do not think that just a partial agreement on some items but profound disagreement on others would necessarily lead us to present a reformed Bill C-60 in the House or some other resolution. In other words, in some areas the federal government is making very sizeable suggestions to the provinces for transfer of powers to the provinces. In return, we expect the provinces to accommodate, as the task force itself suggests, to the need for greater federal powers in other areas. I cannot predict what the position of the provinces will be, and therefore I cannot attempt to answer the question.


John Edward Broadbent: I am not sure if the question was put with great precision but I certainly think it was not precisely understood. I am asking the Prime Minister, in those areas constitutionally within federal jurisdiction but which are of interest to the provinces, if the Government of Canada does not obtain agreement at this conference on a change within those areas, the government intends to provide legislation during the life of this parliament?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand the question. As a matter of theory, of law, of the constitution, the government still holds that section 91(1) of the constitution would permit us to move in areas of federal jurisdiction even if the provinces do not agree. That is still the position of the government.


An hon. Member:: Do you plan to do it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Whether or not I plan to do it would depend on what emerges from the conference. If the provinces are reasonable in suggesting modifications to the proposed Bill C-60, we will be reasonable in accepting those proposals.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister if the agenda of the next federal-provincial conference has been prepared and submitted to the governments of the various provinces. If not, does the Prime Minister plan to include-with the agreement of the other governments, of course-consideration of the report of the Pepin-Robarts Commission on the agenda of the next federal-provincial conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the last time I wrote the provincial premiers, which was several weeks ago, we were not aware that this report would be submitted before the conference, and consequently, I could not foresee the situation mentioned by the hon. member. The Minister of Transport, who was in Vancouver yesterday, has informed me that the provincial delegations have in fact begun to discuss this report. One way or another the contents of this report will probably come into play during our discussions in early February. I cannot give any guarantees to the hon. member that the premiers will want to make this a special item on the agenda, but I shall consider the question of the hon. member when finalizing the agenda.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the right hon. Prime Minister. I noticed during the next before last federal-provincial conference one fact in particular, which is that the right hon. gentleman submitted to the provinces a number of considerations to try and come to an understanding and draft a new constitution. If I am wrong, I hope the right hon. gentleman will correct me. In the spirit of the October conference, were the Canadian government and the provinces in agreement to try and evolve a new constitution to correct the current shortcomings and sources of disagreement, and if so will it be possible, even though the Prime Minister suggests provincial governments are aware of it, to try and include this in the agenda, so that they will be a good start, because I feel this is the key conference?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I share the hon. member's view that this indeed is a key conference. I can assure him that at the end of the October and early November conference there was no universal agreement. But on the issue of particular interest to the hon. member, I can assure him that all first ministers were in agreement to suggest that the need for constitutional reform is real and urgent.


Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, although I did not have time to read the report in detail, I find in it an eloquent reference to the need for entrenching basic rights in our constitution, in our constitutional system. Could the Prime Minister state whether he feels the government's policy in this area is strengthened by the report, and whether it is still government policy to entrench basic rights and language rights? In the absence of agreement among all provinces, entrenchment should at least proceed on federal rights, language rights and basic rights, so that provinces wishing to do so can do so for federal rights and others in those provinces, which would give language rights to Acadians because it is the New Brunswick government's position to look for entrenchment of those rights.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: To the hon. member's first two questions the answer is yes. We consider that those aims are indeed essential. But as for the procedure mentioned by the hon. member, I would refer him to last session's Bill C-60. There he will find that was precisely the procedure suggested by the government, namely to ensure protection of linguistic rights at the federal level as well as in the provinces which would accept to be committed by that protection, that basic charter of human, citizen rights. But I must add that at the upcoming conference we will have to keep an open mind to see whether there are other techniques to achieve the results the hon. member and I are hoping for.


Mr. Speaker:: We will conclude the questioning with the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the report contains a number of pages which deal with native and Indian rights. I should like to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) what his thinking is on that important question. There is a lot of concern about treaty rights and land entitlements, and now there is a dispute between the federal and provincial governments over such matters as health care and education. Some interesting recommendations were made in the report concerning Indian language and culture, as well as the constitutional position of first Canadians. What is the Prime Minister's reaction to these recommendations? Of course, this is something the Indian peoples are very interested in.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I support entirely the position of the commission when it indicated that native peoples have a special place in Canada. The commission went on to point out that apart from the linguistic duality, the heritage from the British Isles and France, we have to add the so-called third group of new Canadians; but we must take into account the rights and obligations of the oldest Canadians, the native peoples. In principle, the report is very concerned and very correct in pointing that out. As I have indicated, some of its recommendations will bear further discussion not only by the government but by all members of the House before we can give an answer.


REFERENCE TO STANDING COMMITTEE OF DOCUMENT &quot;THE MANAGEMENT OF CANADA'S NUCLEAR WASTES&quot; AND EVIDENCE ADDUCED THEREON
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions:
January 23, 1979-The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources:
That the document entitled "The Management of Canada's Nuclear Wastes", tabled in the House on Tuesday, November 22, 1977 (Sessional Paper No. 303-4/96), together with the evidence adduced thereon in the Third Session of the Thirtieth Parliament, be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 21(2), this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders at the next sitting of the House.

[ Translation]


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 421, 596, 632 and 830.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	How many trucks, vans, mobile units, passenger cars, etc., are owned by CBC throughout Canada and what is their total value?
2.	How many vehicles are leased by CBC and what is the total annual cost?
3.	What is the total annual cost to CBC to operate such vehicles?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. As of March 31, 1978, CBC owned 540 vehicles (trucks, vans, mobile units, automobiles, etc.) with a net book value of $1.3 million.
2.	As of March 31, 1978, CBC had under lease 259 vehicles. During the fiscal year April 1, 1977 to March 31, 1978, the corporation's leasing expenditures, including vehicles leased on a per occasion basis, amounted to $1.4 million.
3.	Total operating and maintenance costs for both owned and leased vehicles during the fiscal year ending March 31, 1978 amounted to $1.2 million.


Mr. Neil: 1.	What has been the annual cost of the Metric Commission since its inception?
2.	In each year since its inception, how many sector committee meetings have been held and what sums have been paid for travel and living expenses for such meetings?
3.	What has been the cost to date of (a) printing (b) publishing (c) distributing the publication Metric Monitorl


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: '('he Metric Commission Canada expenditures have been:
1. 1971-72	$ 44,541
1972-73	$ 530,943
1973-74	$1,590,792
1974-75	$2,634,101
1975-76	$3,316,100
1976-77	$4,380,300
1977-78	$5,753,000
1978-79	$5,974,300 (estimated costs)
2. The annual number of sector committee meetings held Metric Commission Canada is:	
1971	nil
1972	2
1973	113
1974	248
1975	292
1976	371
1977	487
1978	488

January 25, 1979
Order Paper Questions
Travel expenditures, by fiscal year, for attendance at sector committee meetings are estimated at:
1971-72		nil
1972-73	$	16,6861973-74	$	46,1361974-75	$	140,1031975-76	$	161,6001976-77	$	232,9001977-78	$	290,9001978-79	$	418,300
3. (a) and (b)
The contracts since the inception of the Metric Monitor for printing and publishing decided by Supply and Services on a competitive bid system are as follows:
	Printing	Publishing
1974	$ 26,250	$ 8,7501975	$ 45,000	$ 15,0001976	$ 56,000	$ 16,0001977	$ 67,344	$ 21,0001978	$ 67,344	$ 20,000(c)	The distributing	expenses for	the Metric Monitorestimated at:	1974	$ 18,012.001975	$ 91,205.001976	$109,446.001977	$115,743.261978	$ 89,330.00


Mr. Epp: 1.	Is Mr. Douglas Rowland joining the staff of the Federal-Provincial Office and, if so (a) what will be his classification (b) are any renumerations other than salary to be paid to him?
2.	What will be his specific duties and responsibilities?


Yvon Pinard: 1. Yes. (a) SX-2. (b) No.
2. Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet (Studies and Research Group).
(Under the general direction of the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary (Federal-Provincial Relations) and in collaboration with the Assistant Secretary (Federal-Provincial Relations), the Assistant Secretary (Policy and Program Review) (Federal-Provincial Relations) and the Director of the Constitutional Review Section, directs the planning, co-ordination, development and presentation to cabinet committee and to cabinet, of studies across the whole spectrum of government activities with a view to developing concepts (and alternatives), for the consideration of ministers, of the ideal role for the federal government and for the provincial governments in each field of activity; assessments of federal-provincial relations by province or by region; evaluations of the impact of the

broad mix of federal policies and programs on provinces, regions and on national unity.)


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	Since 1968, did the Ministry of State for Science and Technology finance projects in the Constituency of Richmond 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 Ministry planning to do so in the near future and, if so (a) what will be the amount (b) in which areas?


Mr. Pierre Bussieres (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the Ministry of State for Science and Technology is concerned: None.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, January 24, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen (for Mr. Trudeau) that Bill C-35, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to spend a few moments participating in this debate in two capacities: first, as the very proud representative of the largest fishing constituency in all of North America, not merely in Canada, on the south coast of Newfoundland; and also as Secretary of State for External Affairs, where the impact of the 200-mile limit, in which I am very pleased to have played a part, is a major matter of concern and indeed already some satisfaction for me.
In the amount of time available obviously it will not be possible to touch on all matters I would like to deal with in this particular debate. However, with the indulgence of the House, I will attempt to answer a number of questions which were raised from time to time, and also to give my views reflecting conversations which I have had with fishing interests in eastern Canada over many years.
January 25, 1979

Hon. members will understand and appreciate that I will be speaking principally about Newfoundland fishery matters, but that much of what I have to say applies with equal weight to all of the Atlantic fishing area. In the first place, this debate, as well as other discussions which have taken place over the years and in recent months in the House, have been extremely productive and have revealed that on fundamental questions there is a high level of agreement about fishery prospects. Now we can look to the future of the fishing industry with much more confidence and optimism than at any time in the past.
It would be a mistake to argue that there are no longer differences of view, but such differences as there are, some of which are substantial, have been revealed in discussions between members on this side of the House and members opposite, and even in discussions between members opposite themselves. The differences have more to do with methods and timing of expansion, but, most importantly, with where the economic control will lie in terms of the future expanded fishery to which we have referred.
One of the most useful results of the intensive talks was the demolition of a number of hardy and persistent myths about the fishery and the revelation that much conventional wisdom needs to be challenged vigorously. Today I hope to be able to challenge some of that conventional wisdom, not only as it is uttered from time to time here, but, perhaps more importantly, as ii is uttered by pseudo experts on the outside who would probably not know a dory from a prairie schooner if they were hit on the heads with the two of them at the same time.
There are two basic questions which are central to the current discussions: first, what is the nature and potential of the fisheries resource; and second, what is the best manner to exploit it to achieve maximum benefits for Newfoundland, Newfoundlanders and, by implication, all Canadians?
It is evident from the statistics and the detailed discussions in many fora that while the 200-mile limit and various conservation measures have been of great help, as well as various things which the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) introduced, the fishery stock situation has now turned around. To use a familiar expression, we have bottomed out. I think the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment would be the first one to agree with me.
There will not be a dramatic overnight recovery. Even with good management practices, it will take from five to ten years to rebuild the stocks of most species that are or are likely to be important to eastern Canada. This gradual, orderly build-up is, in my view, a good thing. It will permit the expansion of the fishery to proceed in a well organized, coherent way on the three important and integrated fronts of catching, processing and marketing. Clearly, all three must be kept in phase, and there is recognition on all sides now, I believe, that our markets are not sufficiently diversified and are in a more precarious state than is generally realized.
I could spend a great deal of time deflating some of the myths that I have referred to which seem to suggest that the
Government Organization
market situation is now one of being essentially a seller situation and that we can do virtually whatever we wish. My day to day experiences as Secretary of State for External Affairs make it perfectly clear to me that the road to better markets in the future is by no means wide open to us as yet, and that we must take a number of very careful steps if we are not to set back another decade or more the very useful, forward motion that has been introduced in the last couple of years.
We must therefore avoid being carried away by grandiose schemes and over-optimistic, exotic solutions, even though these may be appealing and on first utterance may seem to provide many of the answers. I believe it is essential that we examine all proposals for fishery development carefully and with the greatest degree of hard-nosed realism.
We must recognize, for example, that by itself the fishery cannot answer all of the economic problems of Atlantic Canada, but particularly of Newfoundland, and cannot be everywhere the employer of last resort, even if our best expectations for the industry are realized. Nevertheless, fishery development along modern lines is the best economic generator Newfoundland can have.
I have a few reasons for saying that which I would like to explain to hon. members. First, the fishery is a resource-based industry, and a renewable resource at that. Second, many aspects of the fishery are labour-intensive and therefore tremendously important in an area of high unemployment. Third, the fishery is a widely dispersed industry geographically; and fourth, a fishery-generated dollar stays in Newfoundland longer, and thus circulates more frequently among many more Newfoundlanders. I would venture to bet that it could be demonstrated by economists that a fishery dollar in the Atlantic provinces is infinitely more valuable-perhaps by three, four or five times-than any other dollar generated, let us say, from secondary industry or from some other source.
There is another overriding reason for the special place and importance of the fishery in Newfoundland. It is part of the social fabric of the province and the main supporter of a distinctive lifestyle. Whatever other elements are added, the Newfoundland fishery must be the key and foundation for any development strategy. Having reached this inescapable conclusion, we must then address ourselves to the basic question of how fisheries development should proceed.
I would like at this moment, Mr. Speaker, to express my congratulations to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment and my admiration for him for the very thorough and solid approach which he has taken to fisheries development in eastern Canada and in the country at large. I do not believe that even the most vehement partisan in the country could possibly argue against the very clear and concise manner in which he has proceeded. Certainly, there are very few fishermen in Newfoundland who are likely to be in any way contradictory in their assessments and their views. By the same token, I think it is also to the minister's credit that he has resisted some of the grandiose plans to which I have referred and that he has been so patient in seeking to examine all of the

January 25, 1979
Government Organization
ramifications of various proposals that are put forward. It is eminently sensible for us now, for the first time in Newfoundland's 450 years of history, to say that we are going to take this revived resource and use it properly, something which we probably have not done since John Cabot made his first report in 1497 "that you could catch fish in a basket weighted with stones". From that day on, there has never been a coherent fisheries policy in eastern Canada, and the minister is starting now to put one together.
One of the myths which I consider has been laid to rest is that there are essentially two fisheries. All of my life, growing up in fishing villages on the coast of Newfoundland, I have heard people talk about the two fisheries as if they were indeed water-tight compartments, if you could have water-tight compartments in the fisheries context. They are described as the inshore and the offshore or deep sea fisheries.
This is a long-standing and widely-held misconception. The fact is that how the offshore fishery is managed determines the fate of the inshore fishery, and thus the fate of thousands of inshore fishermen. If too many fish are caught offshore, then there will not be enough for the inshore fishermen; if you limit the offshore catches to revive the stocks, then the inshore fisheries flourish. It is a simple, straightforward equation, and it puzzles me why it is so difficult to get the fundamentals of that statement through the heads of many people involved in the fishing industry in Canada.
It must be emphasized, of course, that the inshore and the offshore fisheries are not mutually exclusive. It is not just a question of saying that if you have the inshore you can have the offshore, and it is not a matter of having one or the other. It is very much a question of balance, and in considering what that balance should be, I believe there is now unanimous agreement-certainly there is agreement between myself and the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, and perhaps in fisheries terms that has some relevance and importance-that the inshore fishery comes first. The primary objective and the first task is to build up the opportunities and the livelihoods of Newfoundland's existing inshore fishermen and to make it attractive for many others to enter this fishery around the province, but particularly for those who are familiar with the geography along the northeast coast.
Since this is the goal without which no fishery strategy can be successful, it therefore follows that policies on fleet development-our over-all catching capability-are of crucial importance, far too important for us to allow the development to take place helter-skelter or for us to encourage some individual enterprise, no matter how well meaning, that might very well be out of phase with the comprehensive plan which must have as its central goal the protection of that huge number of inshore fishermen in our province and throughout eastern Canada.
There is no serious shortage of catching capability at present in the Newfoundland fishery. This is another of the myths which I wish I could explode, and I hope that I will have the

opportunity of doing so today, at least for those who are particularly interested.
I would emphasize once again that my constituency, ranges along close to 900 miles of coastline and it has approximately 20 of the largest fish plants in North America and some of the most skilled fishermen to be found anywhere, whose livelihood is studied by people from all over the world seeking to improve the lot of their fishermen. Therefore, I believe that my sources are impeccable, and I would take them by a long shot over theories of those people who, in good will and with all manner of initiative, would undertake separate enterprises.
When I talk to my constituents, these fishermen, who, by the way, are among the few in eastern Canada or Newfoundland who are on the grounds now in mid-winter, who have a most difficult lifestyle and deserve my respect and my attention, their message to me up and down the coast is that there really is not a serious shortage of catching capability at the present time, inshore or offshore.
There are some special problems, Mr. Speaker, and these are areas that require attention. As decent-minded and fair-minded people anywhere will acknowledge, the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment has not been rigid and we have moved to take care of some of these special problems. In the case of the deep sea fishery, there are areas where particular plants have not been well served, and through the minister we have made accommodations to them.
In the case of the deep sea fishery generally, however, all the stern trawlers-now the majority of the offshore fleet-are still operating at catch rates considerably below capacity. I believe that this is an important consideration for us, but not merely in the context of the offshore. If I can translate this into the larger issue of an industrial strategy for Canada, this is a classic example, in minuscule, of what we mean when we talk about optimizing our productive capability.
This fleet of vessels by and large is underutilized, and therefore we must ensure that instead of bringing in half loads or three-quarters on a trip over ten or twelve days, these vessels are maximized to bring in full loads, perhaps in a shorter time. Faster turnarounds would make sure that the vessels are maximized in terms of their capability of contributing to the general well-being of the industry. That is what the minister and governments, both federal and provincial, must look at. This is not because in some particular or other an entrepreneur may wish to add to the fleet in a specific way; rather the question is whether the totality of the catch capability is being utilized to the maximum extent.
As for the inshore fishery, Mr. Speaker, many fishermen are turning away from the more expensive boats. This is a fascinating phenomenon and the wise, experienced fishermen in Newfoundland for years have been telling me it was going to happen.
If I may be critical of the theorists and indeed of some of the minister's bureaucrats-I am sure he will not be offended
January 25, 1979

by this-there was a period when big was considered beautiful in fisheries terms.


Mr. Alexander:: Oh, oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) may not be referring to my physique when he talks about big being beautiful. He is beautiful, whether big or little,
I can assure him.
In this context let me say that here is a prime example of the failure over many years to understand that the fishermen knew best. In many cases we were telling them: "You are not really as well off as you think you are because you ought to have a bigger boat, you ought to have a more complex operation." The result was that much policy-federal, provincial and private-was aimed in that particular direction. I repeat, these larger, more expensive boats are being questioned now and the fishermen are preferring smaller fishing units with smaller crews, less overhead and carrying charges, for the simple reason that they wind up with more money in their pockets at the end of the day.
When we talk in developmental terms about expansion, growth and things of this nature, I think we must always bear in mind the very germane lesson of the fishermen. You can have a fisherman as industrious as any get out with a 300-foot boat capable of being used for a variety of purposes, which costs a minimum amount of money but has modern gear, is equipped with radar and safety features. With one assistant he is going to do very well. If instead of a 30-foot boat he gets a 60-foot boat, then he has a crew of four or five people, he is paying off a mortgage no matter how generous the terms, he has added fuel costs and a whole range of other things. Although it looks great, the harbour is "cheeched" from one end to the other with large vessels. His profit is actually smaller than when he was dealing, as we say, cross-handed or with one or two people aboard with him.
In these talks about fisheries, Mr. Speaker, I have always a tendency to lapse into the vernacular. If some of the words do not convey themselves in either official language to the interpreter, I apologize.
There is much more I could say on the subject but I want to move on. Based on the fundamental assumption that the inshore fishery must be put in a healthy condition, it can be concluded-I have already concluded and am prepared to defend my conclusion anywhere before any audience at any time-that the provision of an adequate mix of inshore fishing vessels able to meet all anticipated needs is not an insurmountable or even serious problem provided all parties work together to devise practical programs of financing, orderly expansion and, of great importance, catch disposal. What I am seeking to convey is the idea that it is wrong to look through the small end of the telescope and see the problem as bein', of such proportions that it is simply not capable of being managed.
Just taking a figure out of the air, if you have 5,000 inshore fishermen at a cost per boat of $40,000 or $50,000, you say that is a massive challenge. If you turn the telescope around, however, and realize it is a whole series of small, individual,
Government Organization
personal enterprises and deal with it in that fashion, and if the minister continues his humane and personal kinds of policies of sitting down with individual fishermen and groups of fishermen, then you do not have to talk in multi-million dollar terms.
Indeed, people in Newfoundland and in my riding would be perfectly happy if they were able to go to somebody and say, "I need $30,000 or $40,000. How do I go about getting it and what is the best arrangement?" If I have a criticism-which I have-of the bureaucratic structures that this government and every other government tends to create, it is that there is too little disposition to be attentive to the small entrepreneur who is not interested in becoming, and does not need a massive bureaucratic machine in order to become, self-supporting and perfectly content to be able to get off unemployment insurance or anything else that might be offered to him as an alternative.
I think it is important to recall again the linkage between the inshore and offshore fisheries. The greater the percentage of stocks assigned to inshore, the less complex the task of determining the size and make-up of necessary offshore fleets.
I want to make it clear, as anyone who has any association with fisheries will understand and agree, that what I have said about the inshore fishery does not mean that we cannot and must not have a most effective, most efficient, most modern offshore catching capability. What I am getting at and what I emphasize once again is that this mix and the emphasis put on the inshore fishery is going to determine the kind of fleet needed for offshore development. It is only possible to get this mix properly when you see the two in the same context. I realize I am getting into too much detail here for this particular audience.
This leads to another basic developmental proposition. The offshore vessel acquisition program must place the emphasis on the gradual replacement of the present fleet. The need is not for large numbers of additional vessels now; indeed, if there was a cornucopia of funds available, whether in the private sector or through governmental largesse, the answer for us on the east coast today is not suddenly to double the size of the offshore fishing fleet. What we need now is a sound, rational program which puts into place a clear picture of what the fishing fleet consists of at the present time-how old the vessels are, what is the point at which they start to become obsolete and less efficient-and then to put mechanisms in place, both public and private, so that new and modern vessels are phased in and therefore we increase our catching capability to synchronize with an increase in the stocks available. That is something which is terribly important and which will require the intricate co-operation of federal and provincial governments, fisheries representatives, the unions and everybody concerned.
By the way, I should add here that we also need to have a much better awareness than is universally held at this time about how we get at presently unexploited species. We have had a rather narrow range in terms of all of the various species

January 25, 1979
Government Organization
of fish in the Atlantic that have been attracted to Canadian processors or even to Canadian fishermen. I think we are on the road to this, but obviously there will be disageements; I have no difficulty with that. It is a question, however, of taking all of the parties concerned and discussing the matters in detail. With good will, I think we can work it out.
I want to emphasize this gradualness of the replacement program for the same reason that I talked about the inshore, and that is to counteract the erroneous impression-and it is very, very erroneous-that there is a massive and immediate need for a huge fleet of new, sophisticated offshore vessels. Perhaps those who are landlocked Canadians may welcome an explanation, if altogether too brief a one, of the costs involved. If we go to a new catching capability which will engage 10 or 12 fishermen at sea, the cost is in the many millions of dollars. That same expenditure, if it were put into inshore facilities, would engage many hundreds of persons. The relevant economics are very complex and have to be worked out so as to ensure that one does not get too large an increase in production capacity inshore.
At the same time one does not put all of the money into what is, in the absence of the proper balance, very much a high expenditure item in terms of fish fleet, capital cost in the first instance, and maintenance beyond that.
Whatever disagreements exist on this issue of fisheries-and I believe down underneath there are very few, but I repeat what I said at the beginning-there are differences of emphasis and differences of approaches, and for something as complex as the fisheries one could not really expect that not to be the case. But on the question of catching capacity there is no dispute whatever, so far as I have been able to see. I hope hon. members will understand that what I am seeking to do here is to demystify some of the frequent and repeated comments that one hears that are really not grounded in fact.
This basic conclusion which is so fundamental to what we are talking about is that in terms of conventional fish plants Newfoundland, and probably all of Atlantic Canada, have more than enough facilities, far more than enough facilities right now. So that once again when we speak of exploiting the 200-mile limit, it is not then a question of saying we are going to bring a large number of fish ashore-I have already demonstrated this is in itself a complex question-but also of saying that we must build a whole new massive infrastructure in order to look after it.
That is simply not the case. Virtually all of the plants that we have now are underutilized and their productivity is affected adversely. Some of them in seasonal areas are operating at 20 per cent, 30 per cent, or 35 per cent capacity, maybe a few even less, yet we continue to hear many reports of fishermen having to dump their catches at certain peak seasons and of some plants being unable to obtain extra ships to process additional supplies. This is a real dichotomy, a tremendous contradiction, and yet one that has so far defied some of the most intense planning that people have put into it. What we must do is to in a sense marry the supplies side to the

production side, and many good steps have been taken in that direction.
I want to emphasize here that the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment has been very forthcoming in terms of the amount of federal assistance provided through his department, through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and in a variety of other ways in co-operative undertakings with the provinces, in this case Newfoundland. I believe we have been moving at an accelerated rate toward this rationalization which is essentially what is so important for the future.
There is one point I want to make again, and I realize in talking about this subject that there are not many more than the Minister of Fisheries, myself and perhaps oui friend from the Magdalen Islands who will really understand what I am speaking about, and I hope they will forgive me for not going into more detail in the interest of saving time. One of the valuable things to emerge from the recent discussions has been to remove the curse, as it were, from that much maligned historical fishery which we refer to in Newfoundland and in Atlantic Canada as the trap fishery. For years claims have been heard that the trap fishery was a nuisance; too much small fish, the annual "glut" problem of catches too big in too short a time, and the wastefulness of dumped, unsaleable catches.
The tendency has been to "think around" the trap fishery, to contemplate its phase down or even its abandonment, and to consider it a nuisance to orderly planning. I do not know that there is an analogy in farming that I might use, but it is as though one had a crop that was 50 per cent of the value of the year's yield, but it was a bit of a nuisance and you kept saying to yourself: "How can I get rid of this particular crop?". It took us in our case maybe 450 years to realize that it is fundamental to what we are doing in fisheries on the east coast.
The fact is that without the trap fishery there simply cannot be a viable inshore fishery. The trap remains the most efficient catching method yet devised in inshore terms, and well over 50 per cent of the cod landings come from traps during the relatively short season. In brief, an effective inshore strategy must be built around the trap fishery. It must be the centrepiece and not, as it has been for centuries, an undesirable fringe.
I want to conclude with one or two important comments about the 200-mile limit and its ramifications. This is more in the context of my responsibilities as Secretary of State for External Affairs, although clearly there is an interface between that and my responsibilities as the member for the riding of Burin-Burgeo, soon to be Burin-St. George's. All of this new activity and new opportunities offered have been a result of the acquisition of the 200-mile limit. Few subjects can generate more enthusiasm these days. But let me caution the House that the misconceptions are legion also. These centre on all aspects of foreign participation, from quotas to joint ventures and non-Canadian ownership of processing facilities in Canada.

I:

January 25, 1979

It is becoming increasingly apparent that with only a lapse of two years this month since the declaration of the zone it is still too early for a consensus to emerge or for sound, longterm judgments to be made on some very fundamental questions. There are some known facts and others are now emerging after a period of just 24 months. The over-all picture is starting to clarify and we are learning what the choices are before us.
I think that it is of the utmost importance that we recognize that one cannot correct the abuses of literally centuries in two years. Nor is it possible in two years to get a total perspective on what new circumstances are to the point where one can put in place regulations or policies which are inscribed on tablets of stone and are incapable of being changed.
To start with the fundamentals, Canada now has exclusive fisheries jurisdiction out to a distance of 200 miles. The legal status of this jurisdiction in international terms is complex, but for practical purposes it can be said-and I want to say it this way-that Canada has first claim on all fish stocks in the designated region. Strictly speaking, Canada is not obliged to consult any other country on how it will manage the zone or on what disposition it makes of any of the living resources the zone contains. It is a very simple and straight forward proposition. Nevertheless, one question that has been raised repeatedly is, why not bar all foreign activity from the Canadian zone, in effect establish "a fence" 200 miles around the Newfoundland coast and keep all but Canadians out?
I want to deal with this point. It is I believe one of the misunderstandings that must be disposed of if we are to have effective future planning for fisheries. In time it could come to this point, that for policy reasons or otherwise we might be able to build this kind of fence. However, as things stand at the moment, there are a number of reasons why it is not wise to do so at the present time. Among these is the fact that there are some species within the zone that Canada does not take at present or where we cannot take all that is available. I believe this is an important consideration. The objective is to gain concessions for Canada from other countries by assigning the quota surplus, and I emphasize the word surplus, to Canada's needs on an interim basis. Such concessions include easier and wider access for our Newfoundland fish products for the countries in question, particularly Europe. Also, as I was able to demonstrate over the Christmas holiday, some of the concessions that we can obtain are, for instance, the ability to have some 60 odd Soviet fishing trawlers repaired and overhauled in our Newfoundland dockyards as a result of this 200-mile arrangement. All of these are matters which certainly argue for some degree of flexibility on the 200-mile zone.
I could spend a lot of time talking on many other aspects of the fence question, but I want to emphasize one in particular, and that is, as has often been said, that the fish will not know where the fence is. That is probably the most important consideration of all when it comes to answering the question why we do not bar everybody from 200 miles inward.
Government Organization
There are large quantities of fish-I believe the figure has been estimated in the order of 25 to 30 per cent of some species, certainly 20 per cent-that are actually outside the 200-mile area. These, of course, could be ravished. This would have a very detrimental effect if we did not have international agreement and understanding as to how those stocks were going to be dealt with.
We have the makings of that in the new organization which came into place on the first of this year, the successor organization to ICNAF, the International Commission for the North Atlantic Fisheries. I believe we are taking wise steps under the guidance of the Minister of Fisheries.
There was much more I wanted to say, but I think I have taken too much of the time of the House already.
I do want to make one final point. In all of the talk now going on about joint ventures and the like, rapid expansion and special new kinds of arrangements for fisheries, there is a real danger that both Canadians and foreigners may overestimate the degree of co-operation possible in the foreseeable future. The hard reality, not yet fully recognized, is that for most of the species in which foreigners are interested there is no surplus. This is something which has escaped a lot of people who talk in a rather airy-fairy fashion about fast expansion or rapid growth. It is quite the contrary. We are still short for our own immediate needs and the requirements of conservation and replenishment.
Put very starkly, the present opportunities for foreign cooperation are decidedly limited and, in this sense, the issue of joint ventures of various kinds is being grossly exaggerated in some quarters. This does not mean that opportunities are non-existent. It simply means we must look at them very carefully in each individual case where they arise. If we do that, we will form a pattern or rationale which will turn out in the end to be most beneficial as far as we in Canada are concerned.
These are the sum of the reservations expressed to me by many people, including, most importantly, all of the people for whom I have the greatest respect, namely the fishermen. They are not asking us to move into massive, astronomical kinds of expansion. They are not saying to us we are going too slowly. They are not saying we should be having big deals here, there and the other place, and all sorts of consortia and the like.
Many people in Newfoundland remember at least three major companies, all of them by coincidence in my constituency, which moved in the last time there appeared to be marvellous opportunities but which were not at all hesitant to turn the key as soon as things turned down. I can assure hon. members that memories are long about those kinds of experiences.
There are many more specific issues relating to fishery development on which at some point there should be the opportunity for detailed discussion in this House and elsewhere. In my mind, the union in Newfoundland is properly- and I have been supportive of this-stressing the key role of

January 25, 1979
Government Organization
the fishery as the foundation of the Newfoundland social structure. In other words, we are not talking here-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister but his allotted time has expired. He can continue only with unanimous consent. Does the minister have consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was down to the last paragraph. I was about to say, and I am grateful for your indulgence for permitting me to say it, that one of the most important things the union, more than any other group in Newfoundland, has been emphasizing has been that the key role of the fishery is the very basis and foundation of the social structure. The fisheries are to Newfoundland what the farm is to the prairies. It is a lot more than a secondary manufacturing industry, an automotive plant or something one finds in a large city. It is the industry. It is the activity around which the whole way of life is concentrated and centred.
In addition to the industrialization policies that the Minister of Fisheries has been pursuing, we must at the same time do everything we possibly can to reinforce and enhance that kind of lifestyle. By the way, it is not only rewarding to those who are concerned, but makes an enormous contribution to the fascinating mosaic of Canada. This is a lifestyle, a kind of vigour. This population can make a very sizeable contribution to Canadian unity and Canadian development as we were talking about it in a different context earlier this day.
I want to end on that note. This subject of the social impact of the fishery is sufficiently important to require a special and detailed discussion on an urgent basis. I urge my colleague the Minister of Fisheries to try to find the kind of fora in which this kind of thing can parallel what is now being done. If this can be done, there is no doubt that to Newfoundland the fishery is more than just another industry. It is important, even essential, that fishermen, the fish trades, governments and Newfoundlanders generally work together co-operatively to make the most of this new chance-and that is what the 200-miie limit is. The odds are that if we fail this time, that chance is not going to come again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I feel compelled to pay tribute to the eloquence of the previous speaker, who spoke about the romance of the fishery. I have never experienced that romance. I want to speak about the romance of another industry which is connected to this reorganization which we are speaking about today.
It has been said that there are nutritional qualities in fish that help the brain. I assume that must be true. I am, however, compelled to think that other things that are said about Newfoundlanders must be true as well, because I have been reading the speeches made in defence of the fishing industry in 1971 when fisheries became a minor department under the new Department of the Environment. It has often been said

that Newfoundlanders put the cart before the horse. I really wonder about the mess the fishing industry has been in all these years when those members have been in power and have had the direction over that important industry.
The latest attempts at government reorganization remind me of something a recognized member of the forestry industry said recently. He said that he does not get any great feeling of optimism that we are really making progress; that while things are being changed, he is not sure they are being improved. This bill is not an attempt to make government more efficient but an admission that previous attempts to reorganize, particularly in this area, have failed. This is nothing new.
Since the emergence into this arena in 1968 of the intellectual giant and social engineer there have been attempts to reorganize all kinds of things. My colleague the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) enumerated the government programs which have been the subject of attempts at change, but there has been recognition that some changes were wrong, and we have had to go back to where we started from.
I want to say just a little bit about one department which was changed about the same time that fisheries and forestry came under the Department of the Environment in 1971, namely, the department dealing with the Unemployment Insurance Commission and manpower. There was a separation there, and it took eight years before hon. members opposite recognized that mistake and that the problem of manpower management in our country is much better handled under one department. Now we are undergoing the painful process of reamalgamating those two departments at great cost to the taxpayer and at great human cost to the public servants we have asked to undertake these reforms.
Fisheries was an autonomous department of government until 1971, when the Department of the Environment was formed. What we see today is a return to an original policy, namely, a fisheries department like the department which was formed by a Conservative government and which had a high profile until the new administration came along.
My submission, however, does not concern the new ministry of fisheries as much as it does the remaining Department of the Environment, such as it is, and the component in that department which is known as forestry. In general terms I support the objectives of the bill and my colleagues on this side of the House support those objectives; but for the life of me I cannot understand why the equally crucial problems relating to forestry are once again ignored.
As hon. members know, there are three major areas of jurisdiction under the Ministry of Fisheries and the Environment. The third major area is forestry. I would like to review how the former department of forestry, like fisheries, has been reformed to death. Before 1968 the forestry department was a separate and autonomous department of the federal government. In 1960 it was known as the department of forestry and from 1966 to 1967 as the department of forestry and rural development. In 1969 forestry became a branch within the
January 25, 1979

department of fisheries and forestry. It became a service known as the Canadian Forestry Service within the newly created Department of the Environment in 1971. The reorganization of the Department of the Environment in 1974 downgraded the Canadian Forestry Service to a relatively minor role in a massive department which by its nature is oriented more toward environmental protection than toward the enhancement of the economic values of our forest resources.
At the moment the federal government is in a poor position to co-ordinate provincial forestry programs because there is not even a deputy minister who is able to advise the environment minister on matters relating to forestry. Dr. Place, director of the program development branch of forestry, appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry where he made the following statement:
-owing to divided jurisdiction, Canada does not have a clearly enunciated national forest policy. This is an area in which our Department would like to take some initiative in trying to promote more of a consensus in the future but it is a typical area because, not only is there divided federal and provincial jurisdiction, there are some 20 agencies within the federal government having their finger in the forestry pie and no single department has a clear mandate to see that federal activities are co-ordinated.
This is the present state of affairs as it relates to the once proud Canadian Forestry Service and, indeed, as it relates to this very important component of the industrial capacity of this country. It should be added that just in the last few weeks the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has driven the final nail into the coffin by his decision to deprive the Canadian Forestry Service of what little was left to it to sustain some very important, vital and crucial research efforts. We have heard much in the House in the last few days and weeks about the reorganization of the Petawawa forestry research labs. As hon. members know, it was decided to phase that service out. Then after we brought the concerns of the industry and the professions into the House, the minister and the government decided that instead of phasing out the station it should be reorganized and that the Forest Management Institute, the Forest Fire Institute and the services connected with them should be transferred to Petawawa. The minister is probably quite right when he says that there will be more bureaucrats at Petawawa than there were before, but the services have been drastically reduced.
I wish to take this opportunity to provide a profile of the forest industry. I want to speak in defence of that industry, which has been the backbone of our economy for longer than any of us can remember. It has been the backdrop to a social environment which is indispensable to many Canadians. The Canadian Institute of Foresters had this to say in its policy statement:
The forest lands of Canada, including associated wildlands, provide an environment basic to the economic, social and spiritual well-being of Canadians. They are vital in providing raw materials for the wood-converting industries, in maintaining a quality fishery and wildlife habitat, in purifying air and water, in regulating water supplies and in making available to Canadians and to their visitors a vast outdoors in which a multitude of recreational, educational and scientific activities can be carried out.
I want to give the House some comparisons with respect to the importance of forest industries not only to the economy but
Transfer of Veterans Hospital
also to the government in terms of revenues. To do that, I wish to quote some statistics.
Since we have heard so much about fisheries in the last couple of days, the statistics I have assembled and compiled are a comparison between the forest service, or the economic contribution of the forest industry section-Mr. Speaker, may I call it five o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis)-Forestry-Research-Funding of Forest Management Institute; the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta)-Canadian Wheat Board-Co-ordinator to ensure maximum use of rail cars to move grain; the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington)-Air Transport-Civil aviation inspectors without contract.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills and public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Shall notice of motion No. 3 in the name of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) stand by unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.
TRANSFER OF QUEEN MARY VETERANS HOSPITAL Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings, agreements and other communications between the government and the province of Quebec concerning the transfer of the Queen Mary Veterans hospital in Montreal.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I have risen in the House many times to speak about the transfer of this hospital, the Queen Mary Veterans Hospital in Montreal, and the transfer of other
2568

January 25, 1979
Transfer of Veterans Hospital
hospitals, as well as on the subject generally of veterans and veterans' care. I spoke specifically on the subject of this transfer some five years ago. I have expressed my concern and received assurances from the minister that the veterans would be properly looked after.
I have no doubt, and certainly I have no evidence to the contrary at present, that the veterans who were sick in the hospital have not been well treated. What does concern me is that, in my opinion, there is not free access to documents. By dint of placing many questions on the order paper I have received answers, but the answers are not necessarily consistent.
In October of 1977 the minister issued a news release in which he stated the following:
Under the terms of the transfer agreement-
That is an agreement to transfer the Queen Mary Veterans Hospital to the government of the province of Quebec.
-entitled veterans will have priority access to 55 acute care beds in Montreal hospitals. Further, the staff of the hospital will become employees of the new hospital corporation under terms and conditions of employment similar to those they enjoy in the federal public service ... The effective date of the transfer is December 26, 1977, when the Department of Veterans Affairs will transfer for one dollar the grounds, buildings and equipment of Queen Mary Hospital to the Quebec government. The province will also receive from the Government of Canada an indexed capital grant of $9 million for reconstruction purposes.
That is basically it. It is just about all we know about the transfer. We are advised that whenever a veteran requires admission for examination, treatment or care, that veteran, when beds are not fully occupied by veterans, will be admitted without delay.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) stated the following yesterday in answer to a question:
Beds guaranteed to veterans under the transfer agreements specified are: ...
(f) Queen Mary Hospital, Montreal-55 beds.
In the same answer he recounts that on January 1, 1978, at the same Queen Mary Hospital there were 260 patients who were receiving acute care treatment. Six months later, on July 1, 1978, that number of veterans had dropped to seven. They are all listed as acute care cases. Thus it would appear that we have a signed agreement giving veterans access to 55 beds, and from the reply of the minister given as late as yesterday a much smaller number of veterans occupying those beds. He does not give a more up to date figure than that of October, 1978 when the previous figure of seven to which I have referred dropped to five.
What concerns me, of course, is that in my constituency of Vaudreuil we have another veterans' hospital, the Ste. Anne de Bellevue Military Hospital, with something in the order of
1,000	patients and a long waiting list. Since for some time there has been a long waiting list, and since the number of veterans who are likely to be requesting admission in the next few years is likely to increase because of their age, there would appear to be a need for even more beds for veterans than are presently available. Nevertheless, from the figures which are presented to us, having passed the Queen Mary Hospital over to the province, we have not only reduced the number of

veterans receiving a federal level of treatment from some 260 to something in the order of about five, but we are not using anything like the total number of beds, that is 55 beds, that we have reserved for veterans at the Queen Mary Veterans Hospital.
I am also told-and this maybe will be worth recording for the benefit of those who, like myself, until a few days ago were not aware-that the agreement signed with the province provides that Canada will retain at no rental charge no less than 66,249 square feet of usable space. I was interested in what we were to do with the space and was told that the departmental treatment services are going to use 21,000 square feet of space. This is all for the Department of Veterans Affairs. The departmental dental services will use 1,508 square feet and the prosthetic workshop of the Department of National Health and Welfare, 5,000 square feet. Then I also see that we have retained space for chapels and chaplains' offices amounting to 2,172 square feet. This is fairly decent accommodation for the personnel and for the chapel for the five remaining veterans in the Queen Mary Hospital. We also retained some 14,620 square feet for departmental veterans' services, for veterans' land administration 6,641, for the Canadian Pension Commission 4,879 square feet, for the bureau of pensions advocates 4,100 square feet, and for the departmental central registry 6,329 square feet. The total is 66,249 square feet, as I mentioned before.
In other words, all these federal facilities are still continuing at the Queen Mary Hospital, formerly the Queen Mary Veterans Hospital. I sometimes wonder whether the veterans who formerly used these facilities are still aware of their continuing use.
I am also advised-here I am somewhat concerned and I should refer back to an answer I received from the Minister of Veterans Affairs on December 7, 1977-that when Queen Mary Veterans Hospital was transferred, some of the medical records of the veterans were maintained in the hospital and others were transferred to the Public Archives record centre in Montreal. Also the minister indicated that in the future those medical records which no longer need to be maintained in the hospital will be transferred to the record centre. He indicated in his reply that the medical records to be maintained in the hospital would be the records of those veterans who were continuing to receive treatment at the hospital. That would be quite logical. However, it appears the agreement provided that Canada shall transfer to the province all medical records in connection with each veteran. Of course, that raises some questions. Some of the veterans in my area have asked me if they will have the same access to their records as previously.
I have asked the Minister of Veterans Affairs questions in connection with veterans' records. I am pleased by the manner in which these records are kept, and the fact that veterans can go back to their wartime service and find records were kept by the department of which they were not even aware. Also I compliment the department in that it freely discloses what is on the records, thus enabling veterans, in many instances,
January 25, 1979

successfully to claim various pension benefits which, without the department's records, they may not have been able to obtain. It underlines my fears that a department which has done such an excellent job of maintaining medical records of veterans apparently is prepared to turn over these records to the province of Quebec. I am concerned because of the attitude of the present government of that province, its general attitude toward anything which could be termed federal. Also I am concerned that veterans will not continue to have the same access to medical records as previously.
I am interested in what the terms of this transfer are, as well as the discussions which have some bearing on the transfer of this particular hospital. In March, 1977 I suggested that there was a problem at the Ste. Anne de Bellevue Veterans Hospital because we were unaware whether the hospital was going to be transferred, when it would be transferred, or what the conditions of the transfer would be. I realize the problems of disposing of the Ste. Anne de Bellevue Veterans Hospital.
On April 7, 1975 the minister indicated that less than 20 per cent of the patients in Ste. Anne de Bellevue Veterans Hospital were considered to be a federal responsibility. Also he indicated that the province was only paying for part of the costs of some 524 patients out of a total 804 patients who were considered to be a provincial responsibility. In the balance of his answer, he indicated that in other words the provincial government was paying 28 per cent of the total operating cost of the hospital, while more than four out of five veterans occupying beds in the hospital were considered to be a provincial responsibility.
That is one reason why I doubted the transfer would ever be effected. Obviously it would cost the province of Quebec a considerable sum of money, and the province would have to accept the responsibility for patients who were not directly a cost to the federal government. I expressed my opinion that some of the fears of the patients and the staff at the Ste. Anne de Bellevue Veterans Hospital could be allayed if they were made aware of the precise conditions under which any transfer would be made.
One way in which we can be assured that the federal government will look after veterans is to look at its past history. In order to do that, we wanted to look at all of the records in connection with the transfer of Queen Mary Veterans Hospital. Also we noted the sum of $9 million which was handed over to the provincial government for renovations at the Queen Mary Veterans Hospital. It was interesting to note that the subject came up in connection with the Senneville Lodge which is part of the total facility at Ste. Anne de Bellevue Veterans Hospital.
In a letter dated October 16, 1974, the Minister of Veterans Affairs said the following:
-discussions are proceeding between our department and the Quebec provincial authorities regarding the transfer of Ste. Anne's hospital. At the present moment it is not intended that the Senneville Lodge property which comprises the main acreage of the Ste. Anne's complex will be included in the transfer although the patients at Senneville Lodge will be looked after by the hospital authorities after
Transfer of Veterans Hospital
transfer until such time as a replacement unit of the nursing home type is built at federal expense, probably in close proximity to the main hospital.
That was fairly reassuring for the patients at Senneville Lodge. On November 10, 1976 the minister indicated that planning for the replacement of the Senneville Lodge in Quebec was deferred while discussion was continuing with the province of Quebec respecting the transfer of Queen Mary
Veterans Hospital. Also he said that when these discussions were completed, the department would undertake definitive planning for the replacement of the Senneville Lodge. I was somewhat puzzled that these two matters would be tied together, but I accepted it at that time.
On January 24, 1977 the minister said the following:
The decision on the construction of a replacement of Senneville Lodge, Senneville, Quebec, is not dependent upon the transfer of Queen Mary Veterans Hospital in Montreal.
This is where the confusion started. On April 21, 1977, the minister wrote a letter which reads in part as follows:
-a plan is being considered for the replacement of Senneville Lodge facility and there is approval in principle to proceed. However, the site has not yet been determined and the plans for the replacement are not finalized. As soon as the transfer of Queen Mary Veterans Hospital is completed, the department plans to proceed very quickly with the replacement facility for Senneville Lodge.
It is evident that there are connections between Senneville Lodge and the Queen Mary Veterans Hospital for reasons unknown. Subsequent letters indicated that when the Queen Mary Veterans Hospital transfer was completed, they would proceed with the rebuilding of the Senneville Lodge. According to the minister, the transfer was completed more than a year ago, and we have yet to hear about the plans for Senneville Lodge. One should be able to reassure persons by openness to rid veterans of most of their fears. I do not feel there is very much that could not be openly disclosed regarding the transfer of the Queen Mary Veterans Hospital. It would automatically alleviate the fears of those who worry about what will happen ultimately at Ste. Anne de Bellevue.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on this motion concerning the transfer of the Queen Mary Veterans Hospital in Montreal. I think this private members' hour could better be described as the futility hour because we are actually wasting our time. The only real benefit obtained from the private members' hours is that it gives us an opportunity to enlighten the Canadian people through television and Hansard as to what an undemocratic and secretive government they have.
In this situation we have a member of the government trying to obtain information for his constituents. He is not only a Liberal member but a parliamentary secretary, and this is the extent to which he must go to obtain information for the veterans and other people in his riding. It is unbelievable that this government would refuse to give information such as that which he seeks to a member of parliament. It has nothing to do with partisan politics. The Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) merely needs to phone his department, where there are thousands of civil servants, and direct one of them to
80047 21'/2

January 25, 1979
Transfer of Veterans Hospital
obtain the necessary information for him; or if the files are too bulky they could make arrangements for the hon. member to go over and view whatever he wishes.
The purpose of the government is to help people, not to put up roadblocks to make it awkward and difficult for a member of parliament to carry out his duties. That is why I believe this hour should be described as the futility hour. The liberal members are prepared because their civil servants have prepared statements for them to read out in order to talk out this particular motion.
The answer given to the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) by the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) reads:
-I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion since there is a rather large number of papers requested and a substantial amount would have to be earmarked as well as much time would have to be devoted to their preparation.
With the number of civil servants available, I would certainly question that.
The hon. member has also pointed out that many veterans may not be aware of the use of transferred hospitals. This is an issue I have raised before. Lately we have had some serious problems with regard to veterans gaining admittance to veterans' hospitals. There have been two deaths. One of the deaths occurred because the individual was refused at the Sunnybrook Hospital in Toronto. This particular veteran had difficulty gaining admittance to the hospital which had no available beds, and he was therefore refused. He was left on a stretcher in the emergency ward for more than three hours and then sent back to the Centenary Hospital. Shortly after he was sent to St. Michael's Hospital for surgery where he died there the next day.
There is a similar case which occurred in Victoria recently. The minister has stated, in referring to the veteran's wife, that she did not properly apply to get into the hospital. This was a concern expressed by the hon. member for Vaudreuil, that he was not sure whether or not veterans or their families knew how to apply for admittance to these hospitals.
When 1 raised this matter in the adjournment debate, the parliamentary secretary gave me the general assurance that everything was all right. He made no specific reference to the recent veterans who died because they were shuffled from hospital to hospital. I will pursue this matter at a later date, because we are just not satisfied on this side of the House.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil has stated that the veterans have not been made aware of the system. Veterans would be very concerned about gaining admittance to hospitals if they were to read the news story in the Toronto Star which is headed, "Shoot me, begged dying man-". This man was being shuffled from hospital to hospital before he died.
The motion of the hon. member for Vaudreuil to get some information about the transfer of these hospitals is certainly a very good one. The answers provided thus far by the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council are certainly not acceptable because we are talking about people's lives.
I hope that the Liberal backbenchers who have been sent here to talk this motion out will have a change of heart and realize that this motion has nothing to do with partisan politics. There may be people in their ridings who will have such a difficulty. Hopefully, they will throw away those prepared statements which have been handed to them by a civil servant.
I was very glad that the answers to my questions on the order paper with regard to beds available in the transferred hospitals, which were in Hansard yesterday, were of assistance to the hon. member. I would also like to congratulate him for his contributions to veterans affairs matters on other dates. He has made reference to his speech of March 30, 1977 where he first raised the problems associated with the transfer of veterans' hospitals. At the time he was speaking in support of a motion by a former colleague of mine who was the then veterans affairs critic for the Conservative party and who is now in the other place. I believe the hon. member for Vaudreuil has a genuine concern for veterans and matters affecting them.
I do not want to be on record, Mr. Speaker, as being long-winded in speaking on this issue. I just hope that the two Liberals who have been delegated to talk this motion out will come up with something constructive or allow the motion to pass. As I stated earlier, it would take but a phone call from the minister to have these papers prepared for the hon. member for Vaudreuil to view. If such a thing were to be arranged, as veterans affairs critic for my party I would very much like to join him because I am very much interested in the problems of veterans' hospitals.


Mr. Gilbert Parent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address myself to the motion put forward by my colleague, the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). He has asked that the minister table all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings and other communications between the Government of Canada and the province of Quebec having to do with the transfer of the Queen Mary Veterans Hospital.
The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) has asked that there not be any partisan politics. At least the Department of Veterans Affairs and the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs over the past years have been above partisan politics. I would therefore hope that the critic for the opposition will continue in that vein and not simply point out some of the shortcomings of the Liberal party. He knows full well that we on this side of the House have the well-being of veterans at heart, as I am sure all members do in this House.
As I understand it, the reason that the hon. member for Vaudreuil wants the information about the minutes and the contracts is so that the people in his riding and in St. Anne de Bellevue hospital may know the terms of the agreement and the contract being transferred. I suggest that in all cases where we have transferred these hospitals there has been an equitable agreement or arrangement made and that the people working

January 25, 1979

in them have not suffered financially, any loss of position, or in any other way.
As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) I have visited the hospitals which have been transferred from the Government of Canada to the provinces. I was in Victoria where there was some problem in the beginning, which has been cleared up. In talking to the people concerned, I found all of them quite happy with the way things have been handled and how they now stand. In Edmonton we have been in negotiation for the transfer of the veterans hospital there. I have visited Edmonton and I am sure that matter will turn out as well as the transfer of the Queen Mary hospital in Quebec.
It has been suggested that we would talk out the motion, Mr. Speaker. I do not know about other members, but I am here because I have a few points to make about the transfer of the Queen Mary hospital and other transfers, and so that I may share with my colleagues and the people of Canada what the Department of Veterans Affairs has been doing, is doing, and will continue to do for the betterment and good care of the veterans who are our responsibility.
I think the most important statement I can make is that the government recognizes and accepts its moral responsibility to provide the best possible medical care for our veterans. That is where we began, and I am sure that no one in this House and no one in Canada would disagree with the concept. There are sometimes misconceptions about the way the government provides this medical care. I am always glad to have a chance to correct those misconceptions.
It is now more than 30 years since the end of World War II and in that period the most dramatic changes have taken place in the field of medical and hospital services, hospital care and administration. Most significant to the question at hand in the medical and hospital field is veterans population. To appreciate what is happening now to the hospital care and treatment of veterans we need to look at what has happened in the past and in the intervening years.
When World War II ended and the injured troops were returned to Canada, the existing hospital facilities were totally inadequate for their accommodation. To provide the needed beds and treatment, the government had to build hospitals specifically for veterans. At one time there were 40 veterans' hospitals in Canada. The war injured were most in need of acute care. The vast majority needed it only for a limited period of time, and most were discharged within a period of months.
My colleague, the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton), served as a surgeon in World War II. He has worked in veterans' hospitals, and I was talking to him about this prior to today's debate. This private members' hour, incidentally, should not be called the period of futility, in my view. It is a time when members get a chance to bring up subjects that are important to them and their constituents. My colleague assured me that the care given to the returning veterans from World War II in those hospitals where he served was second to none anywhere on the North American continent.
Transfer of Veterans Hospital As the damages of war were repaired and the patients recovered, some of these hospitals were closed down within a relatively short period of time. They had been built in response to a special and abnormal health care requirement, and as that requirement was met, progressively the hospitals closed and we were left with a few hospitals where veterans received medical care for pensionable disabilities. Over the years the number of veterans requiring acute and active care steadily decreased, and as beds became empty they were made available to DVA recipients.
Slowly but surely the profile of the veteran patient changed. In the beginning there were young men severely wounded and needing the most immediate, sophisticated medical treatment possible. That immediate need was taken care of. The veteran patient's need became one of periodic hospitalization and treatment later on for pensionable disability.
With the passage of time the veteran population aged and its needs changed again. Most of the beds in veterans hospitals were filled with people in need of care for chronic conditions and frequently these were of a geriatric nature. In terms of our ability to staff these hospitals, this meant we began to have serious problems. Highly skilled young doctors and nurses trained in the most modern medical procedures are not prepared to work in hospitals where they get little or no opportunity to use their skills or perfect their skills and become better at their chosen profession. It is understandable that they want to work in hospitals where they can gain experience in the widest possible range of medical practice.
The practice of medicine today is incredibly specialized and every day it is becoming more so. The modern hospital has specialists available for virtually all the ills to which mankind is heir. Veterans' hospitals do not have the volume of patients to justify equipping and staffing them to meet the full range of medical treatments. This gap between what we can provide and what is needed will increase in the future as the health facilities of communities continue to improve. I am talking now about the medical complexes which are in place across this land where these men and women, who are veterans of World Wars I and II and the Korean war, can receive the specialized care they not only need but deserve. We could see this situation on the horizon. We knew the care of veterans had to be integrated into the total community medical hospital complex. To do anything less would be to deny our moral responsibility to continue providing veterans with the best medical care possible.
When negotiating contracts with provincial governments to transfer hospitals to provincial jurisdictions, the policy of the government is to provide only the best in medical care. This is what we have done and what we are doing and will continue to do in the months and years ahead. This is why we negotiated the transfer of the Queen Mary hospital with the province of Quebec. This is why I do not doubt that in the foreseeable future we will begin negotiations with other hospitals in other parts of Canada-so that these people can come under the jurisdiction of the provinces and have access near their homes, to the care they deserve.

January 25, 1979
Transfer of Veterans Hospital
Very specific conditions and guarantees were written into these contracts. J can assure the hon. member for Vaudreuil that the same conditions will surely be written into the transfer of the hospital in his constituency about which he has the right to question us and which, I can assure him, will be carried out. While details may vary a little from province to province, the broad overriding principles remain the same. There must be assurances for adequate hospital treatment and accommodations for departmental patients.
The hon. member for Vaudreuil quoted a news release on October 21 last which had to do with the transfer of Queen Mary hospital. From that news release I would like to quote two paragraphs:
Queen Mary Veterans Hospital opened in 1945 to provide high level acute care to injured service men and women returning from the war. Throughout its history, the primary mission has been the care of the war-related conditions of disability pensioners who reside in the Montreal area.
Then I come to a very important paragraph.
From its inception, under the guidance of eminent Montreal physicians, and later in association with McGill University and the University of Montreal, the Hospital has enjoyed an enviable continent-wide reputation for its pioneer reconstructive work with the seriously injured.
We have every assurance that this type of care that has been given to our veterans, and which they have coming to them, will continue in the months and the years ahead.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Gilbert Parent: Yes, gladly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for offering to answer the question. I raise it now before his time runs out. I wonder if, during the course of his remarks, he will address himself to the issue raised in the motion. The motion does not raise questions about the administration of veterans hospitals but rather it asks for the tabling of certain correspondence. If the parliamentary secretary on behalf of the government is going to oppose the motion, will he tell us why the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) cannot have copies of the correspondence referred to in the motion?


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre-


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, it is Winnipeg North Centre.


Gilbert Parent: Excuse me, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I guess he has his colleague right across from me from Winnipeg South Centre.
I take the question one step further. He wants the information, according to my understanding, because he wants to see what the conditions are so that he can respond to his constituents who work at Ste. Anne de Bellevue Veterans Hospital and inform them about the conditions under which they are goingto

have their hospital transferred. In answer to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I assure the hon. member for Vaudreuil that the transfer will be made in the normal fashion and that those people who are to be involved will be treated as well as any of the other people involved in transfers right across Canada. I submit to you that this is an answer to his specific question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He wants to see the
correspondence.


Gilbert Parent: If I might continue, Mr. Speaker, I am sure that you can see from the things that I have talked about that the government takes its moral responsibility for hospital and medical treatment of veterans very seriously. We know that our disability pensioners are getting older and that they need, primarily, facilities for treatment of a chronic care nature. At the same time it is important that they should have available to them the full range of modern medical and hospital care the instant that the need is evident.
We know that we cannot attract the staff to give them this modern, specialized care in existing veterans' hospitals. It is unthinkable that we should allow these hospitals to deteriorate into second class institutions, suitable only for the care of the aged; and inadequate care at that. All of the factors that went into the equations of establishing special hospitals for veterans have changed. Therefore, new equations must be worked out. We feel that the policy of transferring veteran patients into the total community medical care complex with built-in safeguards for the veterans who are our responsibility, and for hospital staff also, is not only the best possible solution to the problem but it gives the veteran patients highly desirable options that they did not have before. Let me elaborate a little bit on that point.

Mr. Speaker, under current programs veterans can choose their physician. They can also choose the hospital where they want to be treated. This means that from now on veterans will no longer have to travel from 50 to 200 miles to go to a hospital and see a doctor with whom they may not be acquainted. They will now be in a position to choose their own physician and receive the necessary care so that they will get everything they need to lead a normal life. They will now have the opportunity, Mr. Speaker, of being hospitalized near the towns where they live. If they do not like the physician they have chosen, they may see another one.

In most cases it is only a short car ride away from the home of the dischargee. Anyone who has ever been in a hospital would agree that these are significant advantages. I am sure that you can see, Mr. Speaker, that the hospital transfer policy is anything but an abrogation of responsibility on the part of the government. Quite the reverse is true. The right of the veterans to the best possible medical and hospital care available is the principle upon which all agreements are negotiated.
I assure the member from Vaudreuil that the same care, the
January 25, 1979

same consistency, the same research that goes into the transfer of all hospitals that we have had, will go into the transfer of the hospital in his riding. I understand that this is primarily why he wants this information and why he is asking the question.
Every agreement makes provision-


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, before the parliamentary secretary finishes his remarks, would he permit a very short question from me?


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, if I might answer the question at the end of my time, I will be finished in about two minutes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not talk yourself out of time.


Gilbert Parent: I will not do that. I have no intention of doing that.
Every agreement ensures that the priority beds are provided only in hospitals approved by the Department of Veterans Affairs. Veterans associations are consulted in every hospital transfer. Senior treatment medical officers are maintained locally. Their function is to safeguard the rights of entitled veterans. The rights of employees at the time of transfer are also safeguarded.
I suggest to hon. members that the policy-and this is what we are talking about-of transferring veterans hospitals to provincial jurisdiction, integrating the veterans health care into the total community health care complex is a responsible and a progressive step forward.
I will gladly answer any questions the member has.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I would compliment the parliamentary secretary on the few remarks that he made in the French language. But because the parliamentary secretary has brought up the subject of choice and of rights, among the many questions I have is this one. Is the choice of language and the right to choose language written in the agreement? Is that part of the discussions and part of the agreements between the federal government and the province of Quebec?


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry but I do not have that information at hand. However, with respect to transfer, there will surely be many opportunities to speak of all options available to hospital workers during their negotiations with the federal and provincial governments.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I will enter this debate just briefly. I have always felt that veterans in our country received the finest of care in our veterans' hospitals. I always felt that was the case until just tonight. Tonight I begin to doubt it. If it is so, why can we not see some of the facts? What is there about this superb, excellent service, that makes it so secretive? Why do we need to hide it?
Transfer of Veterans Hospital
We are talking about a basic freedom. What bothered me was the speech by the parliamentary secretary and all those nice phrases in which you could see the fine hand of the civil servants. I wrote a few of them down; "highly desirable," "equitable arrangements," "moral responsibility" and so on. I began to be suspicious. I began to wonder when these finely tuned phrases kept coming at me.
The parliamentary secretary made one mistake when he quoted the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie). He said the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre had the veterans affairs well-being at heart. I know the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre does not have that more than I have. He has the well-being of the veterans at heart.
Veterans Affairs sounds like a department overridden with bureaucracy. Anyone who has recently tried to get something out of the Department of Veterans Affairs knows how true that is. I suggest the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is as interested as the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and myself are interested in the veterans, but not veterans affairs.
What we heard this afternoon was about Veterans Affairs. It did not have anything to do with the good of the veterans. I thought our veterans were being well taken care of in our special hospitals. Until the hon. member for Vaudreuil brought up the point, I had not questioned the shift from veterans hospitals to regular hospitals. It seemed like a reasonably good idea.
I do not have a veterans' hospital in my constituency, as the hon. member for Vaudreuil obviously does. I wish I had had the question in my mind. I might have looked into it. It is amazing how trying to hide something makes it suspicious. We heard all those fine phrases telling us that everything is good. If that is so, why can we not see the papers, agreements, documents, telegrams and messages? It would not take much time to do that. This government fights a paper war that is absolutely incomprehensible most of the time. Producing those documents would be a piece of cake.
We have a department telling us that everything is all right. This is from the same government that gave us Mirabel and a few other things. I am not at all sure that everything is okay with the veterans.
We are talking here about a basic freedom. The hon. member for Vaudreuil raised a good point. Do the veterans have to take a language other than that they wish? I do not know. It is a question that would not have occurred to me. It is a question that could be answered simply by looking at the documents. However, we cannot look at them. Why are they secret? It is a shame.
It is now five minutes to six. I am going to resume my seat and watch to see which member of the government will have the shame to talk out this simple request for documents. It will

January 25, 1979
Transfer of Veterans Hospital
be a shame if a basic decency, principle and freedom are hidden in this matter.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, it is a very sad day for this House of Commons when once again we have to witness the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis), trying to make a political football out of the veterans, at a time when we are discussing transferring the operation of veterans' hospitals from the federal government to the provincial governments. It is despicable. However, it is not new. He has been doing that since I have been here. It is all that member is capable of doing. I will not say any more about it. There is a lot more I could say. However, I do not want to waste the time of the House with the type of innuendo to which he has lowered himself. He is following in the footsteps of his weak leader. This is demonstrated by the flip-flops his leader has been making.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I suggest to the parliamentary secretary that he get to the question under discussion.


Maurice James Harquail: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), and the parliamentary secretary for telling this House of the benefits these transfers are bringing to citizens in the northern part of New Brunswick, where my constituency is located, and the great benefits being brought to veterans and their dependants.
With the recent announcement as a result of negotiations with the various provinces, we now see the minister of health for the province of New Brunswick entering into an agreement with the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. MacDonald) to transfer a hospital and domiciliary care facility in the city of Campbellton in the county of Restigouche in New Brunswick. It will mean the average veteran will not have to travel 350 miles to receive medical attention. That is very important. This is appreciated by all those who live in Gloucester, Miramichi, the Madawaska area, and in particular Restigouche.
It has also been announced that a sub-office will be located in that city. Ten or 12 people will be transferred there to give day to day service to veterans who have questions of an administrative nature.
I am delighted to be able to express my congratulations to the Minister of Veterans Affairs, his staff, his executive assistant, Bob Mill, and others for the excellent work they are doing. It is a great privilege to stand in this House of Commons and say that.
I also wish to express my appreciation to members opposite who act like gentlemen. I speak of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who is respected by all Canadians for his great contribution to veterans. I applaud him. I think too of Senator Jack Marshall, a maritimer, who distinguished himself as a great defender of veterans. I have a lot of respect for these gentlemen. They do not get into the murk, getting on the backs of those who fought for us, in order to make some cheap political gain. I have no time for people

like that. However, I have a lot of time for men like Senator Marshall and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre who, over the years, have dedicated themselves to those who have fought in wars. We have a responsibility to look after these people. That is exactly what this government is doing.
With regard to services for veterans, it is not only members of parliament who work with these people. I think of Wendell Firlotte of the provincial command in New Brunswick. He is among those who have worked hard for their comrades through the various Legions in order to convince the Minister of Veterans Affairs that it was necessary to bring the type of care and attention that is needed closer to the veterans.
I also think of the president of the Hong Kong association, Robert Boudreau. That association has been very successful in parts of Quebec and New Brunswick working together with the various Legions and the Department of Veterans Affairs. They do not do that in opposition. They are not against positive moves such as bringing better care to our deserving veterans, pensioners, and their dependants.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen (for Mr. Trudeau) that Bill C-35, respecting the organization of the Government of Canada and matters related or incidental thereto, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: At five o'clock the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) had the floor, and he has 29 minutes remaining.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, before you interrupted me at five o'clock to accommodate private members' hour and the supper hour, I was paying tribute to a number of speakers who had preceded me and who had made a very eloquent case on behalf of the Canadian fisheries, which are now to be restored to their proper place within the organizational structure of government.
January 25, 1979

I feel it my duty to add to the one and a half to two lines the environment minister devoted to Canadian forestry in his contribution to the debate. After he was finished with the notes which had been prepared for him by his department, he did try to defend the indefensible, namely, the latest government action to phase out a number of very important components of the Canadian Forestry Service. The minister is attempting to pass on to the provinces and to the private sector a number of very important research and development responsibilities.
In his remarks the minister became a little excited. He also attributed certain comments to me, and I think I had better take this opportunity to correct his misconception. For instance, he told the House that he had heard me say, in the House and in other places, that I am in favour of the Kitimat pipeline. Well, I do not know where the minister heard that. Let me say that I am not opposed to the Kitimat pipeline. Obviously the minister knows best what is good for the oil industry and what is good for Kitimat, Prince Rupert, and the area which is the responsibility of the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo). She too is opposed to the pipeline.
I do not know on what grounds these two ministers have made their assessments, because, after all, as the House knows, it was the government which phased out what we consider to have been a very important inquiry, namely, the Thompson inquiry, which was studying that particular project and also the alternatives that are available to us for accommodating our neighbours to the south in getting their oil to midwest refineries. The oil has to get down somehow, and some of the alternatives which the government chose not to consider are much less attractive than the Kitimat pipeline would be. I would advise my friends on the other side of the House to consult with their own constituents, with their mayors, municipalities and chambers of commerce, all of whom have probably paid much more attention to the proposals relating to the Kitimat pipeline and who have, as well, made their own assessment of the immediate, lasting, significant, and positive side effects that such a project would have.
I am getting away from the topic of tonight's debate, Mr. Speaker. I said before the dinner hour that I would want to state the case for the forest industry which remains under the jurisdiction of the Minister of State for the Environment (Mr. Marchand) and which has undergone reorganization in 1973, and is now buried even further after the latest attempt in the basements and in the hindmost thoughts of Ottawa bureaucracy to reorganize it. The debate on fisheries was so eloquent that I thought that to demonstrate the force of the forest industry in our country I should quote some statistics, making some interesting comparisons between the forest industry and the contribution it makes to our economy, and fisheries. Statistics are, of course, always outdated. These were compiled in 1974 and some in 1976, but they are very interesting, to say the least.
Government Organization
Fish products manufacturing-this does not include landing-was $10,100,000 in 1974. Wood products manufacturing, not including logging, which gives you an adequate assessment, was $77,800,000, whereas pulp and paper manufacturing in 1974 was $92 million. When you add that to the primary products you find that fisheries was $291 million, forestry was $1,220,000, manufacturing, fish processing was $225 million, wood manufacturing and processing was $1,708,000, pulp and paper combined was $3,033.7 million. In sales, fish produced in 1974 was $55.4 million, forestry was $530.3 million, ten times the amount for fisheries. Manufacturing, fish processing was $818.5 million, wood manufacturing and pulp and paper combined were roughly $13 million. The value of exports-this is a really interesting statistic-was the following in 1976: fish and fish products were $579.4 million, and all forest products were $6,501.8 million. In corporate income taxes-again these figures are from Statistics Canada-forestry, including logging, was $14.5 million, fishing and trapping was $.4 million, fish processing was $7 million, wood manufacturing was $59.1 million, and pulp and paper was $306.8 million.
To put the picture into real focus one would also have to provide statistics that would show the kind of subsidy and support that has been given to these two industries by the taxpayers. One would see then that the fishing industry has been heavily subsidized throughout the years, whereas the forestry sector receives no subsidy from either the federal or provincial taxpayer.
It is not my intention, of course, to belittle the importance of the crucial component, the fisheries industry, in our total economic picture. However, the fact is that forestry has been the backbone and the mainstay of the economic well-being of this country for a long, long time. Indeed, the $6 billion favourable trade balance owing to forest related industries creates a vivid contrast with the $5 billion which we receive for all the fuel and minerals which we export, and is also in contrast with the figures of $1 billion for agriculture and $.3 billion for fisheries.
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) told us today in the House that the governor of the Bank of Canada had certain suggestions to make regarding the minimum requirements to get our economy back into shape, and one of these requirements was that Canada be much more aggressive in seeking new export markets for our primary manufactured goods. Forestry is one sector that is probably best situated and best equipped to increase immediately our exports to foreign countries.
Let me quote a few additional statistics which place the forest sector in our economy in a proper perspective. The forest resource supports 300,000 jobs directly, and up to 700,000 jobs indirectly in secondary manufacturing and in the service industries. The forest products industry in Canada is the leading commodity sector in terms of sales, employment, exports, earnings, and regional dispersion. We speak about fisheries every day in this House, but do we ever hear someone speak about forestry? Certainly the minister responsible for that
2576

January 25, 1979
Government Organization
important sector of our economy spends very little time on it, unless he is prompted during the question period to give us some answers on that subject.


Mr. Marchand:: I will send you my speech.


Frank Oberle: Canadian forests are an important factor in our $3 billion outdoor recreation industry. The federal government receives $1 billion from forestry activities in revenue, while the provincial governments collect roughly $650 million in forest related taxes.
I expect that the House will, some day in the very near future, give recognition to that important sector and, I hope, restore it to its rightful position. I do not assume that that will happen because of the staggering statistics I have just mentioned, but I do believe that the time is foreseeable when our forest industry will face the same kind of crisis which finally prompted the government to take drastic and positive action with regard to fisheries. My friend and colleague, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), has quoted some statistics supporting this statement.
With the indulgence of the House, I should like to make the following comments: Canada's share of world export markets for forest products has decreased from 31 per cent to 19 per cent in the last 20 years, while the United States' share has increased from less than 9 per cent to more than 12 per cent. Canada, with 13 per cent of the world's softwood timber resources, produces only 11 per cent of the world's harvest of softwoods, whereas the United States, with 11 per cent of the same resource, harvests 22 per cent of the world's total. The general productivity in the wood industry in Canada is 15 per cent less than that in the United States. Canada, with a forest industry which provides direct and indirect employment for nearly one million people and contributes almost one fifth of the nation's exports, finds itself with serious problems emerging with regard to economic supplies of timber. Federally funded research and development at forest products laboratories is approximately $14 million in the United States, compared with $7 million in Canada. After the latest cutbacks and slashes which the minister undertook on behalf of the government, the contrast will be more dramatic. Referring to the United States, the following comments appear in an Environment Canada news release:
State expenditure on forest products research provides large scale facilities in Oregon, California, Michigan and Mississippi, but no provincial counterparts exist in Canada-
University expenditure on forest products research is about $6 million in the United States, but only $200,000 in Canada-
A single United States company, Weyerhaeuser, spends almost twice as much annually on research and development as the entire Canadian forestry service- The man-years available to the Canadian forestry service have decreased by 50 per cent over the last decade, during which significant manpower growth has occurred in nearly every other facet of the federal public service-
The lumber and solid wood products industry in Canada spends .08 per cent of sales on R and D compared with .84 per cent for all other industries. The wood processing industry thereby ranks last in R and D expenditures among the 20 leading industrial sectors in Canada.

The budget of the Canadian forestry service will be slashed a further $5.3 million-15 per cent-in 1979.
There are pages and pages of similar statistics and horror stories, yet the minister attempts to defend what he has done recently.
As we all know, the government is capable only of reacting to crises. The forest industry of this country is the mainstay of our industrial capacity, and indeed it will face a very serious crisis in short order. There is not yet a crisis in the forest industry. But the Minister of Finance, who is present in the House tonight, has managed to bring about a decline in our dollar. This has provided a cushion and some breathing space for the industry. However, in the meantime we continue the old art of hewing wood and drawing water. Our efforts to generate new growth and to reforest or replant logged-off areas are hopelessly inadequate in every Canadian province.
There are literally millions of acres of prime forest land which have not been replanted. There is no leadership or direction from any source, either provincial or federal, to encourage provincial or federal agencies or the industry itself to undertake the task of replanting and renewing our forests.
At the present time there are serious shortages of supplies. Companies in timber producing provinces are now discovering that much of the timber allocated to them by the provincial governments cannot be harvested with conventional methods, because the timber is located in remote areas and present techniques are not adequate enough to move into these areas. Of course the economic constraints facing these companies do not allow them to expand their operations in these areas.
We are discovering that estimates of wood inventory are badly distorted, and that our timber supply position is in a most precarious state. This is one area in which the industry and the provinces have repeatedly asked the federal government for assistance to establish an inventory throughout the country. This would provide us with a much better assessment of our timber supply position in the foreseeable future.
In his speech last night the minister was quite sensitive. He responded to criticism from this side of the House respecting the latest reform which was necessary as a result of the government's action to cut programs. The minister attempted to defend phasing out the Forest Management Institute in Ottawa and moving it to Petawawa. Also he attempted to defend the move of the fire institute to Petawawa. Of course it increased the manpower at that particular station, but it decreased the services and programs which were carried on before. The minister is inclined to lay blame for all difficulties in the forest sector on the shoulders of industry and the provinces.
The concept of privatization has been bandied around in the House. The minister decided that the forest products laboratories should be privatized. The industry relies heavily upon the laboratories to arrive at new techniques, produce new products, and to help it become as efficient as its counterpart in the United States. The federal government made the decision to phase out these facilities in Vancouver and Ottawa. It has requested that private industry assume the responsibility of
January 25, 1979

carrying on these efforts. I have nothing to say against such a concept. Private industry always has been very co-operative when it came to protecting, preserving, and enhancing harvesting opportunities and the conversion of a natural resource. In this particular case, I speak as a person who has some experience in the industry.
I would be reluctant to have larger corporations providing manpower to travel around the country, passing the hat in order to pick up the required $3.2 million to sustain the efforts of forest laboratories. For example, I would be reluctant if MacMillan-Bloedel or some other forest giant in the country were put in charge of providing all the research required by industry. Private industry of that corporate quality always has had its own research facilities and has accepted the responsibility of doing the required research to pursue its own selfish interests. It is not necessarily so that such research is geared to the legitimate and selfish interests of smaller wood converting companies, truck loggers, people who harvest trees, and the small sawmills which are not as integrated as the forest giants. As a result of the travels of the minister's cronies, I presume large companies will phase out their own research facilities and pay the money which becomes available as a result of their travels into a fund, and under their direction, the federal government will continue research. Whether that will be entirely in the interests of industry and resources is very questionable, as far as I am concerned.
For the benefit of the House I should like to give a short assessment of why the Government of Canada and the governments of the provinces are directly responsible to carry on the research which was carried out by the forest laboratories in Vancouver and Ottawa, as well as the other research institutions through the country. After all, it is the federal government which benefits most from forest activity. As I have stated, the federal government pockt.s roughly $1 billion annually in taxes from forest related industries. The provinces collect an additional $650 million from royalty and stumpage assessments from the industry. The industry throughout this country has been taxed, stumpaged and regulated to death.
Let me give you a profile of what happens to the forest industry in British Columbia, for instance, where the provincial government walks into a plant, makes an assessment of its efficiency and capacity, and then tells the manager and owners that they should be able to produce a thousand board feet of lumber at a certain price. Let us take a figure out of the air, and it probably will not be far out. Let us say you can produce a thousand board feet of lumber at a cost of $150. The provincial forest service then turns around and says that a weekly publication which gives the world price for a thousand board feet of lumber shows the weekly price as $200. It is then apparent that there is a spread of $50 with which the company has to work.
In an attempt to cream off much of this revenue, and to keep the federal tax collector within certain limits, the province simply says that since it costs $150 to produce that
Government Organization
commodity it will allow the operator a 15 per cent margin and the rest will be royalty or stumpage. The plant operates on a 15 per cent margin which, of course, is taxable by a federal agency which imposes a levy or a log tax, which is unique also to British Columbia. From this margin the company has to pay all the other licensing fees, satisfy pollution control and, of course, pay a number of other bookkeeping costs which are required monthly by both the federal and provincial governments. There is no end to the influence these silent partners in Ottawa and in the provinces assert on the industry.
As we debate the concept of privatization of research and development activities we should put the problem in its proper perspective. Governments get the lion's share of profits from forest related activities and, of course, it has to be a government of some sort, provincial or federal, that should return some of the revenues to that sector. I find little comfort in the fact that a few corporate managers are representatives and also, I assume, supporters of the Liberal cause, who make the offer to the minister to travel around the country passing the hat to collect the few dollars which will be necessary in the foreseeable future to sustain the efforts of research laboratories.
I would like you to consider, sir, how you would feel, having worked for the government or for a company for 15 or more years, giving the best years of your life, to be told without proper notice that your job has been phased out, but someone has been travelling around the country to take up a collection to see if you can be kept on. If that is the way this government treats its public servants I sincerely hope the public servants and others throughout this country will have a chance soon to reciprocate by treating this government in the same way.
I have never been one to stand in this House to criticize without offering, or at least making some suggestions that could help the situation we are debating. For instance, sir, I fully believe it should be the onus of industry to pay for the research and development that needs to be done to upgrade this important industry, making it more efficient and making it more competitive with our trading partners offshore.
There is a simple solution, one that has been suggested not just by myself. I have discussed it with the minister personally, who seemed at the time to be in agreement. It is a suggestion that has been made by both the industry and the provinces, as well as by professionals. It is simply to enter into an agreement with the provinces to raise, as part of their royalty or stumpage assessment, a certain sum of money. A levy of 50 cents per thousand board feet, something that would not hurt anybody, would generate $6 million annually in British Columbia alone. I have not had time to work out what that would generate throughout the country. Clearly when one considers that companies pay up to $35 per thousand board feet of lumber in stumpage, another 50 cents would not hurt. It certainly would not hurt the provinces either if we took that 50 cents from the revenue they are already getting from the industry. In this way the taxpayer would not carry this burden, and the industry, having paid for the research and for the development of new species, and whatever other things the institutes were into,
80047-22/2

January 25, 1979
Government Organization
would then be in a position to give some direction to these institutes and professionals doing the work on their behalf.
The minister and spokesmen for the government have repeatedly said there was no need and, indeed, that it is almost impossible to have a national forest policy because forests, after all, along with lands, fall under the jurisdiction of provincial governments, and the federal government cannot meddle in their affairs. That is just so much nonsense. Again and again the forestry advisory council, forestry ministers of provinces and the foresters' institute, have begged the federal government to co-ordinate the activities of a number of federal agencies, which meddle in the forestry pie, and to re-establish a truly Canadian forestry service within the federal bureaucracy, and reappoint a deputy minister, at least, to advise the minister on-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frank Oberle: I appreciate that very much, and I will conclude as quickly as I can.
1 should like to make the point that if the minister feels he would not have the support of the provincial governments or the industry, he just has not been talking to them lately. Indeed, the Forest Management Institute, an arm of the federal government, commissioned a report which is today referred to and read with almost biblical reverence throughout the country. F.L.C. Reed Associates Ltd. published a report last year which was commissioned by the Forest Management Institute. That report has been made available to the minister. The Reed group dealt with all these statistics I have put on the record today, and in clear terms outlined the crucial importance of the industry, first of all, and the crisis situation in which the industry Finds itself today. Let me just quote a short paragraph in relation to some of the recommendations included in the report, as follows:
A single agency should act as spokesman on forest policy and as co-ordinator of related programs. This would help to restore forestry to its deserved status. A strengthened Canadian forestry service is the logical agency for this function. Its duties should include allocation of federal money to forestry projects on a continuing basis and subsequent monitoring of progress.
I would like to put on record another short quotation which comes directly from the minister's office. I do not recall this report being tabled in the House. It is the third report which was made by the Canadian Forestry Advisory Council, to the Minister of the Environment and it is dated September, 1975. Like the recommendations that have been made on behalf of the fishing industry, this report says under the heading "Recommendations and National Forest Policy":
The need for a national forest policy statement is all the more urgent because most provinces are now giving priority to provincial forest policy development. Divided jurisdictions will, however, make the formulation of a meaningful

national policy difficult. Once agreement is reached on objectives, mutually compatible federal, provincial and industrial guidelines must be developed to give co-ordinated direction to industry and management...
In order to redress the status of forestry at the national level, and to give leadership in developing a national forest policy, it is strongly recommended that a minister of state for forestry be appointed whose powers, duties and functions with respect to forestry legislation, and whose mandate to assist the Minister of Environment in forestry affairs, should be comparable to those of the minister of state for fisheries.
These recommendations by qualified bodies of researchers and consultants have been ignored. They will go on being ignored until such time as this most important industry finds itself in the same kind of crisis the Fishing industry has been in for some time, and as I have said, that crisis is within the foreseeable future.
We are losing our competitive position in world markets. The only thing which keeps the industry floating at this point is the devalued Canadian dollar. We in this House must appreciate the valuable contribution this industry has made to our history and our way of life. Forestry is not simply an economic component of our way of life. It has much to do with our social behaviour as well.
The forests in our country are a vital part of our eco-system. Forests generate our water, clean air, and a healthy and prosperous Canadian life. Let us not continue to disobey the requirements and rules regarding our responsibilities to our forests.


Miss Coline Campbell (South Western Nova):: 1 will not speak long, Mr. Speaker, on this bill as it is a housekeeping bill. The proposal to create a department of fisheries and oceans is one which I think is vital to the fishing industry. The change is a recognition of the importance to the present and the future well-being of the fishing industry, which in the last few years has grown beyond the expectations of the 1960s into a billion dollar industry. It gives the minister of fisheries a clear mandate to provide the leadership and direction to oversee the federal government's activities within the industry, to develop policies relating to fisheries activities, and to consult with all segments of the Fishing industry.
This bill also proposes to create a separate department for the environment, which shows the concern of this government and the recognition by it that both these departments will play an increased role in Canadian life in the future.
I am also pleased with Part II of this bill which deals with the fisheries and oceans research advisory council. In reading over this part, the amendment will provide for an expanded council. Although the section states who will be eligible to sit on the council, I suggest that the section be made clearer and state that there be an even distribution of fishermen from all parts of the country represented on it. I am sure that their contribution will be invaluable.
This bill also allows me to speak about fishing on the east coast, particularly as it relates to southwestern Nova Scotia. The Fishermen on the east coast have been fortunate to have this present minister of fisheries. He has been a full-time minister and has fulFilled a promise which was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the constituency of South
January 25, 1979

Western Nova in June, 1974. The minister has urged the fishermen to organize in order to best relate their needs to both the provincial and federal departments. He has decentralized the federal department so as to better reach those directly concerned with the fishery.
A good example of the decentralization is the Yarmouth federal fisheries building. In the last two years we have had an area manager who deals with matters at the local level. This building provides all the facilities fishermen need with regard to their work. I would also like to take this opportunity to express my good wishes to the retiring area manager for Yarmouth, Mr. Glen Smith, who has worked in the fishery department for many years. His excellent knowledge in that area will be missed by all. I welcome the new area manager and wish him luck in a very difficult area.
For the last three years the fishing industry has benefited from the 200-mile limit, and the returns can be seen throughout Nova Scotia and other areas of the Atlantic. A dramatic increase in the landed value of the fish catch was recorded in the first nine months of 1978. The catch for the Atlantic region had a landed value increase of 49 per cent over the record increase of 1977. The size of the catch rose 21 per cent. The remarkable increases demonstrate the success of federal fishery policy. The minister has turned a herring fishery, which previously concentrated on fish meal, into a viable food industry. Last summer it had an estimated landed value of $17.6 million compared with a value of $12.4 million in 1977, $6.5 million in 1976, and $5.8 million in 1975, despite the fact that last summer was a bad year because fewer herring were landed in the Bay of Fundy area. The minister worked with the fishermen, the industry and the provincial governments to achieve this outstanding success with little cost to the Canadian taxpayer.
In the past three years companies in the fishing industry in South Western Nova have expanded. This is made quite clear from the amount of assistance which has been given to fish companies. I am informed that $1.5 million was awarded as incentive grants to fish companies through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion between 1974 and 1978. This minister has made it his policy, which I hope he will incorporate into the new department, to look first at the fish available and how best to provide for everyone, never forgetting the backbone of the industry-the fishermen, including the smaller fishermen who have been forgotten by many in the industry in the past. If the fishermen are working to full productivity, it follows that the plants are also working.
We hear about the need for freezer trawlers. I for one would say to the minister, "go slowly." In fact, I wonder if we need them at all. We are just now becoming efficient with the existing fleet. We already have shortages in our traditional fisheries. Perhaps we should look at some of the existing fishing boats and determine whether or not they can be used to catch these underutilized species rather than investing in the high cost of freezer trawlers.
Government Organization
I can understand why the foreigners needed freezer trawlers. They came from far away. But do we need them when we are so close to the fishing grounds and can return quickly to shore with our catches? I agree with the minister when he says that we have to improve the existing fishing capabilities before turning to freezer trawlers, which may be very detrimental to the fishery if not properly investigated. After all, it was the same companies which are asking for these freezer trawler boats now which felt the foreign fleets were depleting their fleet capabilities four years ago.
A freezer trawler, in order to pay for itself, is going to need a large catch. Let us ask these questions: whose fish will they catch? Who will be allocated the permits for the freezer trawlers? Will the fishermen themselves be able to go into this, or will it be the companies? Will the province take part in this and allocate the fish from these freezer trawlers to the various plants located all over the Atlantic provinces? Do we need them at all? All these questions at a time when we have just begun to reap the returns of the 200-mile limit, have to be answered before any Canadian freezer trawlers can be allowed to rape our fishery.
Let me now turn to small craft harbours. In South Western Nova, for example, where harbours have been long neglected, we have had major multi-million dollar harbours built since July, 1974, at West Head, Yarmouth, and Meteghan. In addition, there has been major wharf construction or reconstruction at Argyle, Pinkney Point, Pembroke, Cape St. Mary, Tiverton and Freeport, not to mention the work that has been carried out at other harbours such as Smithville, Southside, Woods Harbour, Saulnierville, Sandy Cove East and Sand-ford. This is to mention but a few areas where work has been carried out. This year, again, I am anticipating major undertakings. I look to Wedgepoint getting under way with a $2 million wharf facility in the very near future, and a decision for a deep water harbour on Digby Neck. Dredging and reconstruction are needed on the south wharf at Dennis Point, work at Westport, Short Beach, Port Maitland and a floating breakwater at Cape Forchu are a few of the needed repairs in this area.
Another innovative area that this Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) can take praise for is the assistance given by the small craft harbours branch to the Canada Works Program. Funds under Canada Works Program and capital expenditures from small craft harbours have provided slipways, haulouts, additions to wharves and general upkeep, as well as providing an input from the fishermen for the use of these funds from the Canada Works Program.
Before closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to discuss the matter of jurisdiction. There seems to be a lot of discussion on this word lately and I will approach this last topic as it relates to two areas of great concern in my area as a representative from the east coast. One is the federal jurisdiction in fisheries, on which I will be brief and say that in terms of quotas, surveillance, research, quality, inspection and markets-and the latter three as far as they relate to international markets-

January 25, 1979
Government Organization
it would appear to me that the federal government must be the supreme power over these areas. We cannot control the areas where fish gather or travel-I can see fish wars developing between eastern provinces as to how and when they can fish. We have seen what happened with the foreigners who were fishing off our shores prior to the 200-mile limit and we have seen what happened between Canada and the United States on George's Bank, but we should control at a federal level how the industry is going to approach all of these areas within our 200-mile limit.
In my opinion, when a final decision on a fishery matter has to be made, and someone has to make it, that decision should rest with the federal department of fisheries since they can take all provinces into consideration.
The second point I wish to make with regard to jurisdiction is on the Canada-U.S. bilateral negotiations. I would like to discuss George's Bank which, as all members are fully aware, is of great concern to the southern part of Nova Scotia. Perhaps more than any other area of Canada, the people in that area realize how important this area is, not only because of its good fishing grounds but because traditionally the fishermen of Southwestern Nova Scotia have always gone to Georges Bank to fish. I am glad to see that the negotiators have recommended that the boundary dispute be sent to a third party. All of us are no doubt anxious to see what the negotiations will have accomplished in the allocation of the various fisheries which exist on George's Bank.
Different provinces have sent observers from government and from industry to the negotiations, and these people were asked to brief the negotiators with their views. With this in mind, I cannot help but feel that this has been truly one area where the industry, the provinces, and the federal government, have discussed what the future fishing arrangements and negotiations should be as they relate to George's Bank, and I look forward to hearing the proposals which the negotiators are putting forth to their respective governments.
One thing that the minister cannot be criticized for is the consultation that he has had with the fishermen and the industry. I do not recall any other minister responsible for the fishery, or any other person responsible for the fishery, having as many meetings with industry. He has told the fishermen to organize, and they have. He has organized the herring fishery. Seiners have been able to talk to him, as have weir fishermen and gillnetters. This week a representative of the gillnetters of South Western Nova talked to the minister in Ottawa.
The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) said there has been no consultation in the lobster fishery, but I remember that at the end of 1974 a lobster task force held meetings in Digby, Meteghan, Yarmouth and Barrington, to mention a few of the areas across Nova Scotia that happen to be in my constituency. The results were different categories and a buyback arrangement. There must be built into that buy-back an opportunity for the young fishermen to gain entry into the fishery.
We have had the closing of Brown's Bank, which was sorely needed to save the inshore lobster fishery. Personally I feel

that Brown's Bank should be closed to all boats over 65 feet. The licensing arrangements are being examined in consultation with the fishermen and the officials. I hope to see a policy regarding boats of 45 feet and under which will allow all fishermen access to all the fishery.
In conclusion let me say, Mr. Speaker, that over the past four and one half years there have been consultations between the provincial and federal governments, between fishermen, industry and governments. The credit for this has to rest with the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. He has been aware of the problems and, in my opinion, Canadians on both coasts and in the mid-west have a full time minister of fisheries.


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member for South Western Nova (Miss Campbell) takes her seat, may I ask if she will entertain a question?


Coline M. Campbell: No, Mr. Speaker. I know there are other members who wish to speak, and the hon. member who spoke for the opposition had extra time. I would welcome a question later, but I have to go to another appointment now. Perhaps the hon. member would ask his question at another time.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I want for a few moments to refer to other clauses of this bill that have not received any or just brief attention in the debate to this point as far as I know. I refer specifically to Part VI with respect to the Medical Research Council, Part VII with respect to the National Research Council, Part VIII, the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council, and Part IX, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council.
Let me indicate at the outset that these parts are very similar to a bill that we debated during the latter part of 1976. At that time I spoke about some aspects of the legislation which dealt with the reorientation of the scientific organization. I have no intention of reviewing the content of my speech at that time, but I think two or three points are pertinent. I did raise the most important question not only as to the entire science policy in Canada but specifically the future of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology. We have seen what has happened to that particular ministry with the passage of time. It has been downplayed. Indeed its significance as a major ministry in this government has deteriorated with the passage of time.
As a matter of fact I indicated that I was quite pleased with the formation of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council. I can recall vividly in the Speech from the Throne in 1974 there was a great deal of interest given to the Ministry of State for Science and Techonology. At that time there was thought given to forming a natural science research council as no consideration at all had been given to the importance of engineering research. That I thought was a positive move. But, most important, at that time I raised the basic issue of financial commitment to research. It is in this
January 25, 1979

sense that I wanted to speak for a few moments tonight specifically with respect to the medical research council.
Many of us on this side of the house have pursued this issue with a great deal of vigour, certainly I have since 1972 when I came to the House of Commons. I must say that despite the pronouncements of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) in the early part of December, 1978, I am not convinced that this government understands the importance of medical research in Canada, the role it has played in the past, the role it could play now, and the role it could play in the future. I am amazed because as I have dealt with people in the past and as I have travelled across Canada I have found that virtually every family has had a member or perhaps even a friend afflicted with some illness or some type of disease. I am absolutely certain in my mind that individuals are concerned about these problems and are most interested in a government or any group that would demonstrate an interest in medical research and support it in an appropriate manner.
If one looks at newspapers over a period of time, I believe this is demonstrated by their editorials. For example, I can remember in the early 1940 there were many editorials at that time concerned about the side effects of lead poisoning. There were a number of children in Canada who had problems with lead poisoning and people were asking for increased research with respect to lead poisoning.
I have seen articles on the problems of aging and the importance of research in this area. There are articles on megavitamins and the significance they may have with respect to the health of individuals in our society.
I recall in the early 1970s there was a good deal of discussion as to how much research was being done in Canada with respect to matters such as acupuncture and what effect it might have in terms of being an anesthetic tool or in treating diseases, particularly those of a painful nature. Also in the early 1970s we can recall the problems associated with mercury pollution when that problem arrived on the scene. Editorials were asking why there was no additional research for mercury poisoning. And indeed when we had the opposition day in this House of Commons with respect to mercury poisoning that was one of the elements of the debate which was raised at that time.
I can recall during the days of the Le Dain Commission people across the country were asking why we did not have more research concerning marijuana and other hard drugs. One could go on and on. For example, cigarette smoking and cancer can be mentioned. As I have mentioned, there is an editorial interest and there is an interest in Canada in terms of this most important aspect of medical research. But two or three other things come to mind. I am sure in addition to the items I have listed there are many other targets and areas of research that are important. One thing that people and the government should recognize is the fact that researchers cannot be trained overnight. It is a prolonged process. To have outstanding researchers it takes years of practice. This must be built up over a period of time with a great deal of patience and a great deal of cost.
Government Organization
Another aspect that must be remembered, as I have indicated, is that we need a broad front. In other words our targets tend to change from day to day, from week to week, and from month to month. What is perceived to be important in terms of a research topic today may not seem to be as relevant tomorrow. Something more important may appear on the scene tomo.row. That implies that if we are to provide that type of service, and if we are to provide the basic scientific and the basic biomedical research necessary, then we must have a broad front for basic medical research in Canada.
I will attempt to define and enlarge on this a little later. We must recognize, and I have pointed this out before-perhaps I can try to explain it in a little more detail this evening-that we cannot divorce basic medical research from education and from the delivery of health care across Canada. Indeed I suppose one could include preventive type medicine itself. They are interrelated, sir. If one of the links is weakened in the chain, I can assure hon. members that the quality of health care will disappear.
I have heard individuals and senior government officials on the other side from time to time indicate that it is much cheaper to import a health science. I found that remarkably strange and I am not sure that I follow the logic of that. Think about it for a moment. We are now talking about a very high technology of basic research and assume we have the hypothetical situation that we do not have the capability in Canada because we are going to import it.
I ask hon. members do you know who the knowledgeable people are who can assess that type of basic research that is done elsewhere in the international community? Where is the type of environment, the symposia or the type of consultative process that one would have in Canada that can really handle that in a proper fashion? Who, sir, would have the knowledge to interpret such fundamental basic research that could then be applied appropriately and even determine if it was applicable in a very human and real sense in terms of the medical problems in Canada?
Another matter that bothers me considerably is hearing officials from time to time, within government and elsewhere, who say that people are not prepared to finance medical research across Canada. Frankly I do not accept that statement, for a number of reasons. I find it amazing, because as I recall there are funds set up across Canada totalling around $600 million which contribute roughly $20 million to medical research of one sort or another each year. That is a substantial amount of money that has been donated by private individuals for the most important area of basic research.
It does not matter whether one looks at the Heart Fund or Muscular Dystrophy or the March of Dimes-I could go on and on listing these types of programs. It is my perception that people are very generous in their support of this type of program which is for basic research. Within the last two or three years a great proportion of the money devoted to cancer research, I believe roughly in the neighbourhood of $5 million or $6 million this past year, came from the private sector, not from the federal government.

January 25, 1979
Government Organization
As I indicated at the outset, there seems to be an uncertainty in the mind of the government as to the importance of biomedical research. I want to spend a few moments tonight, because I do not believe this has been done in the past to any great extent, trying to demonstrate to this government the importance of biomedical or basic research in Canada. I want to do that by reviewing some of the biomedical research that has led to the improvement of health care of individuals across Canada.
Before I give specific areas of research, let me indicate that in the whole area of biomedical research, and I think this is most important, that an individual working on project X may well end up with results that are not relative necessarily to that project. But they may have great relevance to another area that is being assessed, analysed or studied in another part of the country. Let us look at some of the biomedical research that has contributed to the health of not only Canadians but people in the international context.
First, polio. I am sure we have all heard of all the various vaccines and so forth. Let me remind hon. members that the original breakthrough in the polio vaccine originated from another project in which polio vaccine was not the anticipated end result. Think about it for a moment. If we had not had that breakthrough and had not had the polio vaccine, we would be living with the mentalities of the thirties and forties, with iron lungs and all of this massive, expensive technology which has been cured by the introduction and discovery of a simple vaccine.
We know, for example, that Enders basic research paved the way for Salk's polio vaccine, which, incidentally, was somewhat different from the original polio vaccine when it was introduced by Sabin. It has been estimated that since 1955 there have been accumulated about 50,000 Canadians whose lives were spared by these vaccines which were developed for polio. Economists have estimated that is an annual saving of approximately $200 million per year in Canada. We must think also about the human suffering that has been eliminated by the introduction of such a vaccine.
Waksman's discovery in 1955 of streptomycin at Rutger's University in the United States was a milestone in the treatment of tuberculosis. A number of years ago, before the introduction of appropriate therapy, individuals with that disease were institutionalized for six months or a year. Now, with appropriate therapy, it is not inconceivable that they are returned home within a two or three week period on adequate therapy. Think of the savings in costs and the relief of human suffering in terms of that discovery.
Basic research in immunology was carried out in Liverpool with respect to mental retardation. It was most significant in terms of hemalytic problems that occurred in newborn children. Of course we see this with Rh negative mothers. That situation has virtually been eliminated by that very basic biomedical research.
[Mr. Holmes.)
Hepatitis, a very, very common problem and a very expensive one in the past, was eliminated by the discovery, and I may say accidentally, by Blumberg in Australia of an antiprotein substance that was very effective in assisting in recognizing this disease, saving incalculable millions of dollars a year and the associated human suffering.
I could go on-Dausset in France, Payne in the United States who improved the tissue matching for kidney transplants. We now see these patients surviving for a much longer period of time. It has been estimated there is a saving of at least $10 million to $20 million a year with this one basic research discovery.
I could turn to Dr. Judith Pool of Stanford and her basic, almost accidental, discovery of how to prepare simply large amounts of anti-hemophilic protein for the treatment of hemophilics, a most important problem. I recall in the past that without adequate treatment, hemophiliacs had a very prolonged stay in hospital. We had very limited tools in our possession. We talked of hospital stays that could cost $10,000 or $20,000 a year for a family before the days of hospitalization insurance. That has virtually been eliminated with that type of discovery.
Another area is the anti-psychotic drugs that were discovered. These were primarily produced in France in the fifties. I am not exaggerating when I say, and 1 think the facts will prove it, probably 100,000 people a year are kept out of our hospitals and mental institutions. They are kept at home for a far more prolonged period because of the discovery and introduction of this type of drug. I am sure hon. members can appreciate the cost involved without that type of biomedical research.
Let us look in the Canadian context. Many are familiar with all individuals here-Banting and Best for the discovery of insulin. Need I say any more? We all know what that has saved in terms of dollars to individuals in Canada. There is also the possibility of the prospect of being able to treat that disease in a far more responsible way than we could years ago.
There is also the test for determining a person's sex by Dr. Barr, a former professor of mine at the University of Western Ontario. If I may say, sir, I am sure that name rings a bell with you. It is a very international name, he is a great Canadian, well known in international circles.
Think of what Dr. Gold of Montreal has done in terms of basic research on cancer. There is the work of Dr. Barbeau and his colleagues on L-DOPA, a most impressive drug in the treatment of Parkinson's disease. Two or three years ago in this House we were talking about mercury pollution and discussing Dr. Barbeau's name. He is internationally known as a neurologist and neurosurgeon who is working on the Minimata disease with the Cree Indians in northern Quebec.
I am trying to make a point that has not been recognized by this government as to the importance of basic medical research. Let me go on a little further. I think this is most significant. I really want the government to get the message as to the importance of basic medical research in this country.
January 25, 1979

I remember when Dr. Charles Scriver appeared before the standing committee, at our insistence. We had been asking, and continue to ask this government to take positive action with regard to medical research in Canada. In one of his appendices he had what I considered to be very interesting information which may help elucidate the importance of this problem of research. In it he had a consensus on advances in medicine. He asked 40 physician consultants and 40 to 50 specialists in cardiovascular and pulmonary diseases, and I am now talking about problems relating to the heart and lungs, to select the top ten major advances in that area over the past 30 years. This is the consensus.
Rated number one was cardiac surgery. What does he mean by cardiac surgery? He is referring to open heart surgery or repair of valves. The second was vascular surgery. That, of course, refers to the repair or bypass of various major vessels in the body such as the aorta or ileac vessels.
The third was drug treatment for hypertension or high blood pressure. The fourth was medical treatment of coronary heart disease. The fifth was treatment of cardiac arrest and irregularity of heartbeat.
The sixth was the development of oral diuretics. Let me explain this for hon. members who may not know. A diuretic is used very frequently in the treatment of those individuals who have accumulation, and in this particular instance accumulation of fluid in the chest. Of course, diuretics work on the kidneys in such a way that they excrete an extra amount of fluid.
The seventh was for intensive care units. This was for post-operative patients, coronary patients, respiratory patients, and newborn patients. Let me remind the House again that I am just talking about illnesses related to cardio-pulmonary problems. The eighth was the development of chemotherapy and antibiotics. This is not uncommon, and we are now talking about individuals with rheumatic heart disease, those who develop problems like endocarditis. Included with this were drugs such as I indicated somewhat earlier, streptomycin for tuberculosis, various antipneumonia drugs, various antibiotics, and of course drugs related to some of the venereal diseases which not infrequently could affect the major vessels of the chest.
The ninth was new diagnostic methods, and the tenth was polio vaccine. This may sound strange, but we must remember that there was a marked correlation between respiratory paralysis and polio vaccine in those days.
The government has never recognized the importance of the time frame or the amount of time that is necessary for these advances. As I indicated earlier, in biomedical research you cannot have shooting targets. You must have personnel in a broad area who are working over a period of time. Advances are slow in many instances. There must be accumulation of material and basic medical research in various areas over a period of time. Let me give an example. Dr. Scriver did this very adequately when he was looking at just one example of
Government Organization
open heart surgery. Open heart surgery was first performed in 1954 by Dr. Gibbon. The basic research for that really commenced in 1846. I cannot give all the elements of that research; time will not permit. In 1846 there was the development of general anaesthesia. Anaesthesia was obviously necessary for surgery of any kind at that time. Then we had the development of x-ray. X-ray is not simple. It involves the science of physics and other components.
Then we had to develop basic research regarding cardiac catheterization. We had to have all that technology, plus we had to develop the technology for cardio-pulmonary bypass, and then we had to have all the basic fundamental biochemical and physiological knowledge of oxygen and carbon dioxide, their uptake at the heart and lungs and their passage through the alveolar passages. There was a necessity for developing curare-like anaesthesia. That was developed in Canada, but the point I am trying to make is that to develop to that stage where Dr. Gibbon could do open heart surgery in 1954, we had to go through an entire list of many medical research steps. There had to be accumulation of medical research through projects over a period of years.


Donald W. Munro: Centuries.


John Robert Holmes: Centuries, as my colleague says. This accumulation took place between 1846 and 1954. This is a concept which I really do not believe the government understands. I apologize for taking the time, but I think getting this concept across to the government is absolutely essential. Since I came here in 1972 1 have been convinced that the government really does not grasp the significance of biomedical research.
I want to quote parts of an article which describes the problem very simply. This article refers to a speech which was given by Dr. Lewis Thomas, President of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Centre in New York.
Imagine this scenario: it takes place in a densely populated city in the northeast. Suppose you had to look after the majority of your patients on open wards, designed, say, for 26 patients each. Now suppose that these wards were kept entirely full, mostly by patients unable to pay anything at all for their care, throughout all 12 months of the year. Imagine that it is now late November, and the wards are not only full but you have had to arrange two rows of cots down the centre of each ward; you now have 40 patients in each 26-bed ward; and you know that within the next few weeks the cots will have to be extended out into the corridor, right up to, and perhaps even occluding, the elevator doors. This is the way things will be until next April, when it will slack off a bit and you can go back to a light service, with maybe only 30 patients on each 26-bed ward.
Now imagine that this arrangement is only the beginning of the demand for service. You need another entire hospital building, built somewhere adjoining the general hospital if you are lucky (for you can then consolidate a few costly service functions) or built in another part of town if you are unlucky. Into this hospital you will have to crowd, during the winter months, about twice the number of patients it is designed to contain. Most of these patients will be young children, and you will have to invent ways to isolate them from each other, and from everyone else.
Now imagine, if you can, that something like half of the patients in this huge nightmare of an institution are at risk of dying because of the severity of their diseases. Not that this number will actually die-indeed, many of them will survive and go home, but they will be deathly ill for weeks before they recover, and you will have to provide medical and nursing care around the clock to bring this off. Moreover, you will have to do this without much in the way of medicine, which means that you must be immensely skilled in the organization of general,

Government Organization
non-specific, supportive measures in order to bring the majority of your patients through.
What I have been describing is, of course, the Boston City Hospital of 35 years ago; but it could be Bellevue, or Cook County, or Brady, or Charity-
It could have been in Alberta, Montreal or Toronto.
-or any large general hospital of that period, and for a great many so-called public hospitals, run by counties or municipalities, the situation was a great deal worse.
Everyone recognized that it was intolerable, and there was no lack of organized public protest and no end to the recommendations by public bodies that something be done to change it. It was an open scandal. The hospitals were crowded beyond the point of inhumanity; there were never enough doctors and nurses to meet the need; too many patients were dying; something had to be done to put a stop to it.
Okay, we fixed it. It took a while, but we accomplished the revolution, and institutions like the crowded Boston City Hospital of 1937 have vanished. The chief problem confronting the city hospitals today is that they are so uncrowded that they can no longer justify anything like their costs of operating. The contagious disease units have been closed down. The tuberculosis hospitals are out of business. It is a different world.
How did we do all this? Some people, most of whom are too young to have lived through the old ways of hospital care, assume that it happened as a result of a social revolution that is still in progress, and that we eliminated the intolerable crowding of city hospitals by changing the economics of health care. The reason we no longer have all those cots down the center of all those open wards is that most of the patients are insured, on way or another, and since they can pay for their care they have gone off to other, more human and habitable, institutions. According to this view, we solved our problem, or anyway that part of the problem, by money.
If this were true, it would obviously carry enormous implications for the future. Having made a quantum improvement in the quality of hospital care between 1937 and today, we could look forward to equivalent improvements in the future, subject only to our ingenuity in finding sufficient funds and seeing to it that they are distributed with something more like equity.
He goes on to say later what really happened at that time. This is what is most important. I hope you will get the graphic picture of the situation which existed at that time. What happened sir, as he goes on to say, is the following:
What happened was that we got rid of lobar pneumonia. This was the main event, surrounded by several others of somewhat less importance. We also got rid of meningococcal meningitis and scarlet fever; the great urban outbreaks of diphtheria finally came under control;
That was the reason that the situation improved, and that is the message I am trying to get across. As a matter of fact, he goes on to say something more, and I think it is important. I want to quote one final paragraph from his paper. He says:
If I were a policymaker, interested in saving money for health care over the long haul, I would regard it as an act of prudence to give a high priority to a lot more basic research in the biological sciences.
That is the message I am trying to get across to this government this evening. That is why I have taken the time to demonstrate so many areas in which advances have been made which not only have been of assistance to individuals in a very human sense but also advances that have been of assistance in the economic sense. I say to the government that there is no question that the biological sciences should be given a high priority for some of the reasons I have outlined.
For a moment or two now I want to review a little of what transpired on the Canadian scene. I think those who are in the House know that during the post war era, particularly during

the 1950s and 1960s, there was a sense of euphoria in the research community. We saw that in the various faculties across the country. Medical schools were expanding, new staff was being hired, faculty posts were being developed, research projects were increasing at a rapid rate. I think that was part of the environmental attitude that existed in Canada at that time. All that has disappeared in the early 1970s.
Perhaps I should add one word here about something that has been poorly understood. We should recognize that scientists who are recruited to this most important area are not there for the financial reward. Those from the medical profession who are interested in that type of financial reward do not go into research. Financial rewards can be found in other areas. When we talk about moneys that are obtained by the important scientists in Canada who do major work, we must recognize that this is not money for their pockets but money for the various programs they are establishing. It is money for the support of their programs and for the technologists and equipment they need. As we all know, they are usually funded in the various chairs, or whatever position they hold in the universities.
As I indicated, in the early 1970s, and certainly since I came to the House of Commons in 1972, we have seen a slow but steady erosion in medical research in Canada. There is no question about that. There is no doubt that the abilities and skills of our investigators were there, but I want to assure you that despite the high quality of the research that existed, which would match any international standards, there has been a slow erosion in the research done in the Canadian scene. Although I indicated previously that the large portion of the funding for medical research comes from the public sector, we must recognize the major funding has come from the Medical Research Council.
If we look over the past nine years, it may appear to us that there has been a significant increase from about $34 million in 1970 to the present budget, which was initially estimated at about $60 million. I do not wish to get into a lot of statistics at this time, but let me point out that there has been a decrease in constant dollars with respect to medical research in Canada. We must recognize that the amount medical research has received is less than the annual cost of inflation across Canada. Bearing in mind that the cost of medical research-this could be well documented-increases at the rate of 15 per cent to 17 per cent a year in relation to the general rate of inflation which is now in double-digit numbers, there has been a steady erosion in the funding of medical research in Canada.
Let me put this in practical terms. What has this erosion meant to medical research in Canada? Perhaps members in the House know that there are two types of applications: there are requests for renewal of projects and there are requests for funds to support brand new projects. During the past two years, the approval rate for renewed grant requests has risen steadily, to the extent that less and less money for new projects is allocated. What we have found in 1977 is that 7.5 per cent of established or ongoing projects which were considered worthy of continued support had to be terminated and 25.5 per
January 25, 1979

cent of the applications to fund new research projects that have been considered worthy of support were turned down or rejected because money was not available. Those figures had increased substantially by 1978 and 1979, to the point where 40 per cent of the new projects, highly qualified and meeting all the standards, were rejected. Indeed, if my memory serves me correctly, 20 per cent of the older projects have been terminated. That is the type of erosion we have seen in Canada.
There is one other small point I would like to make in that regard. A very special research council committee was formed to review applications for the purchase of major items of scientific equipment designed for multiple use in various institutions, and a sizeable number of applications came forward, but not one of them was approved because of inadequacy of funds.
I note, Mr. Speaker, that you are on the verge of rising to indicate to me that my time is nearly up, so let me conclude by saying that I hope I have demonstrated in a graphic way the importance of medical research and that I have made a case to the government on the importance of medical research in Canada. I wanted more time to talk about the minister's new formula. Let me say quite frankly that I do not find that formula to be adequate. I find that in many respects it is misleading and will again erode the dollars which should be going to medical research. But, as I said, I notice that you are on the verge of rising in your place, Mr. Speaker, so let me simply say again that I hope the government has received the message of the importance of medical research, and I look forward with anticipation to hearing the Minister of National Health and Welfare speak in the debate at a later time.


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, I enter the debate on Bill C-35 fairly late in the evening. I should like to address myself particularly to Part III which deals with the Department of the Environment. This bill deals with the organization of the Government of Canada, and particularly with the division of the present Department of Fisheries and the Environment into a separate department of the environment and a department of fisheries and oceans.
As members of this House are aware, my party supports the creation of a department of fisheries and oceans. Such action is a long overdue acknowledgement of the importance of the fishing industry to Canadians and the Canadian economy. The promise to create such a department was made five years ago on the eve of the 1974 election, but it looks like this time it will become a reality. I am interested primarily in the implications this bill will hold for the future effectiveness of Environment Canada. I am concerned that this bill does not just create a new department, that it signals the dismantling of a i old one. Certainly Environment Canada has not lived up to the expectations generated at its inception back in 1970 when it was proposed as a super ministry with the powers to co-ordinate and consolidate the anti-pollution efforts of various federal departments and agencies. The mandate for the new depart-
Government Organization
ment read as follows in the Speech from the Throne of October 8, 1970:
There will be proposed the establishment of a department to be concerned with the environment and the husbanding of those renewable resources that are a part of and dependent upon it, with a mandate for the protection of the biosphere.
Because of their close relationship at the time, the government argued it was essential fisheries be brought under the direct control of the new ministry. Now with Bill C-35 we are being asked to consider reverting back to two completely separate ministries, somewhat similar to what existed prior to 1970. I would not argue that fisheries should remain a part of Environment Canada. As my colleagues have already demonstrated, the department consistently struck out when it came to managing our renewable marine resources. Incomes in the fishing industry are generally low and unstable, employment is declining, and the plundering of our offshore resources by foreign countries has led to a severe decline in fish stocks. Perhaps with an independent department of fisheries and oceans, the government will do more to exercise its powers in the area of our offshore fisheries, conservation practices, the settling of quotas, and so on.
However, the removal of fisheries and oceans from the direct influence of the Department of the Environment signals another step in the erosion of the power of that department. The department's mandate is "to protect the biosphere", but the only power it exercises according to this bill is the power to set out guidelines and objectives for other government departments. It can make recommendations, but it does not have the power to enforce the co-operation of these other departments.
As set out in today's bill, foremost among the minister's duties is "the preservation and enhancement of the environment". Yet the actual powers to enforce this mandate do not lie with the Department of the Environment; they are exercised by other government departments. For example, the Department of National Health and Welfare is responsible for the administration of the Environmental Contaminants Act. The Department of Transport is responsible for the Canada Shipping Act which gives it the authority to deal with oil spills. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources is responsible for the Atomic Energy Control Act which sets the regulations for the disposal of nuclear wastes. The Department of Agriculture administers the Pest Control Products Act, and so on. All of these deal with environmental concerns, but where is the Department of the Environment? It is setting guidelines and objectives, but with no power to see that they are met, or that they are enforced with any consistency by various government administration agencies.
In short, what I am saying is that while this department has the mandate "to protect the biosphere" and to preserve and enhance the environment", it does not have the power required to do so. It is entirely dependent upon the co-operation of other departments and agencies. Despite the minister's exhortations to the contrary, this bill underscores the sad fact that the Department of the Environment is a department without any teeth.

January 25, 1979
Government Organization
The main function of what I might call this lame duck Department of the Environment is to establish environmental objectives and standards, and to co-ordinate the actions of other departments in this regard. The minister's duties are indicated in Bill C-35 as follows:
For the purposes of carrying out his duties and functions related to environmental quality, the Minister of the Environment may, by order, with the approval of the governor in council, establish guidelines for use by departments, boards and agencies of the Government of Canada-
Whether these departments, boards and agencies adhere to these guidelines is a matter for some speculation. If past experience with guidelines set out for the improvement of Great Lakes water quality are any indication, there is little reason for optimism. Great Lakes water quality is an area of many overlapping jurisdictions: international, federal, provincial and municipal. It is of particular concern to me as a representative of the constituency of Brant in southern Ontario where we have witnessed the steady decline of the Great Lakes ecosystem. This situation presented one of the first and most pressing challenges to the Department of the Environment. It also provides an opportunity to assess the department's effectiveness in co-ordinating those activities which are necessary to protect the biosphere and enhance the environment. Unfortunately, many of those activities have been less than successful. The recent history of pollution control on the Great Lakes has been one of missed deadlines, ignored guidelines, and inadequate consultations between the various government agencies and departments involved.
It is interesting to note that when the Department of the Environment was created, it was to bring together concern for the quality of the environment and concern for the sound management of our fisheries resources. The department seems to have struck out on both counts as far as the Great Lakes are concerned.
According to a report issued by the General Accounting Office of the United States government as late or as recent as 1977, the fishing industry on the Great Lakes is doomed. At one time, fishing was a major element in the economy of the Great Lakes area. However, since the 1930s the industry has declined by 83 per cent. The report notes that in 1930 there were 5,284 full time and 1,617 part time commercial fishermen in the Great Lakes. In 1977 there were only 137 full time and 1,043 part time commercial fishermen. The primary reasons for the decline noted in the report are poor management of fisheries resources and, most important, contamination of fish by pesticides and other chemicals which find their way into the Great Lakes. The report indicates that with the present situation there is no chance the number of Great Lakes fishermen or the commercial catch will increase. It is a pretty serious situation.
The importance of Great Lakes water quality to the quality of our over-all environment cannot be underestimated. Together with the United States, we share one of the largest bodies of freshwater on earth. Almost half of the Canadian population resides in the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence basin. When the International Joint Commission issued its report in

1970 that Lake Erie and parts of Lake Ontario were dying, there was great cause for concern, possibly even panic. As indicated in the report, Lake Erie was in "an advanced state of eutrophication" and Lake Ontario was approaching a similar state". In addition, it reported a profuse and proliferating growth of aquatic vegetation in the St. Lawrence River. The causes were primarily attributed to uncontrolled discharges of municipal and industrial waste on both sides of the border.
The report was released at roughly the same time as the creation of the Department of the Environment, a situation which gives an interesting insight into the effectiveness of the department. When the original Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement was signed with the United States in 1972, it was clearly up to the federal government to demonstrate leadership on one of this nation's most urgent environmental issues. The responsibility fell to the Department of the Environment. Its duties and powers, as stated in the bill before us, include:
-the enforcement of any rules or regulations made by the International Joint Commission, promulgated pursuant to the treaty between the United States of America and His Majesty, King Edward VII, relating to boundary waters and questions arising between the United States and Canada, so far as they relate to the preservation and enhancement of the quality of the natural environment.
In the original Water Quality Agreement of 1972, target dates for substantial improvements in water quality were set for December, 1975. That date has long since quietly passed, and the objectives were not met. The latest report of the International Joint Commission, issued last summer, warns that Canada and the United States are still not catching up with pollution on the lakes. It states water quality is not improving and pollution control measures must be taken more seriously if the process is to be reversed. The recommendations of the report, which cost $20 million, took three years of research and involved more than 300 investigations, must be put into force by government action. However, I question whether the Department of the Environment possesses the power necessary to produce the required results. If so, it has certainly been reluctant to exercise it in the past.
Of course, it is powerless to elicit more co-operation from the U.S. to meet our mutual objectives. Studies have shown Canada is far ahead of the U.S on its municipal sewage treatment projects. We can be proud of the fact that Canada is now treating 99 per cent of the sewage waste dumped into the lakes. Only 68 per cent of the sewage from cities and communities in the U.S. meet treatment standards under the 1972 agreement.
However, we are lagging far behind the United States when it comes to enforcing guidelines for Canadian industrial pollution. The worst Canadian polluters are the pulp and paper companies, although Canadian steel producers also lag far behind American producers. According to a 1978 report by the Great Lakes Water Quality Board, the 24 pulp and paper mills in Ontario produced less than half the total tonnage of their 72 U.S. counterparts, but they discharged more than four times the pollution in the form of phosphorous and micro-organisms which feed on the lake's oxygen supply.
January 25, 1979

The new Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement signed last November will place much stricter limits on the dumping of phosphorous into the Lakes. However, the amount of phosphorous pouring into the Lakes is now far in excess of 1972 guidelines. The new agreement gives no indication that the new guidelines will be any more rigidly enforced. If they are not, there is a good possibility that parts of Lakes Erie and Ontario will be changed back into lifeless swamp water, reversing the progress that has already been made.
Part of the reason our corporate pollution record is poor compared to the U.S. is our unwillingness to put some muscle into the enforcement of water quality guidelines. Too often government enforcement agencies are willing to bend when a company threatens loss of profits or lay-offs. This is not the case in the U.S. In 1977 the U.S. Steel Corporation was fined $4 million for discharging ammonia and phenol into Lake Michigan. By contrast, the biggest fine ever levied in Canada was $64,000 against the American Can Co. of Canada Ltd., for allowing mercury to leak into Lake Superior. That is some contrast.
In short, Canada has been soft on its corporate polluters. In its latest annual report, the International Joint Commission wrote:
One of the primary differences between the United States and Canadian approaches to effluent quality, is that plants in the United States were generally required to achieve compliance by July, 1977. In Canada, the compliance dates vary from plant to plant. Also, the corporate stringency of... control requirements may vary depending on the industrial sector, plant, and pollutant being considered.
The U.S. government has used a system of formal permits setting out the limits that industrial plants are required to meet. The U.S. federal government sets minimum standards, but some states set higher standards on their own.
In Canada, the province's limits are set in consultation with the federal government, and I would argue that it is at this time that the Department of the Environment should urge the provinces to adopt the toughest, most uniform standards possible. As it stands now, the provinces negotiate individual compliance standards with each polluter. These schedules can be, and often are, amended at the discretion of the province, very often under extreme duress by a large corporation.
This lack of rigidity, of uniform standards and of federal guidance is one of the primary reasons we are lagging behind the U.S. when it comes to controlling industrial pollution.
This lack of direction from the Department of Environment is evident in other areas, most notably in its failure to live up to its obligations to co-ordinate the anti-pollution activities of other federal departments. I am thinking particularly at this time of the lack of dialogue or interchange between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture.
The International Joint Commission has identified farm land use activities as a major contributor to polluting Lake Erie. According to reports, two thirds of the phosphorous in the lake has its source in farm run-off. Agriculture has been singled out as a particularly important pollution factor because
Adjournment Debate
of the increasing use of pesticides and uncontrolled discharges of wastes from livestock and poultry.
I am not blaming farmers directly, but I think it is about time the provincial and federal environmental departments and various farm organizations in Ontario and in the United States got together in an attempt to arrange better farm management in order to prevent further pollution from these pesticides that run off from artificial chemical fertilizers on farms where rivers flow south into Lake Erie from Canada, or north into Lake Erie from the United States.
At the same time, erosion of farm land has increased tenfold in the past 15 years, adding a vast amount of sediment to the lakes and choking streams and harbours. There is so much silt in small harbours such as Port Hope, Port Stanley and Port Burwell, to name only a few, that it is dangerous to pleasure boaters and commercial fishermen, and virtually nothing is being done about that. Yet there is no indication the Department of the Environment has entered into discussion on this problem with the federal Department of Agriculture or its provincial counterparts. The Department of the Environment, in conjunction with other departments, should be developing programs which would assist farmers to 'change their farm management practices. There is also a need for financial assistance to establish measures to deal with sediment and farm run-off control. This is an area where the Department of the Environment should be playing a central co-ordinating role, but it is not.
Something has to be done very soon in order to rectify this very dangerous situation that has developed in the Great Lakes lower basin. When one talks about the quality of fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and offshore in eastern Canada, one should bear in mind an image of all this silt, chemical and human effluent, industrial waste and so on that is literally pouring down from the lower Great Lakes into the St. Lawrence River and, past Montreal where most of that city's human effluent is being discharged into the river, and out into the Gulf of St. Lawrence where it is harming fisheries off the east coast. In conclusion, there is a relationship between pollution in the Great Lakes and the fishing industry on the east coast.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, on November 6, 1978, as reported at page 812 of Hansard, I

January 25, 1979
Adjournment Debate
asked a question of the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand) concerning a contract which was being negotiated by the Canadian forestry service with the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada. I suggested then that the work could have been done by the Forestry Management Institute, one of two forestry institutions in Ottawa, the other one being the Forest Fire Research Institute. Both of these institutions were slated to move to Petawawa after a lay-off of approximately 50 personnel.
The origin of this series of events goes back to the announcement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on August 1, 1978, of the intent to cut back government expenditures in a very massive way. The then president of the treasury board announced on August 15 that a series of government operations would be closed, including the Forest Research Institute at Petawawa. Very substantial representations were made by my colleague, the hon. member for Renfrew North-Nipissing East (Mr. Hopkins). The effect of his representations was to save the operation at Petawawa, and to bring about the closure of two institutes in Ottawa.
Since that time the minister has pursued a policy not only of relocation of what is left of these operations, but of privatizing two forest products institutes, one in Ottawa and the other in Vancouver. The minister confirmed in yesterday's Hansard at page 2515 that there exists an interim chairman of a board which has taken on the job of raising enough money from the private sector, which together with a government grant of some $4 million, will permit these two operations to continue.
My concern relates to the way in which this rather sad series of events unfolded. I support the decision of the government to cut back its budget and to adopt a policy of restraint because it is called for under the present circumstances. However, I cannot help but feel that it would have been better if the policy had been worked through more extensively in private before public announcements were made. Before an announcement is made the proposal should be carefully examined, with all its implications, to prevent changes after the initial public announcement.
I know that the employees of these forest products operations will accept the moves with the best grace possible, but I am concerned about those who terminate their employment with the public service, even if there is an offer forthcoming of private employment. A change of employer is not an easy thing. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) has indicated that all agreements which are in existence will be honoured on behalf of those employees who are being transferred to the private sector. This involves changes which are not easily compensated for. For example, those who subscribe to the public service superannuation benefit scheme and who subsequently move to the private sector will find that there will be some pension adjustment. In many cases the benefits in the private sector are not equal to those in the public service.
I feel that the case for research is not being kept in sight, considering what is actually happening. The forest industry is responsible for something like $7.5 billion worth of exports, as the minister stated when his estimates were before the House.
The contributions of a number of dedicated scientists in this particular industry cannot be underestimated. When the minister assumed his portfolio he addressed a national meeting of foresters and made an inspiring speech, telling them that they had to go out and sell their case for research to the public of Canada. In my public life I have never heard of a stronger case that could be made.
I know every cut is going to hurt. I know the decision on how to cut back is one of the most painful to be made, but I truly believe that the cutback in forestry research will hurt Canadians over the long period. There is a tremendous amount at stake.
I should like to have an assurance from the government that long-term research objectives will continue to be supported when these laboratories are privatized. I should like an assurance that there has been some basic determination of our needs in this area.
At a committee meeting recently I sat with the new Auditor General and we talked about value for money spent. If there ever was a case where value for money could be justified it is in forest research, limited though it has been so far at the federal level.
The people I represent in the national capital region, Mr. Speaker, know that the decision of their employer, the government, has to be accepted and respected. Many members on this side as well as on the other side of the House have raised the question of what the government is doing in this area, and the decisions have now been made. Tonight, I should like to have an assurance from the government that its basic objectives in forest management research will not be neglected.


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, following the announcement of the government's expanded renewable energy program by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) on July 4, 1978, the Canadian Forestry Service exchanged letters of intent with a number of organizations and private firms, one of which was the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada-FERIC-with respect to the projects under this expanded program.
The agreement currently being negotiated with FERIC provides for the institute to undertake certain studies related to forest biomass for energy over a two-year period in exchange for contributions by the Government of Canada not to exceed $750,000. FERIC was chosen by an interdepartmental group to carry out these studies because it has the necessary management expertise, as well as the ability to mobilize quickly the necessary personnel for the limited period of the agreement. The government's decision to fund this project and to negotiate an agreement with FERIC for its execution is consistent with the policy of promoting an increased research and development capability in the private sector.
The decisions and commitments in respect to the FERIC project were made before the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) announced major reductions in government spending. Inciden-

January 25, 1979

tally, I should like to correct the hon. member's understanding that the Forest Management Institute is to be closed. Rather, it is to be moved to Chalk River where its programs will be amalgamated with those of the Petawawa Forest Experimental Station and the Forest Fire Research Institute.
The Forest Management Institute has some expertise in the renewable energy field. Indeed, these people will act as government project advisers to FERIC and as scientific authorities on other renewable energy projects contracted with the private sector.
To put the matter in perspective, FERIC is not being given funds to conduct forest energy studies at the expense of in-house forest energy research. The funds being contributed to FERIC are part of an expanding government renewable energy initiative shared by the Forest Management Institute and other government establishments. By making better use of the private sector in areas where it has the expertise, we feel this program will benefit the Canadian people and improve Canada's technological capability.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-CO-ORDINATOR TO ENSURE MAXIMUM USE OF RAIL CARS TO MOVE GRAIN
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I raised a question with the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board toward the end of December. I asked in effect would the government consider introducing the position of a grain transportation co-ordinator to help co-ordinate and straighten out the mess that we have in grain transportation in Canada. His answer was very unclear at that time, to say the least, and his actions since that time have not led me to believe that a grain transportation co-ordinator for this very vital industry is any closer.
I submit this evening that a grain transportation co-ordinator will help straighten out the transportation mess we have. Grain is not reaching the port of Vancouver in sufficient quantities. And when the port of Thunder Bay was open, it was not reaching that port. This situation was demonstrated by the number of waiting ships, especially at the present time in the port of Vancouver.
Demurrage last year was high. It was in the vicinity of some $25 million, and it will be high again for this coming year. An interesting sidelight that may force some action on this whole question is the fact that within about three weeks the Chinese will be coming to Canada to take the grain that was purchased in the past crop year. They are expecting some 17 ships to load this grain in Vancouver. The unfortunate situation arising at the present time is the fact that the grain is not available. As a result, farmers and people in this country incur large demurrage charges. We have had lost sales in the past year in the order of some $450 million. This has been admitted now by the Canadian Wheat Board. That comes to approximately $3,000 per permit holder.
Under the terms of reference of a transportation co-ordinator I feel that the co-ordinator should have the power over the railways, the unions, the grain companies, the elevator compa-
Adjournment Debate
nies, in effect all facets of the grain industry. The position of a co-ordinator should be brought in and legislated here in the House of Commons. The grain co-ordinator should be responsible to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board who is in effect responsible to parliament. A person holding this position of grain transportation co-ordinator should hold it for two years. In other words, it should not be a permanent position. We do not want this kind of control over an industry to be permanent in nature. The situation is so serious at the present time that the ultimate or arbitrary power proposed for this individual is necessary for the immediate future.
It is interesting to note that the grain companies are in favour of a transportation co-ordinator, as are some other segments of the grain industry. I feel that this step should be taken immediately. If it is, all parties in the house should give it speedy passage. The time has come for this form of absolute power over the grain industry.
Losses to the farmer and losses to Canada itself in terms of the amount of money grain generates are too great. A grain co-ordinator could be of some help in a labour dispute, if one were to arise at any of our major grain ports. The office of the co-ordinator which I envisage, existed back in the early 1950s. I believe it should be in Winnipeg. The co-ordinator would only need a very small staff because he would have power from parliament. As I mentioned before, his terms of reference should be no longer than two years, and until we get the transportation mess in this country sorted out.
In my opinion the situation has reached a critical stage. The government has studied the industry to death and has not done anything of a positive nature to help it. As an example the situation in Manitoba is very critical in the context that grain has not been moving in this particular crop year and farmers are very short of ready cash. The farmers deserve something better in the way of grain sales than they are getting at the present time. I see no other way than to bring in legislation for a grain transportation co-ordinator and give him the necessary power to straighten out the grain mess in Canada today.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's proposal for a grain transportation co-ordinator. This has been discussed in numerous fora. It was discussed briefly at the senior transportation committee meeting on December 13, 1978, and again at the federal-provincial conference of grain handling and transportation on January 8 and 9, 1979.
The general opinion at these meetings was that the setting up of such a co-ordinator is not the best solution to the problem at this time and that a more desirable approach to ensuring that the maximum use is made of our grain handling and transportation capacity is to foster the utmost co-operation between the various segments of the system. The various participants are each experts in their own areas and it is important to make the most efficient use possible of this expertise.

January 25, 1979
Adjournment Debate
If it were to be shown that the appointment of an outside co-ordinator is desirable, that step would be taken. In 1969, with the increased volumes of grain moving into Thunder Bay and Vancouver, it was determined that a grain movement co-ordinator was desirable in order to prevent congestion and unnecessary delays.
Obviously, a co-ordinator who was knowledgeable in the fundamentals of railroading and with some authority was needed. Two co-ordinators were appointed to co-ordinate the efforts of the various segments of port operations toward improving the throughput of existing facilities. They work in close liaison with the local supervisors of the various segments of port operations improving the flow of information and assisting in the resolution of operating problems.
The grain car co-ordinators have performed a vital function in assisting the movement of grain through Thunder Bay and Vancouver. Grain handling innovations have been introduced which probably would not have been possible without the important control function of the co-ordinator. Car unloading levels, rail car utilization and terminal elevator handlings have increased since these co-ordinators were put in place.
While these co-ordinators were necessary and are performing admirably, it does not follow that the co-ordinating function should be extended from the ports to cover the whole system. The system involves interaction between many groups, and over-all co-ordination would be extremely complex. It is desirable to encourage a co-operative approach, as the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) is doing through the senior transportation committee, and reserve the co-ordination as a position of last resort.


AIR TRANSPORT-CIVIL AVIATION INSPECTORS WITHOUT CONTRACT
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, on December 19 last, in a motion under Standing Order 43 I drew the attention of the House to the deteriorating situation in civil aviation standards in Canada. My motion requested the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Buchanan) and the Minister of Labour (Mr. O'Connell) to put their heads together in order to solve the very serious deteriorating situation with our civil aviation inspectors group.
On December 20, just before the Christmas recess, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board I asked the Minister of Transport whether he was aware that comparability did not exist for that group with military pilots and air traffic controllers, let alone comparability with the private sector. In a rather offhand manner, the minister pointed out there had been difficulties and disputes involving the collective bargaining process. However, he shared my view that this is a very important group indeed.
The minister did not reply to my request asking him which of three crises he would wait for before something in a meaningful way was done to correct the deplorable condition that existed in the collective bargaining process. As in too

many disputes today, the manipulation of the collective bargaining process is the root cause of attitudes and situations which affect a group as important as the one of which I am speaking.
I have three pages of chronology here involving some 32 steps since December 15, 1973, and this group has been without a contract since 1975. They submitted themselves to binding arbitration, and the Treasury Board negotiators at that time agreed to binding arbitration. Mr. Justice Hall ruled in their favour, yet the Treasury Board saw fit to appeal the case when it went before the AIB.
These people have fallen well behind the income levels of the military air pilots who serve Canada and the air traffic controllers who, because of their power, can shut down our air transportation system with the snap of a finger.
The civil aviation inspectors of Canada are charged with the responsibility of enforcing the law and maintaining a high and desirable standard of civil aviation safety. Their duties are many and varied. They look after more than 21,500 registered aircraft in Canada. There are 83,000 or more personal licences and permits which they supervise. There are licenced air carriers numbering something like 1,360. There are 950 licenced airports and 604 navigational aid systems which need their continuous supervision.
What has happened with this lack of comparability with their counterparts in the civil service, and most certainly with their counterparts out in the industry, is that they have lost spirit and are leaving their service. There are 369 man-years charged to this responsibility, and as I understand it now, over 60 of these have left that service and gone to the private sector.
The tragedy here is that this is a group which has a high standard of education and experience. They are the people who sit behind our commercial airline pilots and approve their performance and their knowledge of their aircraft. These gentlemen have 10,000 flying hours of experience, an average age of 49, and an average of 27 years of aviation experience.
I will give the particular case of one with 19,000 flying hours. He is paid a base of $18,620. He can get flying pay of another $2,400, for a total of $21,000. He is the gentleman who is supposed to rule on the ability of a young pilot flying a Cessna aircraft on the B.C. coast for about a six-month period during the open weather season. This young pilot can make up to $28,000 in six months. The whole flying industry is just laughing at the plight and the condition of these civil aviation inspectors.
I am quite frustrated when I see a government which is supposed to be responsible in this area, and a Minister of Labour who today answered my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), to the effect that it is strange to him that the hon. member would suggest that it is the principle of comparability which is at stake. I was quite shocked at the put-down given by the minister to my colleague, because I know the minister to be a serious and concerned
January 25, 1979

individual. I suggest that he take a very serious look at this very serious situation and the lack of fairness with this civil aviation inspector group within the air operations group of the Department of Transport.
These people are not union-oriented. Their job is to enforce the law. They were told by the Treasury Board that negotiations would begin again on January 3. For some magic reason-part of this game again-negotiations were not proceeded with, and the inspectors went out on strike. Because of a technicality and their respect for the law, they went back to work. Then they were told that there will be negotiations on January 29, but I want to leave the message with the ministers responsible that unless there is a meaningful offer on January 29, I can see nothing but deterioration with regard to this important group, and it is not the type of group which can be put back together once it has disintegrated.
Why is this government insisting on an attitude of destruction and unfairness in the comparability of wage even with their own colleagues in the civil service let alone in comparison with the people they have had to supervise and on whom they have had to enforce the regulations?
I would be very disappointed if the minister replied to me by saying this has anything to do with restraint. There are all kinds of areas where restraint can be applied and there are all kinds of waste in management by this government, but restraint in areas as vital and important to civil aviation in Canada and standards of civil aviation is deplorable, and I urge all three ministers to get to work on this urgent problem.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to provide the hon. member with some additional facts surrounding the aircraft operations group withdrawal of service. At this time the government is seeking clarification from the Public Service Staff Relations Board, through an application process, requesting that the PSSRB declare whether the group is in a legal strike position. This group is responsible for piloting of aircraft as well as inspection and regulation of aircraft equipment and aviation facilities.
There are three subgroups involved. They are: the 356 civil aviation inspectors earning an average salary of $24,854; 17 executive pilots and supervisors whose average salary is
Adjournment Debate
$31,426, and the helicopter pilots and supervisors who number 51 and earn an average income of $25,732.
This brings the total number of employees in the aircraft operations group to 424. The average salary for the group is $25,240. In addition, the civil aviation inspector is eligible to receive up to $2,400 annually as a flying allowance.
The former bargaining agent for the group, the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, was decertified in July of last year. The Canadian Union of Professional and Technical Employees obtained the bargaining rights.
The group has been without a collective agreement since July, 1975. Both the former and current bargaining agents refused to enter into a new collective agreement. They thought it might prejudice their attempts to have overturned the order of the Administrator, under the Anti-Inflation Act, which restricted the compensation increases to the group to $2,400 annually, the maximum permissible increase under the AIB. This restriction applies to the two-year period from July, 1975, to July, 1977.
However, the government unilaterally implemented the maximum permissible increase under AIB in August, 1976, for the period concerned. This resulted in rates of pay being increased for the group by 11.5 per cent, effective July, 1975, and 9.86 per cent effective July, 1976.
The former and current bargaining agents have refused to sign a collective agreement incorporating these increases as the matter was before the courts. However, in November, 1978, the Federal Court of Canada rejected the challenge made by the bargaining agent.
On December 1, 1978, the government unilaterally implemented the maximum permissible increases under the AIB for the third guideline year giving the group a 9.41 per cent increase to rates of pay effective July, 1977.
As a result, for the period July, 1975, to July, 1978, the average salary for the group has gone up by 38.23 per cent, so that the current average salary is $6,756 higher than in June, 1975. On December 1 last, the government also served notice to bargain for the period beginning July, 1978, which is to start next Tuesday, January 30.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday, January 26, 1979