1979-11-08

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In today's Ottawa Citizen, Frank Howard, under the byline "Bureaucrats," publishes a letter dated November 6, 1979, written by Boris Celovsky, assistant director, labour division, Statistics Canada. In this letter, Dr. Celovsky makes serious allegations about the integrity and the reliability of Statistics Canada's information to the government and the Canadian public.
Considering that in Dr. Celovsky's own words, "Statistics Canada's performance record over the past few years has become rather spotty," and that, further, "the bureau has wasted and continues to waste public money on projects which were badly designed and should never have been launched", and considering the accusation by Dr. Celovsky that the labour income, one of the largest components of the national account, is said to have been adjusted, cooked or fudged without consistent technical basis, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier):
That the government make an immediate statement concerning the serious allegations of Dr. Celovsky and that this disturbing matter be referred to the appropriate standing committee for immediate investigation prior to the tabling by the Minister of Finance of his overdue budget.


Mr. Speaker:: The introduction of such a motion at this time would require unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. E. F. Whelan (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering the timid and lukewarm reaction of the Prime Minister and his government to the Quebec white paper, and considering the absolutely false information contained in its pages, as exemplified under the heading of "Agriculture", accusing federalism of strangling agricultural development in that province, when in fact the opposite is true, if one considers, for example, dairying, egg and chicken production in Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Megantic-Compton-Stanstead (Mr. Tessier):
That this House instruct the Prime Minister and his government to launch forthwith a vigorous, total and relentless attack against the perpetrators of this scandalous and wilfully misleading propaganda fabricated to destroy our beloved country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Raymond Savard (Verdun):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with an important matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that newspapers have reported a statement made by the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Jarvis) indicating that his department will soon be distributing to certain Quebeckers information files which could be used in the campaign preceding the referendum, and since the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) has stated that he would not take part in that campaign, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart):

November 8, 1979
5.0.	43
That the House direct the government to clarify its position on the referendum and make public the criteria applied to select those Quebeckers.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FORESTRY
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that Canada's forest industry accounts for over $7 billion in exports-as much as mining, agriculture, fishing and fuels combined-and in view of the fact that our forest resources are being depleted at an atrocious rate, far ahead of the rate of reforestation, particularly in northern Ontario where the growth cycle of trees is lengthy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais):
That the government convene a conference of resource ministers to discuss and take strong action on reforestation before it is too late and the heart of Canada's economic security is cut out.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Dennis Dawson (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. Since, tomorrow, we will be visited by Mr. Carter, President of the United States and candidate for the investiture of the Democratic party, since he will be addressing a joint sitting of the House and Senate, since this Parliament and Mr. Carter are quite preoccupied with respecting democratic tradition, and since yesterday that process was served in the United States by another candidate's announcement, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Gourd):
That this House recognize the traditional necessity for equal time and invite Ted Kennedy to address himself to us.
[Mr. Savard.J


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the rate of a 100 per cent disability pension was related in 1972 to the composite pay of five public service groups, and this basis was reaffirmed in 1978, and in view of the fact that the disability pension has now fallen behind that composite rate by $213 this year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Bockstael):
That this House requests the Minister of Veterans Affairs to introduce immediately legislation establishing the basic rate of war disability pension on the basis by which it was determined in 1972.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented for discussion at this time, pursuant to the Standing Orders, only with unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST CONTINENTAL ENERGY POLICY BE DISCUSSED WITH U.S.-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43. Since three prominent United States politicians in the last few months-Senator Kennedy, Governor Brown and Mr. John Connally, who share other matters in common-have also spoken out on a continental energy policy involving, as it does, Canada and Mexico, and since the Prime Minister is meeting with the President of the United States tomorrow for only a very short period, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the House instruct the Prime Minister to discuss with President Carter the pros and cons of a continental energy policy, and also the possibility of a further meeting for a longer period of time with the President of Mexico, the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada, and to report next week to this House on the outcome of those discussions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 8, 1979

Oral Questions
ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


REQUEST EVIDENCE OF WRONGDOING BE SUBMITTED TO PROVINCIAL ATTORNEYS GENERAL-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the serious allegations of criminal wrongdoing which have been uncovered during the course of the McDonald commission inquiry, and in view of the respect which all members of this House hold for the principle of the rule of law, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell):
That this House call upon the Solicitor General to immediately turn over all evidence of criminal wrongdoing to provincial attorneys general for possible prosecution.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROPOSAL THAT ADJOURNMENT DEBATE BE HELD AT SIX O'CLOCK EXCEPT ON FRIDAYS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion relating to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Berthier-Mas-kinonge (Mr. Yanakis):
That henceforth the adjournment debate provided for under Standing Order 40 be held at six o'clock on all sitting days except Fridays, when there shall be no debate.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that the reasons for such a change are obvious and that there is no need for extensive explanations, except perhaps to point out that besides having an adjournment debate on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, there would also be one on Wednesdays. All other conditions and procedures surrounding the debate as set out in Standing Orders 39(6) and 40 would remain unchanged except for the advance notice the Speaker is required to give every day at five o'clock. The Speaker would then give notice of the matters that would be raised during the adjournment debate on the next sitting day of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion can be debated at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. John C. Munro (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Figures that came into my possession today, which are widely known, would indicate that we will have a record deficit in automotive parts trade with the United States to the tune of $2,220 million for the first nine months of this year. I indicate to the Prime Minister that this is the highest deficit ever experienced. Also, the projection is that it will be $3.1 billion by the end of this year. This is a 400 per cent increase over the previous year.
Could the Prime Minister indicate to the House just what stress he will put on this intolerable situation in speaking with the President tomorrow, and what action will he ask of the President in order to correct this situation?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of State for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, no doubt there is an increased level in the buying patterns between the two countries. It is partly related to a higher degree of buying in Canada relative to the United States.
As I said yesterday to the hon. member, this matter was the subject of a brief by the Automotive Parts Manufacturers' Association. It is under review right now, and we are proposing to get back to them to discuss some points as soon as we have completed our study.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I found the answer on the part of the Minister of International Trade not too intriguing. He may recall that in 1971, when treasury secretary Connally was in this country, Canada was experiencing a small surplus. In 1970 it was $204 million, in 1971 it was $198 million, and in 1972 it was $44 million. This is a pittance compared to the type of deficit we are now running with the United States.
At that time, treasury secretary Connally said the situation was intolerable from the point of view of the United States and that the United States would be taking unilateral action to correct the situation no matter what Canada thought. Since our deficit is now so horrendously high, is the minister prepared to indicate a strong stand on the part of the Canadian government to President Carter tomorrow?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that he would be raising this matter tomorrow with the

November 8, 1979
Oral Questions
President at their meetings. We are very concerned with the level of this deficit and we are going to do something about it. We have been discussing this question with the manufacturers. That is the extent of what we can say to date.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am pressing this matter is that I hope there is not the same type of inprecision, confusion, and ambiguity-


Mr. Crosbie:: That there was when you were over here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: -that the Canadian government showed to all Canadians with respect to the Foothills project, which we are in great danger of losing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: I hope the Canadian government does not repeat that with respect to the auto pact. I ask the minister, is he prepared to indicate to the President that, since Canada shares 10 per cent of the entire North American auto market, we hope and expect the United States will agree that we at least get that percentage in terms of new technology with respect to any new generation of automobiles, and that until we get assurances of this kind and corrective action regarding the deficit, we are not prepared to accommodate the United States with respect to any of their bargaining points?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think all the problems that this industry is facing have been building up over the last five, six or seven years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We are going to take action. The previous government had a report prepared by Simon Reisman which was slipped under the desk. We have not heard anything more about that. We will review that report once again in light of the brief from the automotive parts manufacturers. We are going to do something about it.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY-FAIR SHARE FOR CANADA OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I hope he can be induced to answer a question on the automotive industry. Recently, General Motors of Canada announced a $1 billion expansion program at its parts plants in Windsor and St. Catharines, along with another $1 billion for updating other facilities. This capital investment was welcome news for the communities involved, but is certainly insufficient for Canada's national interest since it is only a drop in the bucket compared to the $38 billion the parent company will be spending on capital investment in the United States.

In light of the fact that the president of General Motors of Canada described the Canadian proportion of the investment as a good share, even if not a fair share, can the Prime Minister inform the House what steps the government will be taking to ensure that the automotive multinationals give Canada a fair share, and not just a good share, of investment?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the hon. member now speaking in this House on matters relating to the automotive industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We will review, including perhaps directly through conversations with the presidents of the automotive companies involved, steps they think might be appropriate for the Government of Canada to take to achieve that or any other realistic goal.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I have spoken more in this House on the automotive industry than anybody on that side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: My supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister. Since the deficit in automotive parts is now predicted to be about $4.5 billion for this year, what action is the government prepared to take in inducing the Big Three to source more parts in Canada and in assisting the automotive parts manufacturers through a repayable loans fund for investment, tooling and research development in Canada?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of State indicated moments ago, that is a matter we are looking into as a result of the various reports that have come before the Government of Canada.


OIL IMPORTS-CONTINGENCY PLANS TO MEET POSSIBLE REDUCTION OF SUPPLIES FROM IRAN
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Given the present threat of an interruption of oil from Iran, and the fact that we have no emergency back-up supplies to meet a sizeable reduction in imported oil, can the minister tell the House what contingency plans are now in place to meet either a partial or full cut-off of Iranian oil? Can we get by without rationing?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I welcome the opportunity to indicate that my current information is that there is not now the immediate prospect of the Iranian government curtailing any shipments to Canada. In fact, the information I have is that the shipment to Canada is nowen route with respect to our anticipated
November 8, 1979

share, and we will be in a position to have sufficient supply which will reach us well into the winter on the basis of the shipments that have already left Iran and are en route to Canada.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I have not had an answer from the minister in terms of a contingency plan. In view of reports out of Iran that oil tankers destined for the United States are not being loaded, and this will mean the multinational oil companies will try to reduce oil shipments to Canada in order to make up for shortfalls in oil destined for the United States, what assurance does the minister have from Imperial Oil and Exxon that we will not face a repetition of the situation we faced last spring, when oil destined for Canada was diverted to the United States to make up for their shortages?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I simply want to state that the information which the hon. member gives to the House is not in accordance with the information I have received. Indeed, the best information we have from government sources in Iran, and also with respect to the industry itself, is that there has been no shutdown and that oil for export from Iran is proceeding normally.
All I am saying is that we have en route and on the sea now the supply anticipated for Canada. We do not expect that this will cause us serious concern. We are watching developments in Iran carefully, but we now have sufficient supply to see us through well into the winter.


Reginald Cyril Symes: I think consumers in eastern Canada can take small comfort from those assurances.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Reginald Cyril Symes: The minister says he is watching the situation. What action is he taking? What contingency plans are in place, bearing in mind that this is such a fragile situation, as the minister himself acknowledges? Why does the government not use Petro-Canada to pursue vigorously arrangements to increase supplies from Mexico and Venezuela on a govern-ment-to-government basis to offset our dependence on the multinational companies and unstable Middle East oil?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The faint applause the hon. member gets from his own colleagues indicates the preposterousness of his question. The hon. member well knows that negotiations are continuing in a very satisfactory manner with Mexico and Venezuela. Incidentally, the Leader of the Opposition indicated on two different occasions that somehow an agreement had been reached with Venezuela. That is incorrect. He was not telling the correct truth about that matter. The fact is, we have been carrying on those negotiations. We are sending a delegation there next month to continue the process. Negotiations are proceeding satisfactorily and I want to give that assurance to the House generally.
Oral Questions


NATIONAL UNITY
Dennis Dawson: Mr. Speaker, my question to the right hon. Prime Minister refers to the statements made recently by the western premiers and the Ontario premier, as well as to an editorial which appeared in this morning's Washington Post which reads in part as follows: [English]
The newspaper said the next move in the debate over Canada is up to Prime Minister Clark, who "huffs that the whole idea is absolutely unacceptable." The newspaper added:
But he's going to have to do better than that. If he refuses any larger concessions to French Canadian concerns he will only confirm the separatists' charges-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member has a question to ask, will he please ask it.
[ Translation]


Dennis Dawson: Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister indicate to the House whether, in view of this editorial, he will submit to Quebeckers concrete proposals beyond the vague promises and ambiguities he is creating, and whether he will undertake to propose, between now and the referendum, global offers concerning the constitutional position of his government?


Charles Joseph Clark: As I have often indicated to the House and the rest of Canada, Mr. Speaker, our government's position concerning a renewed federalism is well known to Quebeckers who want changes and a new approach from the new government regarding the federalist issues. Voices, often silent until now, have asked us to advise them of our position and to accept changes to the constitutional status quo which the previous government had refused.


Dennis Dawson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: A short supplementary question. The hon. member for Louis-Hebert.


Dennis Dawson: Mr. Speaker, I have one more quotation. It is an excerpt from the Quebec white paper-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member has a supplementary question, he should ask it immediately.


Dennis Dawson: Mr. Speaker, at page 41 of the white paper, the Quebec government says that the new Conservative government does not seem prepared to face the constitutional problem head-on since it is not one of its priorities. Is Mr. Clark prepared, before next Monday, to assure the premiers

November 8, 1979
Oral Questions
that before the referendum he will table very clear constitutional proposals and not only electoral promises and speeches?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to carry on the process that we have already started, as a new government, by showing, through concrete action, that we are bringing specific changes in the federal government approach to constitutional matters.


SOVEREIGNTY-ASSOCIATION WITH QUEBEC-REQUEST GOVERNMENT PUBLISH REBUTTAL
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has not answered the question of my colleague. He is giving the same answer he has been giving in this House for the last two weeks. He should get new writers.
This week, Tom Wells, the Ontario minister for intergovernmental affairs, will publish a detailed rebuttal to the Quebec white paper on sovereignty-association. Will the Prime Minister commit the resources of his government to publishing a similar, detailed rebuttal from the Canadian point of view, or is he going to be-as my colleague said the other day- Canada's Chamberlain of the 1980s, appeasing and backtracking until this country breaks up?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. member will devote the same enthusiasm and vigour to defending the future of the country in the province of Quebec as he is now to defending the past of his government- a past which, because of the very aggressiveness of the propaganda campaign which was waged by that government, contributed appreciably to the growth of separatism in the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister saying that he cannot recognize the threat to this country which Premier Davis does, and is he willing to sit on the sideline and let the premiers do the job for him?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what 1 am saying is that I recognize, as I believe most Canadians do, that when the previous government opposite came to power, separatism was a particle-a minority fringe group in the province of Quebec. Indeed, it was declared dead by the present Leader of the Opposition.
However, after ten years, and particularly in the last three or four years when the only presence of the federal government in the province of Quebec was a confrontationist presence which took issue with every positive development which occurred in that province, and which created a sense of continual conflict between the people of Quebec and the

government at Ottawa-what happened after all that was that separatism moved to a government status and the threat to this country was enlarged substantially.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: We got 62 per cent of the vote.


An hon. Member:: We have 67 Quebec members.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before carrying on with another supplementary question on the same topic by the hon. member for Nipissing, I think we ought to recognize that it is fundamental to the operation of the question period-


Mr. Lefebvre:: He doesn't know what the hell is going on.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Turkey.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It remains essential to the conduct of the question period, as it does to any of our proceedings, that while strong and vigorous questions are put, and answers are the same, it is not going to be possible for either if the attention of the House is not given equally to both the questions and the answers.


REQUEST GOVERNMENT URGE PREMIER OF ONTARIO TO RECOGNIZE FRANCOPHONE RIGHTS IN PENETANGUISHENE
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, in order to restore calmness, I would simply like to indicate to the right hon. Prime Minister that indeed the results of the May 22 election in Quebec have been very favourable and that we sit in this House with a very strong Francophone representation. I would also like to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that every time Francophones outside Quebec have been deprived of their rights, the fact has been badly acknowledged by Anglophones-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If the hon. member wishes to ask a question, he must put it now.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me I still have the right to make preliminary comments, that the rights-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has offered, first, an interjection, a comment on the Prime Minister's last answer, and now he is into a lengthy preamble. If I am to grant him this kind of time, only five or six members will be able to rise in the question period. It does not cost the Chair anything: it costs the hon. member's colleagues the opportunity to participate in the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, my question, therefore, is the following; In view of the fact that the credibility of Premier Davis' statement is undermined because he himself has not recognized the rights of French minorities in the province of Ontario, as evidenced by the Penetanguishene incident, is the Prime Minister prepared to recover his initiative and leadership in this area by urging the Ontario premier to accede to the demands of the French population by granting them a
French school?
(


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, of course, in an atmosphere of calm as the hon. member promised at the beginning of his question, I think it will be possible for a respected and calm Prime Minister to persuade his provincial counterparts to contemplate some changes. As far as Ontario is concerned, the government of that province has made a lot of progress, and in the case mentioned by the hon. member, the federal government made a gesture which contributed positively to solving the problem.


QUEBEC REFERENDUM-REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER PARTICIPATE IN THE DEBATE
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have heard of a gesture on the part of the federal government. My question was directed specifically to the right hon. Prime Minister. As he is, in fact, the Prime Minister and though he does not seem to realize it, he has been Prime Minister of this country since May 22 and is expected to prove his leadership, will he, therefore, intervene-I am staying calm-and take positive steps? I point out to the Prime Minister that this week his Minister of Justice indicated he had received no instructions from the Prime Minister with regard to the referendum. I am therefore asking him to face up to his responsibilities.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 feel that we on this side have adapted to the results of the May 22 election much better than hon. members on the other side of the House.
As I have said before, I would be willing, as Prime Minister, to speak with the provincial premiers and encourage whatever action is possible with regard to the rights of the minorities. We have made considerable progress in the province of Ontario and in the province of New Brunswick. 1 feel that it will be possible again, in a spirit of co-operation and not one of accusation, to achieve greater progress.
Oral Questions EMPLOYMENT


INQUIRY AS TO MEASURES GOVERNMENT WILL TAKE TO SAVE JOBS IN QUEBEC SHIPYARDS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Transport. In view of the extremely serious situation in Quebec shipyards, especially those of Davie Shipbuilding Limited at Lauzon, where over 1,700 workers were laid off in the last year, and in view of the fact that about 3,500 other jobs in that sector are being threatened in that province, can the minister tell us whether or not he intends to take immediate steps to save thousands of specialized jobs in Quebec?


Hon. J. Robert Howie (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for bringing this matter to my attention. I met with about 20 leaders of organized labour in the province of Quebec yesterday afternoon and we had a very good in-depth discussion of this very important matter. 1 have it under consideration with my officials, and I will be raising the matter with my colleagues and making some specific recommendations which I sincerely hope will help these people.


John R. Rodriguez: My supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. We all recognize that actions speak louder than words when it comes to the question of Quebec and Canada. Can the Prime Minister give the assurance to the House that his government, to ensure that the contract for the construction of the ferry for which the CN at present is tendering abroad, for use in eastern Canada, will be given to a dockyard in eastern Canada so that we can maintain jobs in eastern Canada, particularly in Quebec dockyards?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Robert Howie: 1 have met with the president of CN Marine, and I made very clear to him that I feel very strongly that any ferry to be paid for by Canadian dollars and to be supported by Canadian citizens should be built in Canada.


John R. Rodriguez: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


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


FINANCE
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that high interest rates have put small business loans and farm improvement loans beyond the reach of those who are trying to
1086

November 8, 1979
Oral Questions
start or to expand a business or a farming operation, and as the creation and expansion of such operations in large volume is necessary for the continued health of the Canadian economy, will the minister give consideration to making these loans available at a considerably lower interest rate than the one prevailing at present, which is tne bank prime rate plus 1 per cent?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the concern of the hon. member for farmers and small businessmen is well recognized by all, I am sure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I share his regret at the actions of the last administration which have left the economy in the present state and have resulted in higher interest rates for farmers and small businessmen. I would point out to the hon. member that the Farm Credit Corporation is granting loans at a 12 per cent interest rate which is, of course, not the prime rate. The Liberal prime rate today is 14 per cent, and 15 per cent is the banking rate. So there are some loans available at less than the prime rate.
I will certainly take the hon. member's representation under consideration. In the upcoming budget we are certainly considering the situation of farmers and small businessmen who have been left in a bad way by ten years of misrule by the hon. gentlemen opposite.

[ Translation]


NATIONAL UNITY
Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the right hon. Prime Minister does not know the difference between agitation and indignation. I must indicate, as spokesman for a minority group, that our feeling at this moment is one of indignation over the answer he gave my colleague from Nipissing. The fact that the right hon. Prime Minister and his ministers do not intend to get their feet wet during the referendum campaign means that they will have plenty of free time. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister at least to ask his ministers to meet with provincial premiers to try and convince them that the protection of minority rights, the freedom of language rights held by the minority groups in this country, should be enshrined in the constitution and not only provided for by acts which can be abolished at the whim of a government of the day?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is something we certainly want to discuss with the premiers with a view to achieving some agreement or consensus among the premiers. That is not something we want to force down the throats of provincial governments, because we have seen in the
(Mr. Hees.]
past that actions imposed by the federal government are not always effective.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Will the Prime Minister recognize there is a difference between a solution that is imposed and one that results from a moral leadership which is needed in this matter, or will he speak for so long that the calmness to which he was referring a moment ago will be the calmness of people who will have disappeared as a cultural minority in this country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, moral leadership is precisely what we want to give the premiers and the provinces; however, it is not possible to have effective moral leadership if there is always a threat in the air.


QUEBEC REFERENDUM-REQUEST GOVERNMENT PUBLICIZE ITS PROPOSALS ON QUEBEC
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister.
In Quebec's recently published white paper, it is said that it is desirable, at the federal level, that federalist positions be precise and made public soon enough so that Quebeckers have ample time to think about them. Is it the intention of the Prime Minister, given that he wants a country with a flexible constitution and where there will be no confrontations, to make known before the referendum clear and precise proposals, as the present government of Quebec calls for?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we intend to pursue the process started on May 22 and demonstrate, through concrete steps, the changes that the federal government has already achieved.


Some hon. Members:: Like what?


Charles Joseph Clark: We must go on with the implementation of that process and we are now considering means to bring it about. To that end, we are not merely going to propose changes, to make broad commitments that we would not be able to keep. What we will do is make specific proposals and take concrete action that we can achieve.


Some hon. Members:: Like what?


Charles Joseph Clark: To change the status quo. Hon. members ask "Like what?" I have often made reference to-


An hon. Member:: Loto Canada!


Charles Joseph Clark: I have already referred to at least two specific changes that we have made: first the lotteries, yes indeed, and second the jurisdiction over offshore resources. We have
November 8, 1979

achieved two changes that the former government had refused to carry out.


André Maltais: Mr. Speaker, on a supplementary, bearing in mind that the road to hell is paved with good intentions, when exactly does the Prime Minister, understood as being the government, intend to table his proposals because, let us not forget it, the referendum is a certainty? So, in order to give Quebeckers time to consider those proposals, exactly when does he intend to make counterproposals? Before or after the Christmas season?


An hon. Member:: Ask La Salle!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we have had decade of inefficient proposals from the federal government. It is now essential and the time has now come for us to have concrete measures and not just proposals.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the need to secure ratification of the fisheries agreement between Canada and the United States as it relates to Georges Bank-a matter which is of extreme urgency and importance to Atlantic Canada-will the right hon. Prime Minister undertake to discuss this question tomorrow with the President of the United States in the hope that we can secure an agreement on this very important issue?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has followed very closely the representations that have been made by the Government of Canada, and indeed his advice has been helpful in forming those representations to officials of the United States. Naturally, 1 intend to raise with the President during his visit here our very real concern about the earliest possible ratification of that agreement.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the Prime Minister's homily the other day that we should avoid ideology and look at the facts, I wonder if the President of the Treasury Board would have another look at the experience of the aerospace industry with the private sector, and look at the success it has had with the public sector at de Havilland and Canadair, and whether he would be prepared to reconsider
Oral Questions
the decision which he announced over the summer months when Parliament was not in session to offer these industries up for sale to the highest bidder?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the process of privatization in respect of Canadair and de Havilland continues, and it will continue. I would remind the hon. member that in the case of Canadair alone, the former government-with some hangover under this government-had to draft comfort letters involving $350 million to support that concern.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I direct my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board, who sounds more and more like the Rex Humbard of capitalization rather than a responsible minister of the Crown. In view of the complaints about the government at the time these two industries were bought, that Parliament was never consulted, 1 wonder whether the President of the Treasury Board can at least give us the assurance that if he is determined, regardless of the experience of the industry and the facts, to go ahead with the sale, that we in Parliament will be allowed to debate this issue and we will be allowed, in committee, to meet with union officials involved and members of the industry so that we, as parliamentarians, can cross-examine those people on the effects of the government's policy and how it is going to affect the future of this industry and the jobs of the people involved?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the financial critic of the New Democratic Party, who is perhaps the Oral Roberts of this House, I would remind the hon. member that he was not in the House at the time, but both Crown corporations to which he refers to were purchased by the former government with a minimum of parliamentary debate.
In fact, I can recall the evening when de Havilland was purchased by a vote on an appropriation bill, notwithstanding the fact that at that time we were demanding certain information in committee that the government denied us. In truth, if the former government was able to buy them without parliamentary review, why is he suggesting that the sale should be subject to parliamentary review?


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for International Trade. In light of the Prime Minister's concern about the Buy America program that he mentioned yesterday, and the transport minister's comments that the government strongly supports increased research and development in urban transportation and sees high potential for an export-oriented manufacturing industry arising from the urban transportation industry, is the minister prepared to provide the same kind of

November 8, 1979
Oral Questions
efforts in international marketing as he and his government undertook in the sale of Candu reactors, and can we suppose he will be more successful in this area than he has been in respect of the sale of Candu reactors to Argentina?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not recall any action that was taken by the other side, when they were in government, to support the sale of Candu reactors. The last minister who was in Argentina was there seven years ago. The whole time-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: On the question of urban transportation, there is no doubt that this is a very important market for Canada and it is a matter which has been discussed among officials. It was discussed this very morning by me with the ambassador from the United States, and we propose to take up the matter again. The Buy America program is a matter of great concern to us and we want to explore ways in which we can reduce the impact of that policy on Canadian industry, particularly urban transportation.


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding that our former minister, Mr. Chretien, was in Argentina last year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TRANSPORT
William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Transport. The minister has said in recent statements that he is eager to become more involved in the area of transportation research and development.
In view of the fact that since July, 1979, the government has had an application from Ontario's Urban Transportation Development Corporation for assistance in proceeding with its newly-developed urban transit system, can the minister give us some indication as to when the government will make a decision, because if it is not done within two weeks it may be that Canada will lose a great deal of industrial capacity and, furthermore, there may be a selling off of a great deal of Canadian technology?


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his interest in research and development. I can assure him that it is very much shared by this government. The matter to which he alludes is currently under very intensive study, and while I cannot make an announcement today I will take his representations and respond to him in the very near future.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology.
Since the U.S. government has granted $13 billion over the next ten years for urban transportation research and development, and since representatives from the United States have recognized that Canadian industry is considerably ahead in this field, can the minister tell the House what kind of aid his department is considering for this industry so that Canadians can stay ahead in the field of urban transportation?


Hon. Heward Grafftey (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned last week in the House, I cannot at this time announce a direct subsidy to this industry, but I will soon be making an announcement relating to our challenge of 2.5 per cent of the gross national product. As far as industrial R and D is concerned, my announcement will, both directly and indirectly, deal primarily with the issue raised by the hon. member this afternoon.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism. I hope he will not be muzzled again today as he was the other day, because I know of his great concern for the reunification of families.
I would ask him, therefore, if he will take steps to try to get the Minister of Employment and Immigration to change this report on immigration levels for 1980 which is so adverse to family reunification and which changes what was the existing practice with the former government last year.


Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased the hon. member has asked me that question today, because I found the way he asked the question the other day- which appears at page 935 of Hansard-repugnant as far as I am concerned. The hon. member knows how I feel about family reunification. He was in the U.S.S.R. with me, and he knows how I feel-that this issue is very dear to my heart. He put a curve in the question and did not give me an opportunity to answer it.
I want him to know that this government is very strong on family reunification. He knows the way I feel about the way he has advanced his question, and how I feel about the reunification of his people and my people behind the Iron Curtain.
November 8, 1979


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: 1 know all about that, Mr. Speaker, and that is precisely why I ask the minister why he will not act to change the report which says the government will increase the proportion of immigrants selected against economic criteria, meaning that family-sponsored immigration will be of a smaller proportion. Why do you not stand up against that?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, that question could have been answered today by the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who was present at the committee, but the hon. member was not there.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question which I would like to direct to the Minister of Public Works. When the minister announced earlier this fall that he was cancelling the project for the dredging of the Miramichi River, he made a commitment to the government of New Brunswick and the people of Miramichi that he would present that project again to the Treasury Board. Is the minister now in a position to tell the House whether or not he has presented that project for approval to the Treasury Board; and, if so, what is his priority for that project?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, it is a distortion of the truth to say that I cancelled the project, because it never had project approval from the Treasury Board in the first place. The hon. member should know that for the past 16 years he has had the opportunity to put that matter before his government when it was in power.
I have given the hon. member, the Premier of New Brunswick and my colleague, the Minister of State for Transport, the assurance that the estimate for the Miramichi project will be included in estimates to be submitted to the Treasury Board for consideration for the fiscal year 1980-81.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, the project was indeed approved by the previous government and tenders were called. The present minister cancelled the tenders.
I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of State for Transport and ask him if he has included in his estimates to Treasury Board the funding for navigational aids for the Miramichi estuary, and if he can give us, as well, any hope with regard to the awful situation of the wharf at Chatham.
Privilege-Mr. Loiselle


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that our government is, indeed, a government of hope.


Mr. Breau:: Hope and faith.


An hon. Member:: You said it all.


J. Robert Howie: I am prepared to propose, in the estimates, a sum of about $1.6 million for navigational aids for the harbour in question. These will include light towers, the lighting pier and other navigational aids. As for the Chatham wharf, it is operated by the Department of Transport. The Minister of Public Works, on the recommendation of the Department of Transport, is responsible for the maintenance and repairs.
I have been in touch with our very able Minister of Public Works in this regard and, as usual, in his efficient manner a consulting engineering firm, Crandall and Associates of Moncton, New Brunswick, are conducting an engineering evaluation. That report will be in the hands of the minister in the near future.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: 1 have received three notices on matters of privilege, two arising from the question period, one from the hon. member for Vercheres (Mr. Loiselle), and the other from the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan); and I have also received a notice of privilege from the hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Gourd).


MR. LOISELLE-SUBSIDIES TO ENTERPRISE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR PRECISION
Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question was directed to the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) who, surely by mistake, indicated that upon receiving the Reisman report last year the former government shelved it, especially its recommendations, whereas in fact, as the House will remember, a document was published in March, 1979, containing the reply of the federal government to the recommendations of the Reisman report. Out of 17 recommendations, nine were accepted, three were taken under advisement and five were turned down. So, Mr. Speaker, I should be thankful if the Minister of State for International Trade would shed some light on his remarks to the effect that we, as the former government, shelved the report. In addition, I should like to put two brief questions to him. One recommendation advocated an increase in the EDP budget. I was advised recently that the Treasury Board had refused to increase it. As that was recommended by the Reisman report, I should like an explanation.

November 8, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Kaplan


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows very well that that is not a question of privilege but a matter of his views differing from those of the minister.


MR. KAPLAN-REASON FOR NON-ATTENDANCE AT STANDING COMMITTEE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of the answer which the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport and Multiculturalism (Mr. Paproski) gave to a question that 1 just asked, suggesting that somehow or other I was derelict in my duty by not attending this morning at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. I am familiar with the answers of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey), and that is partly the reason why I did not attend that meeting. I know the minister's views on the subject because they are stated in the report, and that is that, as far as he is concerned, the proportion of immigrants admitted by economic criteria should be increased and, therefore, that the proportion of family assisted immigrants should be decreased.
There is a second reason I did not attend that meeting, and that is that it had been agreed in the steering committee not to deal with immigration questions this morning, but rather to deal with questions arising under the Unemployment Insurance Commission. I knew perfectly well that his official on immigration would not be there and it would be a breach of agreement among the members of the committee to pursue the matter there.
I was interested in knowing how the minister of state responsible for multiculturalism felt about the matter, because that portfolio has a tradition of-and it is the minister's responsibility-standing up for family reunification, which is of so much concern. I did not know whether the minister had heard of this report on 1980 immigration levels. Obviously, the minister had been overruled if he had made any representation. I wanted to know whether he had made any representation, whether he accepted the report and what he was doing about it. The mandate for multiculturalism should lead the minister into virtually every other portfolio of the government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member raises a narrow point, that reference is made to the minister's failure to assist in the proceedings of that committee. I think that the hon. member has had ample opportunity to put forward his statement on the matter.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I think that the hon. member had his opportunity today to express his likes, dislikes or how he felt about the matter in front of the committee on manpower and immigration. I want the hon. member to be particularly aware of the fact that I have read the report. The member can read the report for himself, but I would briefly quote from it at page 33:
The principle of family reunification will continue to govern the admission of close family members-

The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) also produced a report which states that family and independent immigration will not be reduced in 1980 because of special refugee programs and that the principle of family reunification will continue to govern the admission of close family members. I do not know what the hon. member would like us to do, but he knows the government's position on this matter. I would not want him to try to misrepresent something which he may have in his own mind and which does not exist as far as this government's policy is concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Once again we have launched into a procedural discussion which attempts in a way to extend the discussion or to open up new discussion. There are no procedural grounds upon which we can proceed on this matter at this time.
The hon. member for Argenteuil (Mr. Gourd) is not proceeding with his question of privilege at this time.
The hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) has an outstanding question of privilege which shall stand over until the parties agree that it is a convenient time to proceed with the matter.


Hon. Ron Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) has misrepresented my remarks, and I think that it is important for the record, given the important principle involved, that I correct the matter. I do not know for what partisan or non-partisan political purpose the hon. member has chosen to distort my remarks, but the principle of the report is that family reunification will continue to govern-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. minister realizes that what has been expressed by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) is his opinion of what that report contains. If the minister wishes to disagree and take issue with it, that is a matter of debate and not a matter of procedure.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, I should appreciate the President of the Privy Council giving us an idea of the business planned for the House today, tomorrow and next week.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I think perhaps the time has come in this session of Parliament to go beyond this week and next week. I should like to take this occasion to indicate what we feel ought to be determined and dealt with and finished by this House, and in some cases by Parliament, by the time we normally adjourn for Christmas.
November 8, 1979

First, let me say that there has been some confusion. Various members on all sides of the House have expressed confusion about what we might be doing on Monday. I want to make it clear that the House will be sitting on Monday, November 12. I do that to clear up the matter in the minds of some hon. members who have spoken to me about it.
We will require royal assent by Christmas for the following bills: first, the appropriation bill related to interim supply; the appropriation bill for the main estimates; Bill C-17, the income tax amendments; Bill C-18, the customs tariff amendments and Bill C-10, the borrowing authority bill which I understand is out of committee now and can come back to the House. All of these are really housekeeping matters in terms of the operation of the government and of this Parliament.
With respect to other legislation for which royal assent is required by the Christmas adjournment, there is Bill C-20, the property tax credit bill, standing in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie).
An hon. Mfember: No way.


An hon. Member:: Forget it.


An hon. Member:: We stay here.


Walter David Baker: 1 do not want to enter into an altercation with respect to that but I want to point out to members that if that bill does not pass by Christmas there is no way home owners in Canada will receive the benefit of it when they file their income tax returns in 1980 for the year 1979.
The other bill for which we require royal assent by the Christmas adjournment is Bill C-6, the old age security amendments and spouses' allowance bill. There is also Bill C-14, the Bank Act. The reason I put that on the list is that it has had an extensive hearing as a reference in the last Parliament and amendments to the bill basically reflect the work of the House of Commons.
There is a bill in the name of the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. McKinnon) with respect to veterans' pensions which we will be putting down very quickly. We require royal assent for that bill before we adjourn for Christmas as well. It is a very short list, really.
With respect to other bills, we will require and ask the House to complete second reading debate on Bill C-15, which is the freedom of information legislation, so that the committee can begin studying it. We will ask that the Municipal Grants Act, Bill C-3, be completed at least through second reading and into committee so that it can be dealt with after we come back.
It is my intention to table in the House in a relatively short time-and I will consult with my friends as to when that can be done-a position paper with respect to parliamentary reform. I would hope we would have moved the reference on parliamentary reform, so that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization can get at the job that has been hanging around for a long, long time and examine how this
Business of the House
Parliament operates and review it in terms of the views of hon. members and the views that will be expressed by the government in that paper.
There is a matter of law that must be dealt with by Monday.
It is my intention to call on Monday, unless other factors intervene, the redistribution reference standing on the order paper in my name. I am required to bring that forward to Parliament and I intend to do so.
That is basically what I would call the particular legislative package for Christmas. If there is time, and I hope there will be-I should like to have my friends discuss that with me because I recognize there might not be time-we hope to call and have dealt with motions standing in the names of various ministers of the House with respect to the four select committees dealing with rehabilitation, the cost overruns, the reference of which is standing on the order paper, and have a parliamentary review of that matter. Then there is the parliamentary review of the Foreign Investment Review Act and its operation, and voluntarism. That is for the purpose of establishing committees and getting Parliament working on those subjects. There is also the question of establishing a joint committee of the House and Senate on the question of nuclear energy. We should like to have that reference made as well, if there is time to do it.
There is one other matter which is basically dealing with the procedure of the House in which I know Your Honour has an interest as you chaired the committee in the last Parliament, and that is with respect to televising the proceedings of the committees of the House of Commons. I hope we can set that up prior to Christmas.
I think it appropriate to give as broad a picture of the expectations of the government as I can for that period of time. However, with respect to the four select committees that I dealt with, the joint committee on the nuclear inquiry and the committee on televising the proceedings in House of Commons committees, I am suggesting these to my colleagues so that they may come back to me to see if we can take those before Christmas. The other items I mentioned and the stages I mentioned are essential to the government prior to the Christmas adjournment.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that we on this side of the House are ready to co-operate. I did not ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) to read the order paper at length. What we want to know is what is going to happen in the near future in the House. I asked the President of the Privy Council to indicate to us what we are going to do today, tomorrow and next week. As for the long list of bills which he has given us, for some there is no complication, but for others the members on this side at least would like to take part in a more thorough discussion. But 1 feel it is expecting a great deal from Her Majesty to be seeking assent for the 12-odd bills mentioned by the minister. He is dreaming of a white Christmas. However, I would like to know what we are going to do today, tomorrow and next week. And I would

November 8, 1979
Business of the House
rather not have to ask the question every evening so that on this side of the House we could get ready to speak intelligently and thus closely co-operate with the government to pass legislation as quickly as possible. It would be quite useful to know where we stand in the short term.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there have been consultations among House leaders and representatives of the House leaders with respect to that matter. There is a motion to concur in the estimates and a bill will come out of that. We want to deal with that today. Of course, we will only be sitting until one o'clock tomorrow because of the visit of the President of the United States.
On Monday, as I indicated, all things being equal, and assuming we can make progress on the motion to concur and the bill that will follow it today-in other words, to advance the two stages-on Monday I would be calling the redistribution motion. If we cannot make that kind of progress I may have to reconsider, but I would not do anything without informing my hon. friend. That would get us into next week. I think the next priority is to complete the borrowing authority bill, which would bring us to the first part of the week. Beyond that, I will consult with my friends.


Yvon Pinard: I would like to ask one last question, Mr. Speaker. The President of the Privy Council says that today he intends to move the motion for concurrence in the supplementary estimates and the motion to concur in interim supply and then to introduce a bill. Naturally, the consent of the House will be needed for second reading of that bill so that we may sit in Committee of the Whole. We are prepared to go along with all these things, Mr. Speaker, in order to speed up the business of the House and in a spirit of co-operation with the government. However, I want to bring to the attention of the President of the Privy Council who referred to the last three meetings between the House leaders that in each instance he was warned to avoid including in the motion to concur in interim supply an item which would put us in a position where we would have to concur in twelve-twelfths of the interim supply.
For all practical purposes, if we are asked to approve twelve-twelfths of interim supply, it is a matter of principle; we are being asked to approve the total amount of the estimates. So, Mr. Speaker, I note that in paragraph (b) of motion No. 5, we are asked to grant an additional three-twelfths of the total amount of Energy, Mines and Resources votes 15 and L75. That would add up to twelve-twelfths. It seems to me that goes against what we told the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker). That might lead us to move an amendment that might mean a non-confidence motion against the government which might require a vote very soon if it were to take place on second reading.
[Mr. Pinard.)
I do not intend to move that amendment on second reading, precisely not to embarrass the government and so that things will go more quickly. However, in Committee of the Whole I want to warn the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue that if he does not amend that motion or if the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) does not agree to reduce paragraph (b) of motion No. 5 to two-twelfths rather then three-twelfths, in Committee of the Whole, we will be forced to move a motion to amend in accordance the bill that will follow shortly. I draw this to the attention of the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue immediately. If he wants open co-operation, let him respect the will that was conveyed to him on three occasions at meetings of the House leaders and not include in his motion items that will result in twelve-twelfths of interim supply being approved. And I warn him immediately of our intention to move an amendment, not on second reading, but in Committee of the Whole.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that, but I do not know whether it is appropriate to deal with it now in terms of a point of order during house business. However, I appreciate the notice given of the intention to move and I am grateful for it. It is perhaps a matter that could be taken up with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens).


Mr. Olivier:: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker) decided the House was going to sit Monday and that, unfortunately, Monday is Remembrance Day, a day to remember our veterans who died in the last wars, first the civil service will be on holiday, second the employees of the House will have to work because of the government's decision. Is the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue prepared to recommend that those employees who will be working Monday be paid time and half, because I do not see why those people should have to work because of an unexpected decision.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether that is within my purview. Perhaps I could discuss with you in the company of my colleagues as to the purview we may have in that respect. I point out, however, that I would be interested; I understand the situation that some members may have difficulties in getting back.
I hope all members will understand that starting from today, given the fact there is a budget to come and there will be a budget debate-


An hon. Member:: When?


John Carnell Crosbie: Next week.
November 8, 1979


Walter David Baker: -that there are allotted days for the opposition granted by our rules, and given a legislative program which 1 have pared down as much as I possibly can, 1 think there are 21 government legislative days left between now and Christmas. I believe the House would understand the necessity of keeping that time available.


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, although there are a number of points that might lend themselves to discussion, the first comment I should like to make is that 1 welcome the assurance of the government House leader that the bill to amend various statutes affecting veterans will be introduced very shortly. As he knows, it was my hope-and I have stated it a number of times-that that could be done before November 11. It seemed to me that to do so would put more meaning into the tributes that we pay on that occasion. Nevertheless, I hope that what he said will mean that we will know the terms of that bill perhaps some day next week.


Walter David Baker: I hope so too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The government House leader has done two things. He has given us an overview of what he wants between now and Christmas, and he has indicated what he has in mind for the next few days.
With respect to the many matters on which he would like action between now and Christmas, may I point out that in the case of those four select committees on voluntarism, the Foreign Investment Review Act, the cost overruns and the handicapped, I indicated to him that in so far as our party is concerned we would be prepared to make arrangements to deal with the four of them in one day's debate. If he wants those committees to get going, and I believe he does, I hope that he will consider that offer.
With regard to the freedom of information legislation, I know that the government House leader expressed the hope that this could be done with a minimum of debate. There was even some suggestion of one speaker per party. We have a number of members who wish to take part, but we would agree to a debate of not more than two days at second reading of that bill. I am trying to make suggestions that might help him to draw up a schedule.
The minister has mentioned certain bills that he feels should be through before Christmas. 1 realize that it is important to get on with the Bank Act so that we do not run into extending the ten years into 11 or 12 years, but I believe that Parliament does have until March to get that legislation through. Nevertheless, as I say, we recognize that that bill is important.
When the minister was pleading for the legislation regarding the property tax credit to be put through before Christmas, I was thinking that the minister is not only the government House leader but also the Minister of National Revenue. I wonder if this means he has already ordered the printing of the income tax forms as though that legislation had been passed. That, of course, is a bit risky.
Generally speaking, we appreciate the concern about these bills and we shall do our part. As I say, as opposed to some
Business of the House
things that we may want to debate at length, I have indicated four resolutions regarding committees and one bill concerning which we think action could be taken fairly early.
As to the debate today, and Monday if it is carried on, my understanding is that first of all we will be debating the motions that are on the order paper in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens), and that for those debates Mr. Speaker will be in the chair. It is only after those motions have been passed that a bill is to be introduced.
I understand it is to be one bill incorporating both supplementary estimates and interim supply. If at that point it is necessary to give consent to move from first reading to second reading, we will give that consent. But as I say, first of all, we protect our right to discuss these motions at the motion stage.
At that point we can go further into the very serious point raised by the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard). I certainly do not recall, and I have been around here for a while, interim supply ever being given for a full twelve-twelfths. Yet simple arithmetic tells me that nine-twelfths plus three-twelfths is twelve-twelfths.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is excellent, Stan!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe my hon. friends have not been over there long enough to do the simple addition of fractions. However, we will be discussing these motions with Mr. Speaker in the chair. If these are completed today and first reading follows automatically, we will give consent to go on to second reading.
I wish the government House leader would be a little more specific as to what we will do on Monday if the supply motions and bill are not through today. Will we carry on with them on Monday, or does he intend to interrupt them for the redistribution measure?


Walter David Baker: On that last point, Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned to my friend I am bound by the law to introduce that reference as a result of an amendment to the appropriate statute to do something by Monday. That is the last day. Unless there is some discussion later today as a result of which we might deal with it in a perfunctory way today, I would have to begin with that work on Monday. I hope that answers my hon. friend's question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the minister also not bound by law to get the supplementary estimates through before November 9? If he is caught with those two legal requirements, what is he going to do?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I thought 1 indicated clearly that I was taking the first course because I thought we could handle it, and I will discuss how with the hon. member and my hon. friend. I think we can take care of the legal requirement under the statute dealing with the reference to redistribution appropriately on Monday, so I am
1094

November 8, 1979
Business of the House
determined to call it first. As I said, I am anxious to get Bill C-10 through which, I understand, is third reading. We do have an atmosphere in the House which will require some co-operation among all members. I think I indicated that when I was answering the question of the hon. member for Drummond.
I want to express my thanks to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre for the offer he has made with regard to one day's debate on those four references-and I am prepared to consult as to how we divide the time-and also not more than two days on the freedom of information legislation. I think that is quite generous. The hon. member for Drummond is here, but his House leader is quite justifiably away today. We can discuss this matter. If that agreement is forthcoming from the official opposition, it would be very helpful and we can schedule these important matters to allow the committee and Parliament to work, which is in the best interests of members of this House.


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Speaker, a moment ago there was an exchange of words across the floor that was probably picked up by Hansard. It seemed to indicate that the Minister of Finance was saying we would have a budget next week. 1 do not know if that is a littly wry humour or if he has something we do not have officially on the record, that Hansard might indicate otherwise. I gather no budget next week. Is that the case?


John Carnell Crosbie: I had better clear that up, Mr. Speaker. Although I am enthusiastic about getting a budget before the House, what I said was I will get into the budget next week.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, my question is also to the government House leader. It concerns the work of this House but with special interest regarding private members' work. Is it the intention of the government House leader to refer to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization the subject matter of the motion I moved earlier today with regard to advancing the hour of the so-called late show, the adjournment debate, from ten o'clock to six o'clock, a time that would be much more convenient to the majority of members in this House? I think there is some predisposition in the minds of most members to do so.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was kind enough to speak to me beforehand. I indicated my support for the principle that he discussed. I sent him a note later. I felt at the time, on reflection, that perhaps it was an appropriate thing for the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to look at. I believe he will be very pleased with at least that aspect of the position paper that I intend to table in the House of Commons, with the idea of referring it to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, before the government House leader breathes a sigh of relief and subsides on this issue, I would like to make a suggestion and also ask him a question. It may be very productive, having in mind the events of the last

day or so, for the government House leader to proceed with all due speed to bring in a motion for Parliament to reform. It might be advantageous for this House and for the people of Canada.
I would like to ask him a question with respect to the motion I brought under Standing Order 43. I know the hon. gentleman is doing his very best to see that engrossed in the form of a motion the House can deal with. However, it would be idle to proceed with the freedom of information legislation until we have some opportunity to discuss that antiquated obscenity which masquerades as the law under the Official Secrets Act. I hope this motion can be brought in at the same time so that the committee will be seized with jurisdiction.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I never cease to marvel at the qualities of the hon. member for Peace River for creating adjectives to describe things he does not like. He expressed sentiments which most of us share. I should report to the hon. member that in fact there is a motion prepared. It is my hope we can deal with it at the same time as the freedom of information legislation. I hope so. I could not put that down today because, quite frankly, I have not had time to consult with the hon. member for Peace River, but I have talked to him about the actual wording of the motion. He knows the intention of the government. Now that he has raised it, and I was going to raise it later, I want the House to know that we will probably be putting that motion on the order paper, I guess within a day or so, so that the House can see what we have in mind.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In a way, I hesitate to do so. I want to say a word in support of something Your Honour said earlier today during question period when you were chastising- perhaps that is the word-the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) about being loquacious and using a very long preamble.
It is a fact that when that is done in the House by members of Parliament, it cuts out members of the opposition from pursuing questions. In other words, it cuts off some members of the opposition. I know Your Honour has been more than fair to all members of the House. It just happened today that, because of lengthy preambles by members of the Liberal party, we were reduced to asking three questions instead of four.
This might be an appropriate time to say that we support any policing of preambles which Your Honour may see fit to do in the House. This would mean there is more opportunity in this House to participate. Perhaps a suggestion that could be made is that if some members are consistent in terms of having long preambles, their party should be penalized and not members of other parties.
November 8, 1979


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. 1 am very happy the hon. member has brought this to the attention of the House. 1 will undertake to speak to the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) and other members of my party if the hon. gentleman who has just sat down will speak to the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), who probably takes up more time than any five members.


An hon. Member:: Bionic mouth.


John R. Rodriguez: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, it may be that my ability in the French language, which is a second language for me, is not as fluent as some members to my right. I certainly do not engage in long preambles. I do not think the Chair has ever permitted those preambles. It may be that in debate, when we had points to make about the way those to my right conducted themselves when in government, something needed to be aired and we took the appropriate time permitted under the Standing Orders of this House to do so. The hon. member who previously spoke is so completely out of order that he should withdraw that remark.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise as a member who for only a few months has watched some of the members of the Liberal party asking questions. 1 believe the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) should be paid heed to when he states that when they take up a lot of time, we suffer and not them. They should suffer. With respect, 1 say Your Honour should crack down on them.
Some of us, perhaps, have an excuse for being a little long winded and stuttering a little, since we are new in the House, but members sitting on the front bench over there have no excuse and Your Honour has done nothing about it. 1 think you should, because we are suffering from the effect of these long answers.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) said he hesitated even to raise this matter as a point of order. There are two considerations in play here all the time. One of them is an attempt to proportion participation in the question period, which has really been quite an exciting part of my responsibility in this Parliament, much more so than in the last. But trying to apportion it with mathematical precision does not always work. There will be some days when, if we tried to measure the participation of members by a mathematical formula, we would find that one party was slightly ahead of another. I have always been quite careful that if participation from the back benches of any party is prejudiced as a result of long-winded questions or answers from the front bench, that that prejudice stay in the same party as it originated in. The fact that I was not able to do this with extreme precision today can be laid to the lengthy answers which needed to be given. That is very difficult to assess. Sometimes questions can be asked very quickly but the answers are long, not because they are drawn out deliberately
Order Paper Questions
but because sometimes they have to be long. That is very difficult to judge.
I do not think we can try to argue on the floor exactly how this should be done with mathematical precision every day, but I certainly understand and appreciate the sentiments of hon. members who have expressed themselves so far. I see the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) is seeking the floor. This is one matter, I am sure, they cannot blame on the Creditistes because they were not up today and they were not up yesterday. I am sure he wanted to make that point clear.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the New Democratic Party have undoubtedly got their message across, but we of the official opposition expect the same treatment that the official opposition in the last Parliament received.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 143, 181, 201, 273, 290 and 392.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	From its inception to October 31, 1978, what have been the administrative costs of managing the Maritime Pollution Claims Fund?
2.	Of the amount accumulated in the fund as of October 31, 1978, what amount (a) represents accumulated interest (b) has been contributed by the contributing companies?


J. Robert Howie: 1.


[Stage Direction]
2. (a) $14,203,359.74; (b) $34,880,845.40.
Mr. Herbert: 1.	(a) What is the government's precise financial interest in Canarctic Shipping Company Limited, as administered by the Department of Transport (b) on what dale was such interest acquired and (i) at what cost (ii) for what reason?
2.	What was the book value of the government's equity on the date of acquisition and what is its latest estimated book value?
3.	To date, what is the government's total investment, including equity costs, contributions to operating funds and debt forgiveness in the company and what is the total realized profit from such investment?
4.	How is the government's interest represented on the (a) Board of Directors (b) senior management?

November 8, 1979
Order Paper Questions
5.	Has the government made a policy decision in regard to its future disposition of its interest in the company?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Transport Canada advises as follows:
1.	(a) 306,000 shares without nominal or par value issued
for $1.00 per share and fully paid.
(b) March 10, 1978
(i)	$306,000
(ii)	Pursuant to a memorandum of shareholders agreement entered into on December 15, 1975 between the Government of Canada, represented by the Minister of Transport, North Water Navigation Ltd. and Cornwallis Shipping Limited, the Canarctic Shipping Company Limited was created. The government desired to encourage and support arctic shipping and to obtain information on the technology required for commercial ships to operate in the north in light of certain aspects of the arctic shipping pollution prevention regulations and to make such information available to Canadian shipbuilding and shipping companies who wish to build commercial icebreaking vessels in Canada for the purposes of arctic shipping under the Canadian flag.
2.	The book value of the investment at date of acquisition was $306,000 and the latest estimate of the book value is $306,000.
3.	As of October 15, 1979 the total investment was:
Equity	$	306,000
Contribution to
Operating Funds	4,315,348
Debt Forgiveness	Nil
No profit has been realized to date on the investment.
4.	(a) Pursuant to the memorandum of shareholders agreement, Canarctic Shipping Company Limited shall have a board of directors consisting of seven members of whom four members shall be the nominees of the minister.
(b) The chairman of the board of directors and the secretary of Canarctic Shipping Company Limited are nominees of the minister. All other officers and senior management are nominees of the shareholders of North Water Navigation Ltd.
5.	No.


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


Hon. Ron Huntington (Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce (including the Foreign Investment

Review Agency and the Ministry of State for Small Businesses and Industry) is concerned: (a) 2,632 permanent employees; (b) 223 term employees.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the specific duties and functions of the Ombudsman for the Department of Transport and how were they carried out before the position was announced?
2.	Will the work of the Ombudsman be documented in an annual report?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: 1. There is currently no ombudsman position in the Department of Transport. For a brief period, from April 1, 1978, to December 31, 1978, a position existed the duties of which included the investigating and recommending on the disposition of complaints directed to the department from the general public on matters relating to the application of administrative procedures and decisions, and for fulfilling the function of privacy co-ordinator within Transport Canada under the Canadian Human Rights Act. Before the creation of that position, the function of privacy co-ordinator was performed by the director general of personnel.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What amount is presently owed to the government and its agencies for products, goods and services purchased by foreign governments, groups or individuals prior to January, 1979?
2.	What amount is presently outstanding by the government or its agencies in guarantees to the private sector for products, goods or services sold to foreign governments, groups or individuals prior to January, 1979?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In so far as Export Development Corporation is concerned: 1. The amount owed as of January 1, 1979 to Export Development Corporation for products, goods and services purchased by foreign governments, groups or individuals is $6,193,361,000, including $4,159,105,000 undisbursed funds on signed loan agreements for the corporate account, and $575,752,000, including $266,635,000 undisbursed for the government account.
2. The amount of the contigent liability of Export Development Corporation as of January 1, 1979, in insurance and guarantees to the private sector for products, goods or services sold to foreign governments, groups or individuals is $1,427,-
857,000	for the corporate account and $556,605,000 for the government account.


Mr. Cossitt: 1. How many sufferance warehouse applications were received by the Department of National Revenue during the past four years and how many were approved and in what locations?

2.	Is the government examining the matter of permitting further sufferance warehouses and, if so, will a policy be announced in this regard and on what date?
3.	Will pending requests for sufferance warehouses be held up while the matter is being considered or is it possible that some will be approved during the interval and, if so, how many and in what locations?


Walter David Baker: 1. Since January 1, 1976, 30 applications for the establishment of highway sufferance warehouses have been received by the Department of National Revenue. Ten applications were approved, eight for General Commodities and two for Fruit and Vegetables only as follows:
Year Approved	Location	Commodities1976	Grand Falls, Nfld.	General1976	La Tuque, Que.	General1976	Moncton, N.B.	Fruits and Vegetables1977	Charlettetown, P.E.I.	Fruits and Vegetables1977	Courtenay, B.C.	General1977	Kitimat, B.C.	General1978	New Glasgow, N.S.	General1978	North Battleford, Sask.	General1979	Edmunston, N.B.	General1979	Renfrew, Ont.	General2.	The department is reviewing the matter of customs enforcement and control in respect of commercial importations. This review encompasses the role of sufferance warehouses. Any new policy developed as a result of this review will be announced following conclusion of the study in the spring of 1980.3.	Notwithstanding the review indicated in part two above, applications for the establishment of highway sufferance warehouses are being accepted and evaluated on their individual merits in accordance with the customs sufferance warehouses regulation and current departmental policy. It is not known in advance as to how many applications will be received nor the location of the proposed warehouses.


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


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Supply
That Supplementary Estimates (A), 1979-80, laid upon the table Thursday, October 11, 1979, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the intention of the House to consider more than one motion at the same time, or does the House prefer to take them one at a time? The one motion then, the motion of Mr. Stevens which I have just read.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words about the supplementary estimates and make some comments in particular with respect to the whole area of labour, the whole field of employment opportunities in Canada. I want to take the opportunity, using this motion, to place some thoughts on the record because I think they are extremely apropos at this point in time.
Since 1979, the proportion of the national work force employed in the manufacturing sector has fallen from 26 per cent to 19 per cent. In 1970, 21 per cent of our exports consisted of manufactured goods, whereas today the figure has fallen to 10 per cent. In 1970, our trade deficit in manufactured goods was $3 billion and now the figure has increased to more than $11 billion. Foreign ownership of the Canadian economy continues. It dominates our economy. Petroleum, base metals, rubber, cars, electrical products, resources in general, are all foreign-controlled. This means the profits and dividends, the licence fees, the interest payments and the management fees must all leave the country. Indeed, that is the greatest problem with respect to our current account deficit.
I believe that when on May 22 some 37 per cent of the electorate of Canada voted for the Conservative party and that party formed a government, these people expected a change. They expected a new direction. During that campaign the Conservative party pointed out very correctly that inflation was indeed a very serious problem for working Canadians.


An hon. Member:: It was public enemy No. 1.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, that is right. They also pointed out that unemployment was the twin brother, or the twin sister, depending on your orientation, of inflation and that these are extremely serious problems. The fact of the matter is that the government which now sits opposite is acting on the same philosophy and pursuing exactly the same policies as the government it replaced, a government which followed them for 16 years and, before that, for 106-odd years, or whatever. It is a dangerous policy. It is one which says government has no place in the board rooms of the nation and, in effect, that the government ought not to interfere in the private sector, that the government ought not to involve itself in economic management. This has created the situation we face today.
I do not think it gives us much comfort when we look at the front benches opposite and see the who's who of the corporate world sitting on those benches. These are the very people who have created the problems in this country. The corporate interests in Canada today are not interested in Canada or the Canadian people. They are not interested in the welfare of

November 8, 1979
Supply
Canadians. They are interested in their own narrow concerns of accruing greater profits and diversification of the industries to which they owe their loyalty. There is no doubt they are prepared to sell their mothers-in-law if the price is right. It seems to me they would sell anything, if anything was for sale in this country.
One has only to look at the latest report of FIRA to see how quickly they would abandon this country, take their profits and run. When we look at the front benches of this government we see the incestuous relationship between government and the corporate world. We have a finance minister who is the scion of an entrepreneurial family in Newfoundland. He used to be a Liberal. He started his own party. He crossed the floor, back and forth three times in the Newfoundland legislature. Today he sits here saying he is a neo-Tory. Sounds to me more like he is a suppository.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: We go down the line and we see the "happy hacker", the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) and the little hackers around him. He is the man who failed as a potential president of the Bank of Western Canada.


Reginald Cyril Symes: That is why he wants to sell off profitable Crown corporations.


John R. Rodriguez: He is a failed banker, and he talks in this House about selling off-privateering-businesses which Canada was forced to go into in order to preserve Canadian jobs because foreign-owned companies were closing down and laying off Canadian workers.
Then there is the economic adviser to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), the eminence grise, Jim Gillies, formerly member of Parliament for Don Valley. When he was a member of Parliament he said in a speech in Toronto that there was nothing wrong with our being hewers of wood and drawers of water. That role is being played out on the Tory benches today.
The hon. member for Scarborough West is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Wightman). I received a little notice the other day from the Canadian Manufacturers' Association. The association was congratulating the parliamentary secretary on his appointment. The notice said, "As you all know, Bill was our industrial relations director for many years". It must have been a manifestation of the sense of humour of the Prime Minister which made him appoint the hon. member for Scarborough West to the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. Is it not wonderful for labour to know that its future and its interests lie in the hands of a former water boy for the Canadian Manufacturers' Association?
Then there is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ritchie). He is a former big wheel at Imperial Oil. He sits in the back smiling. He should smile. The profits of oil companies today would put a smile on the face of any

parliamentary secretary, especially if he came from Bay Street.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) was a member of a law firm which acted for Inco. We all know what Inco did to the Sudbury basin and about its commitment to job creation in this country. The minister has hired as his policy adviser Elizabeth Parr Bond, who was a big wheel at Inco.
The Conservative party has among its caucus research staff a chap named Walter Gray, another Inco boy. They are all finding homes now. They have come out of Bay Street or the Toronto-Dominion Centre, and now they are all living here in Ottawa. Thank God that nest across the street burned down.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


John R. Rodriguez: But now they are living on Parliament Hill; God help us!
Someone once told me that the Rideau Club was well located beside the American embassy. In the one building policies were made, and in the other building they were fired. The people making policy for Canadians now are making policy which has a bias. Let me give examples of the kinds of things which take place. I have outlined why hon. members opposite are helpless to do anything. The system needs to be challenged. Those who control the purse strings of the nation, those who are surrogates to those on Bay Street, are in no position to challenge the economic structure. Every day they say that we have to depend on the private sector to create employment.
I have never known of a corporation which was in the business of job creation. On the contrary, the business of business is business. Somebody said that in the House the other day. Therefore, the job of a corporation is not to create employment. Its job is to maximize profits and minimize costs. That is a legitimate undertaking, but what is legitimate for government? A legitimate government undertaking would be to plan the economy so that it expands and creates employment opportunities. There has to be a strategy. There have to be some rules. You either play by the rules or you go away; you do not play on the team any more.
If an immigrant came to this country and did not act in its best interests, he would be deported. That is fair ball. Those are the rules. But we have multinationals which come into this country and behave as if it is their private playground. Whenever a government says anything, they threaten, bribe and cajole. If they are not happy, they put their capital on strike. We saw that when the oil companies wanted an increase about three years ago. They took up their drills and this and that and took them to the Arabian Sea. Then we said, "Oh, boys, don't go away, we will give you a few more billions". Like the swallows returning to Capistrano, lo and behold, they came back because the price was right. The Canadian people paid it, and they still are.
Indeed, as a result of three proposals with regard to the Income Tax Act they can be paid more money to drill dry
November 8, 1979

holes than actually to discover oil. That is the way it is. They have come into Canada and done exactly what they wanted. Let me give a specific example. Everyone knows the famous IT and T. We have seen that company perform in Chile and throughout Latin America. It came to the north shore of the St. Lawrence at Port Cartier. It was going to build a pulp and paper mill. It was supposed to be a modern operation. The federal government forked over S23 million. The provincial government forked over $100 million. Every time there is a problem, we throw money at it. So, IT and T came. The plant is now six years old. What did the company do? It just shut the plant down. The plant was appropriate for Georgia and Virginia, but it was not very appropriate for the north shore of the St. Lawrence. A whole set of problems was created. The solution was to close the plant down, and 1,300 workers are out of work.
The Minister of Finance is sitting over there with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath). I would have to call them the odd couple. Both of them are from Newfoundland. I recall the situation at St. Lawrence, Newfoundland where an Alcan fluorspar mine closed down and put 400 workers out of work. That represented the whole working community because that was the only operation in St. Lawrence. They are out of work. They are on unemployment insurance. In the case of the IT and T plant in Port Cartier, 1,300 workers went on to the rolls. There have been other examples of operations being closed down. Multinationals do not like to be pressured. They want to get all the benefits and advantages, so they cajole and threaten and elect their own to the House of Commons so that they can continue. It seems that there is no will to challenge that structure. There is no will to challenge the suggestion that Canada must jump every time multinationals decide they need more for their coffers. That is not acceptable.
Let us consider another example, the shipbuilding industry in this country. I point out that 40 per cent of the workers in the Canadian shipbuilding industry are located in the province of Quebec. The Prime Minister has said in this House that he does not want to get into the referendum debate in Quebec because he thinks actions speak louder than words. I agree with him. In effect, we could say as well that inaction speaks louder than words. Here we have a situation where 1,700 jobs have disappeared in the Quebec shipyards in the last year and another 3,500 jobs are threatened.
I want to say that that kind of situation undermines the interests of Canada. It is more destructive than any rabble-rousing speech by any separatist in the province of Quebec or the province of Alberta. I think that that is a very destructive situation because, in the long run, a person has to decide if there is more benefit to be derived from being part of a united Canada, with all the strength and diversity that that carries, or if it is better to go it alone. They cannot do any worse. It seems to me that the Prime Minister has an opportunity here in
Supply
assisting the shipbuilding industry in the province of Quebec or, for that matter, in eastern Canada.
There is a lot of talk about having our own merchant marine, and there are some navy ships to be built, but action must be taken now. These cannot just be promises which are going to be held up and recycled election after election. There has to be some action taken to get this going. We certainly saw the demise of the merchant navy under the Liberal party when it formed the government. Now we have Tweedledee out and Tweedledum in, and they are telling us that they will bring back the merchant navy.
So, true to form, they set up a committee to study the matter. They must be the most studious group over there, because everything is being studied. When they were in opposition, they had all the answers. They did not need any studies. In fact, they accused the Liberals of always doing studies on everything. Now they are in government, it turns out they do not have the answers at all. They have embarked on make work projects for all the backbench Tories who did not get cabinet posts. They give out a press blurb that Joe so-and-so from the back benches has been appointed chairman of a committee to study ingrown toenails and, lo and behold, he gets the committee going.
Now they are saying we should have a merchant marine and that is how we are going to stimulate the shipbuilding industry in Canada. As a result of that campaign promise, the leader of our party wrote to the Prime Minister and received the following reply on October 16, 1979:
Dear Mr. Broadbent:
I have your letter of October 1, 1979, regarding the Halifax shipyard and Panamax drydock.
You will be pleased to know this government places a high priority on the improvement of the Canadian shipbuilding and repair industry. The economic development committee of cabinet, under the chairmanship of the Minister of State for Economic Development, is presently reviewing the shipbuilding and repair industry in general, and the Panamax drydock in particular.
Given the urgency of this matter, I expect the committee will bring forward their recommendations at a very early date.
I take this opportunity to express my thanks for your support in our continuing efforts to establish an economically viable merchant marine.
Yours sincerely,
Joe Clark.
"We have set up a study and we are going to study the merchant marine now", they say. When they were in the opposition, they said: "we must have a merchant marine now". I ask, what is the study for? It seems to me that what we have to do now is to look at ways and means. We should lay out a plan. We all saw the leader of the Conservative party meeting with all his minions at some resort around here with lots of books, and those were the blueprints for change. Now we are finding out that all these problems have to be studied as if they had to look at the reason why we need a merchant marine after all. While they are doing that, jobs are going down the tube in this country, jobs are disappearing. In effect, this government sits on its hands and says, "We are studying the problem".

November 8, 1979
Supply
We asked a question today with regard to an order for the construction of a ferry which the CN is placing, a ferry to be used in eastern Canada. Where are they looking to construct [DOT] the ferry? They are looking to place the order for its construction in the United States. For example, this country needs legislation which would say that if we are going to build a merchant marine and if we are going to spend any money on shipbuilding, the building and the spending should be done in Canada. We should delineate that policy very clearly. After all, Bill Davis, when he discovered that the street cars he was buying would be cheaper in Montreal than Thunder Bay, forced TCC to purchase them from Thunder Bay because there was a need to create jobs in northwestern Ontario in particular. So, in effect, the Ontario government intervened by directing job creation.
It seems to me that we need to have a policy. It is surprising to note-it is not surprising for me and for those of us who live in the Sudbury basin, but it is surprising for people who are not from there-that 50 per cent of the nickel mined in the Sudbury basin leaves the Sudbury basin in a semi-processed state, in matt form. Then it goes to the United States and it goes to Wales and is finished in its final form, following which it is sold back to us. It seems to me that at this point in time we need to have a clearly defined policy to direct that our resources will be refined to their final stage at the place where they are mined. This should also apply to our forestry resource. We are still shipping our pulp in a semi-processed state from the east coast of Canada to Europe, and we buy back fine paper. It seems to me, for example, that our economic strategy should clearly define that Canadian resources must be refined by Canadians in Canada.
It is becoming very clear that the employment factor is in the manufacturing sector, not in the ripping out of resources. The ripping out of resources is capital intensive, but jobs are in the refining and manufacturing of the resource.
The government has done an analysis of research and development. That is another area where we do not have a clearly defined policy. They should no longer be studying what has caused problems in the economy. When they were in the opposition, they knew what the problems were. What we should be doing now is putting in place some policies to achieve full employment.
We have the spectacle of the President of the Treasury Board saying the government are going to sell de Havilland and Canadair, keeping in mind that de Havilland and Cana-dair came as a direct result of the analysis which I have just given in terms of foreign ownership. Those were two industries whose foreign owners decided they were no longer going to keep them in Canada and so they decided to close them down.
It was the fear of all those jobs being lost which caused the Canadian government to step in and take those two companies over and build up these industries, which gave us some expertise in the aeronautical industry. Now that the gang of 138 is in-


An hon. Member:: It's 136.


John R. Rodriguez: The gang of 136 is now saying, "We have to privateer these companies." The suffix "ize" should only be added to one noun, and that is "fertile".
It seems that when they are talking like this, saying they are going to privatize or privateer de Havilland, one should remember that the President of the Treasury Board, in a meeting with the United Auto Workers which represents the workers of de Havilland and who are concerned about jobs and Canadians working, and not interested in Canadians going on unemployment insurance and on welfare, said he is not prepared to give them guarantees. Representatives of that union attempted to get some guarantees from the minister that if the government proceeded with the sale it would be sold to Canadian owners and that whoever buys the industry will not be allowed to pick up the plant and put it in some other part of the country, creating a great deal of hardship for the thousands of employees of those operations. The President of the Treasury Board in his usual mild and self-effacing way told them he was not prepared to give those guarantees.
When the minister was pressed to bring the matter to Parliament he got into a great big spiel about how they actually came into public ownership. He mentioned some dollar item in the estimates as though that was relevant. What is relevant is the situation now, not what was done previously. In effect, this government has embarked on the principle that Parliament is supreme and that Parliament is the place where these decisions should be made. Indeed, we had the example of a bill passed in one day just two weeks ago making legal an increase in postal rates which has been in effect now for a year. The argument was that it was done by order in council under the Financial Administration Act, but Parliament should decide the increase in postal rates.
These corporations come under the Financial Administration Act and they are infinitely more important than an increase in the postal rate from 14 to 17 cents, yet we observe the arrogance of the President of the Treasury Board in ignoring Parliament and denying Parliament the opportunity to debate the matter. He now sits there and smiles. This is not a smiling matter, it is an extremely important matter, particularly to the 23,000 workers of de Havilland.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: How many?


John R. Rodriguez: There are 23,000 in all their various operations. They are concerned about what happens if that plant and those operations are sold and relocated somewhere else in the country. That is extremely important to them. The President of the Treasury Board can laugh all he wants. He does not have to worry about where his next pay cheque is coming from because he knows darn well that he can move on to the Senate. He knows that if he was defeated he would go to the Senate. He knows they will find a niche for him somewhere in the corporate structure.


An hon. Member:: He will become a bank president.
November 8, 1979


John R. Rodriguez: We are coming to the Bank Act in a minute. It seems to me that this is a perfect example of what this government is attempting to do. They are putting us back into the hands of the very people who created the problems. You know what happens when these corporations close down and move on. People go on unemployment insurance when that happens and this government is now tightening up on unemployment insurance.
These fellows to our right did their trick when the Conservatives were in opposition. The Conservatives in opposition opposed the previous Bill C-14, having to do with the latest changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) carried out a campaign in eastern Canada pointing out how terrible the Liberals were to bring in changes to the Unemployment Insurance Act, changes that would have devastating effects on the poor people of eastern Canada. Now that they have been elected and are sitting in the government benches, one would have thought they would at least have scotched that. But no, what they have done is continue the changes and allow them to come into effect. Those changes are detrimental.
This government has no control over the economy and is allowing these corporations to put Canadians out of work. When that happens Canadians go on the dole, on unemployment insurance. When that happens the government turns around and blames the victims for the conditions in which they find themselves. They start tearing away at the humanity of fellow Canadians, men and women. They start saying things like they are ripping off the unemployment insurance system, they are stealing, they are lazy, they are young people and do not want to work, they are only women, secondary earners, and so on. This is a very dehumanizing thing to Canadians who are unemployed. All this makes these people feel guilty about receiving unemployment insurance. They became unemployed because of unilateral decisions on the part of corporations.
I know the Minister of Labour (Mr. Alexander) is a very nice, hearty, hail and bluff fellow. He gets up and says, through an intermediary, an unknown official in the labour department, that he is concerned that he does not have enough importance in the cabinet. I think he is in the outer ring. Some members are inners and some are outers, and apparently he is an outer. He wants to get to be an inner.


An hon. Member:: It's an in and out house.


John R. Rodriguez: An "in house" and "out house", I get it. That minister wants to enhance his role and that of his department. He says it only has a budget of $40 million and "X" number of man-years of employees, so he wants to take over more of the responsibilities of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. He makes a good argument. He says: "After all, we are both paid the same ministerial salary, allowance and everything else so why should I not share the work?" He does not have to take anything away from the Ministry of Employment and Immigration. He should bring in
Supply
some legislation that puts some flesh on the labour structure of this country.
For example, there ought to be adequate notice of shutdown. There should not be this business of a company deciding that six weeks from today it is going to close down its plant. In some countries corporations are not allowed to do that. In some countries the notice for a shutdown or layoff in some cases is a year or more, so that if there is something structurally wrong they can look for alternate ways to employ the workers, or to change the operation and retain the workers.
The Minister of Labour has a wonderful opportunity. We have the Bank Act. The banks want some changes. They want security for Canadian banks. They do not like foreign banks. They want security for themselves in respect of operating in this country. However, they will not provide any security for their employees vis-a-vis the efforts to organize bank employees. The banks have fought tooth and nail against the organization of bank workers into unions.
What has the Minister of Labour been doing? He does not have changes to the labour code he intends to bring in to provide the Rand formula which has been accepted in this country for so many years. As a result, we have situations in which the banks refuse to negotiate in good faith. They will not agree to the Rand formula with regard to the collective agreement.
There are many changes that must be made to the labour code to enhance the working place, to make the workplace a more human place. For example, there is much to be done in the field of occupational health and safety. There are thousands of chemicals that come into the workplace in this country every month, yet there is no pre-testing. The only testing is in the acutal use of those materials and the subsequent results years later when we fight a rearguard action to improve the quality of the workplace. There is a whole new spectre with regard to stress in the workplace, a new danger in the workplace, but that whole area has not been looked at by the Minister of Labour.
For example, part IV of the labour code says that the minister may set up health and safety committees in the workplace. There is nothing in the labour code which says that it is mandatory. To date the minister has not set up one health and safety committee in a workplace under federal jurisdiction. It seems that he has so many problems to deal with, such as the question of technological change and the impact of technological change on the work style of workers in this country. There are so many things that should be done, but the Minister of Labour has not touched any of them.
It seems to me, as we take a look at what has been happening in Canada, that there is no reason to have any confidence in this government. It seems that they are carrying on the disastrous policies established by their predecessors. This government is not prepared to challenge the corporate structure in Canada, to place Canada first, to take a firm stand with respect to economic planning or to step in and say

November 8, 1979
Supply
that the government has a role to play in the planning of the economy. All these things must happen, otherwise we will continue to rip out our resources, and to lose, therefore, many job opportunities.
Interest rates are rising, Mr. Speaker. The government says that we are locked into the American interest rate structure, and that if their interest rate rises, so must ours. What has happened is that it has sneaked continentalism in through the back door. The effect of high interest rates on industry is illustrated in British Columbia where the Weldwood plant has had to lay off 700 workers because interest rates have made it uneconomical for the plant to keep these people.
This government has said that things will get worse before they get better. It is the old story, the operation was successful but the patient died. The government keeps saying that raising the interest rates is the way to fight inflation, but in fact it causes inflation. How does one bring inflation down by allowing interest rates to rise? When they were in opposition, it was wonderful to hear the Conservatives make all their arguments against rising interest rates, but now that they are the government, they say that we are locked in.
If one looks at the answers in Hansard given by the minister of finance of the previous government with regard to interest rates, one will find that they are exactly the same answers the current Minister of Finance has been giving out. The government does not have a new approach or a new deal. All they say is that we must renew initiatives and let Canadians pull themselves up by their bootstraps. It is operation bootstraps. It is forward into the past. That is the myth today, that somehow or other having a free enterprise system and competition will solve our economic problems. It will not solve our problems.
This government has brought in the supplementary estimates which were introduced by the previous government, but they could easily be the supplementary estimates of this government because they have accepted holus-bolus the basic philosophy on which Canada is run, economically speaking.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, recognizing that the NDP has decided that they would speak on this motion, I want to put on record the reason my party will not participate in the debate. It is because we would prefer to wait and have our day in Committee of the Whole. We are prepared today to go into Committee of the Whole on the bill with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath). It is not because we are not interested or that we agree that the House should give passage to this matter of supply without asking any questions of the government about what they have done. Or I should say what they have not done, because they really have not done very much. That is the position of our party.
We recognize that the NDP has decided otherwise, and we do not question that. They see it as their duty to participate in this debate. What we want to do is get at these ministers and bring them before Parliament and the eyes of the public to show the public what this government has not done in the past five months.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add a couple of remarks in response to the remarks made by the poverty-stricken member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). I share his concern that when government contracts are given out, we ought to preserve as many jobs as possible for Canadians. The hon. member referred to the proposed ferry to be built by Canadian National and said that it ought to be built by Canadians if at all possible.
My mind then went back several years when the hon. member for Nickel Belt was on a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association trip to Sri Lanka. The hon. member came back with a Persian rug, much like the Persian rugs found over in the Rideau Club which he eschewed so much. When the hon. member landed in London, he went straight from the airport to the English Channel in order to catch a ferry to France so that he could buy a headlamp for his French car. It was not a Renault or Peugeot but a Citroen. That is the hon. member's way of preserving Canadian jobs. I hope when he hires help to look after his race horse that it is Canadian help.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member got this idea. He may have been on some sort of Arabian Night's dream. I do not know on what basis he makes those accusations about my purchasing non-Canadian items. I do not frequent the South African embassy, and therefore do not have an opportunity to enjoy South African wines. I do not know what the hon. member is talking about.


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, on the point raised by the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), I would like to make it very clear that I support him completely. We would sooner get into Committee of the Whole and call certain ministers to reply in this Parliament to specific questions, rather than make long speeches and get no answers. The members of the NDP have chosen, which is their right, to Filibuster on this bill and not go into Committee of the Whole. As the official opposition we will watch their actions, and if they continue to filibuster we will also put up some speakers.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak on this matter, but then I heard the remarks of the Liberal whip.


Mr. Darling:: What is that in your hand?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I will tell you what it is in a minute. The Liberal whip has said that the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), by making an eloquent and tremendous speech, is leading my party on a filibuster. I would like to know, as the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) asked, what the hon. member's definition is of filibuster.
We are dealing with supplementary estimates here which are very important. I think the reason the Liberals do not wish to participate is that they are embarrassed. We are dealing with estimates proposed by the previous Liberal government. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) is nodding

November 8, 1979

his head. He is now piloting some Liberal goodies through the House of Commons. Perhaps that is why they are embarrassed to speak. They are looking for any excuse to avoid participating in this debate.
I want to say to my Liberal friends that some very important things are happening in this country, and so it does no harm to spend a few hours on this stage of the debate. When government members were in opposition they used to do this quite often.
1 should like to refer to one issue which I think is very important, Mr. Speaker, and that is the speech made in Calgary yesterday, by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazan-kowski), who is responsible to the Canadian Wheat Board, to the United Grain Growers. We are dealing today with the estimates that concern transportation, the movement of grain and things that are very important to farmers in the west. 1 should like to quote one or two things from that speech. The minister said:
I am frustrated-
I suppose he is frustrated at being a member of that cabinet. He continued:
-at present because we are passing up sales-perhaps worth $1 billion per year-because of limitations in our transportation system. I can't help thinking what it would mean to producers and to Canada if we were exporting 50 per cent more grain and oilseeds. There would be a tremendous increase in cash flow and net income for producers. The additional sales would earn Canada $2-$3 billion a year in badly needed foreign exchange. . . . And it would generate an additional $4 billion a year in domestic economic activity.
I want to make the point here that we are dealing with a resolution on the estimates of the old Liberal government. The administration which Otto Lang headed as minister of transport cost this country literally billions and billions of dollars per year for the movement of grain. The Minister of Transport says that about $1 billion was lost last year because the grain could not be moved, and an extra $4 billion was lost as a result of reduced economic activity that would have been attendant upon the movement of the grain.
1 think it is important to register our dissatisfaction with the amount of money provided in the supplementary estimates for the movement of grain. I want to make it clear that I expect the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie)-the Ayatollah Cros-bie-to include several hundreds of millions of dollars to repair the branch lines on the prairies and to purchase hopper cars when he brings down his budget. The Minister of Transport is complaining that the grain was not moved due to the inefficient system left the country by 16 years of Liberal party rule.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: 1 hope the Minister of Finance realizes that his backbenchers are applauding, meaning they agree this should be done. I see him nodding-I can hear him from here! I hope he takes very seriously representations made by the backbenchers of his party and by members of this party. We cannot afford to lose $4 billion per year. It would seem to me
Supply
good economic sense to invest a few hundred million dollars in order to reap an additional $4 billion per year in economic activity in the west.
I have another concern about the speech made by the Minister of Transport in Calgary yesterday, Mr. Speaker. He spoke of the possibility of getting rid of the Crow rate or changing it. He said that if there is any change of application of the Crow rate it will have to be coupled with adequate service guarantees. This morning, speaking on the CBC, he elaborated on the possibility that the Conservative party may change the Crow rate. I do not know what kind of change they are thinking of, so I think it is important that someone in the Conservative party should make their stand clear as soon as possible.
I should like to take a moment to point out to members of the House how important the Crow rate is to Canadian farmers, Mr. Speaker. Many years ago the CPR was given a lot of land, mineral rights and property. In return for that, they guaranteed to haul the farmers' grain at a set price in the years ahead. That price is set in the statutes of this country, and to the farmers that is very important. If the Crow rate was varied it would cost farmers from 400 per cent to 600 per cent more to haul grain to market, compared to the cost for the equivalent distance in the United States.
During the election campaign last May the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) said that if the Conservative party was elected it would guarantee retention of the Crow rate. The Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) has not given that assurance, however, and now the Minister of Transport is saying that they are considering getting rid of or changing the rate.
I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the spirit of Otto Lang lives; the spirit of Otto Lang is reincarnated in the Minister of Transport!


An hon. Member:: Be serious.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I am being very serious, Mr. Speaker. Many members of the Conservative party have spoken about abolishing the Crow rate. The Hall commission report, however, recommended the retention and extension of the Crow rate to cover processed raw materials.
Just a week or so ago I heard the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) comment on the radio that the Crow rate should be changed. The Conservative governments in Alberta and Manitoba have spoken about altering the Crow rate. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hargrave) has said that the Crow rate should be altered. As well, the newly appointed western grain transportation coordinator, Hugh Horner, brother of the famous Jack, has spoken of the possibility of abolishing the Crow rate.
Where does this government stand, Mr. Speaker? Do they stand behind the Crow rate? Do they stand behind the farmers of western Canada? The member for Lisgar says, "Oh, baloney". I am sure he knows whereof he speaks because he speaks a lot of baloney about Crow rates. I am sure that the

November 8, 1979
Supply
Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would be one of the first to tell him that.
There are a number of other issues that are important when it comes to moving grain, Mr. Speaker. A few weeks ago the hon. member for Lisgar made a statement to the effect that the port of Churchill should be abandoned; that we should not haul grain to the port of Churchill. I wonder if that is Conservative party policy? During the election campaign the Conservative party advocated using the port of Churchill, and indeed that its use be increased. Where do they stand on the question now?
These are questions that should be answered when we are dealing with the supplementary estimates. Perhaps the great Minister of Finance or the President of the Treasury Board could enlighten us before the debate ends.
I should like to point out to the House, Mr. Speaker, what the effect would be if the Crow rate were abolished. According to the 1977 Snavely report, if the Crow rate were abolished prairie farmers would lose $290 million, and with spin-off effects this would take over $1 billion out of the western economy. We can take the town of Wakaw, in the Prince Albert area, as an example of what this would mean. The Crow rate from Wakaw to Vancouver is 24 cents per 100 pounds of grain. The CN charge for grain on domestic shipments to Vancouver is $3.12 per hundred pounds-or 13 times Crow.
It is important for the government to tell us where they stand on Crow rates, Mr. Speaker, because on November 19 the people of Wakaw will be voting in a byelection. One of the questions they are asking now is where the Conservative party stands on Crow and whether they will have to pay 13 times more than they do now to ship their grain if they keep this government in power. Where do they stand? I ask that question because we have had conflicting stories from ministers across the way. The Minister of Transport wants them reviewed. The minister of energy said that the Crow would be guaranteed. I want the Minister of Finance or someone responsible on the other side to tell us precisely where the Conservative party stands.
There are many more things one can say about the supplementary estimates that are before us. There are many more things that are important to prairie farmers. But on the Crow itself, which is perhaps the most important and emotional issue out there, the Minister of Transport is talking about the possibility of the Crow benefit being extended to farmers in other ways. For example, he said that perhaps the money set aside to maintain branch lines could be used to subsidize the farmers. If he used that money, what happens to the branch line?
These are questions that have to be answered. Is it the intention of the government across the way to abandon these branch lines? In the election campaign we were told that any line would be kept open if the elevator company on that line was willing to provide service and have a decent elevator to

handle the farmers' grain. Now we have a one-man task force appointed by the Conservative party, namely, the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), who is studying rail line abandonment and what to do about that question.
These are important questions because the previous Liberal government has intentionally allowed the grain handling system in this country to become run down over the last 16 years. Yesterday in Calgary the Minister of Transport said that the Crow rate may be abolished, or that the Crow rate in this country may be changed.
Next we come to the Wheat Board. We are dealing here with supplementary estimates, and in that connection I include the Canadian Wheat Board. I want to know what the government's intentions are regarding the Canadian Wheat Board. There are some members who are very powerful in the Conservative party. The hon. member for Lisgar is listened to as the eyes and ears of the Minister of Transport. It has been said that we should have more competition, more free enterprise and more of the open market, and that the port of Churchill should not be utilized. Does that mean we will have less and less for the farmers in the estimates when it comes to the Wheat Board or when it comes to using the port of Churchill?


An hon. Member:: Wait and see.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The hon. member across the way says wait and see. I am very nervous about what I am going to see. That is why 1 am not waiting before registering my objections to the direction which the Conservative party and the Government of Canada seem to be taking.
The minister who yields a lot of power, the minister in charge of privateering, is privateering almost everything. I want to know what plans there are for the Wheat Board, for the Crow rate and for the Farm Credit Corporation. These are things that are most important to prairie farmers and for which they fought for years and years.
I am sure you will know, being a farmer yourself, that the Hall commission recommended the Wheat Board be given more power to co-ordinate grain transportation and that the grain movement co-ordinator should be a Wheat Board employee. What did the Conservative party do? The government appointed Hugh Horner. As I said, little Jack's brother was appointed to that powerful position of grain transportation co-ordinator.
What about Hugh Horner? I have no doubt the guy is sincere, intelligent and competent. But what is his attitude vis-a-vis the Canadian Wheat Board? I think he is biased against the Canadian Wheat Board. Hugh Horner was quoted by the press as saying that he would like to see the quota system abolished. That is the very system that creates equality of delivery opportunity for farmers, be they small or large. Hugh Horner would like to abolish that system. It seems to me that he now has immense power in his hands.
Where does the Minister of Transport stand when it comes to some important issues like the quota system, the Wheat Board, quarterly marketing, the Crow rate, the Hall commis-
November 8, 1979

sion report, the Snavely report, the port of Churchill, etc? These things are vital and important to the farmers on the prairies. 1 ask again, where does he stand? All we have to do to get an answer is look at the supplementary estimates. We know where Otto Lang and the Liberal party stood. The Minister of Transport in a speech made in Calgary said that we probably lost $1 billion worth of sales last year. When I was in China recently the Chinese pointed out that we could transplant hearts, fly to the moon and do all of those marvellous things, yet we could not haul grain on time from the farmer's granary to the ship. The Chinese asked why we could not do that.


Mr. Axworthy:: Did you speak in Chinese?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I know my Chinese is not as good as that of the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), but the Chinese were concerned. The Chinese have now turned to the United States for grain and will sign the first grain contract with them in years. I am very happy the Americans are establishing normal relations with the Chinese, but 1 am also very concerned that Canada and its farmers will lose potential markets because we do not have a grain handling system.
How can we solve this problem? That is what 1 am asking the Conservative party across the way. 1 ask where does it stand on these important issues. 1 want a definitive statement from the Prime Minister of this country about where he stands on Crow. If the Crow rate goes, so go the small farmers. Some Conservatives have said, "Well, you can pay the Crow benefit." In other words, one takes the cost difference between the commercial cost of shipping grain from point A. 1 use the example of Wakaw where the cost is 13 times higher than the Crow rate. One can take the difference between that and the statutory rate and reimburse the farmer. Over 100,000 farmers will be reimbursed in the form of a cheque sent in the mail. I think that is a very complicated, bureaucratic and indeed potentially dangerous way of making sure the farmer gets the Crow rate benefit. It is very bureaucratic.
With members such as the President of the Treasury Board who is interested in cutting back on government spending and hacking away at government expenses, who will guarantee that that minister or one of his successors will not decide some day to cut back on the Crow benefit program? There is no guarantee that that will not happen.
The railways are interested in a profit and will charge a higher commercial rate for branch lines than they will for main lines. They will charge a higher rate for a little town such as Wakaw than they will for a city such as Prince Albert. Then we will have defacto abandonment of the rail lines and defacto abandonment of the branch lines. These issues are important. They are vital to western Canada.
By spending a few minutes this afternoon on the Liberal supplementary estimates before the House and introduced by the party across the way, I have pointed out some of the problems we have had in the past that have not been solved. However, I see in a speech made by the Minister of Transport
Supply
that the Conservative party may have some solutions, but the solutions may be more of a problem than the existing situation for many farmers on the prairies.
In conclusion, if the Conservative party goes ahead to abandon or change the Crow rate, it will be in for a fight. It will be in for a fight not only from the people on the prairies and the NDP and its federal caucus, but also from the wheat pools, the co-operatives and the progressive farm groups. It will be in for a fight like it has never had from the government of Saskatchewan.
I serve that as notice to the party which sits across the way. They must not tamper with the Crow rate. They must keep the Canadian Wheat Board strong. They must strengthen the board as a co-operative agency so that it will handle the grain of the farmers on an equal basis. They must retain a quota system so that all farmers, rich or poor, close to delivery points or far, with an early harvest or a late harvest, have an equal opportunity to deliver their grain. We must not follow the law of the jungle, first come first served, or the law of capital, the elephant and the mouse, where the big guy outmuscles the small.
These issues are important. I hope that before this debate is over someone in the Conservative party will stand up to tell us where they stand on these issues which are crucial to the people of my province and region of Canada.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that the supplementary estimates have failed to meet the needs of my constituents and of the people in the rest of the country. Perhaps I can briefly describe my constituency in order to help members better understand my remarks on these estimates.
The Churchill constituency encompasses the northern two-thirds of the province of Manitoba. It has over seven degrees of latitude, over 400 miles, and 12 degrees of longitude. There are many Indian reserves and a number of Metis communities. The Churchill constituency has five mining towns, including Flin Flon and Thompson. The Pas, also in the constituency of Churchill, is a historic community for fur trading and now has some agriculture, the CN and forest products which provide employment for that region.
In The Pas, the Manfor project, formerly called CFI, is an example of what happens when government relies on and gives millions to private enterprise in order to provide employment and develop our resources. An official inquiry and the courts have proven that we were robbed blind. The case was so bad that the present premier of Manitoba forgot that he went to Zurich to sign the original agreement-a very poor memory.
Also within my constituency is the port of Churchill. It is an orphan of Tory and Liberal governments. It has been deserted by its parents. Why has the port not been developed? Why is grain not in the port at the beginning of the shipping season? Why has the CN line to Churchill not been fixed?
Why does the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) call the port a luxury we cannot afford? He was appointed by his

November 8, 1979
Supply
government to look into grain handling. Why does he speak to the press about an issue of this nature, presumably speaking for his party and the government? The minister had to correct and deny the allegations and comments of the hon. member for Lisgar.
The port of Churchill is important not only to my constituency but to the prairie provinces and, indeed, the country. We cannot allow that port to be downgraded by this or any other government. Northern farmers as well as those in the south of Saskatchewan use that port because of its benefit to the people and farmers in those regions.
When the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) talked about being from the riding of the dinosaurs, and that it is also the home of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), 1 presume he meant to connect those two matters.
Churchill is the fossil of political promises made by members opposite and by members of the Liberal party. The people there were promised heaven but were given hell. These supplementary estimates are just a stopping place, purgatory. They and the main estimates provide to the people of the community of Churchill and the larger constituency of Churchill only a brief respite from the economic domination and damnation provided by these governments. Our resources are developed, our land is scarred and flooded, but the real values of these economic activities are not of benefit to the residents of the north, be they white or native, especially native. The native population is not being employed in the mines, at least in any great number, or at the permanent hydroelectric stations, and the great CFI giveaway limited the access of native groups in terms of harvesting our forests. They are not allowed to harvest certain areas of the north because of the agreement the Conservative government of Manitoba signed with the multinational corporations.
Within the supplementary estimates of fisheries and oceans there is no provision to develop the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation. Presently Canadians buy only a very small fraction of the fish caught in northern Manitoba and in the other freshwater areas of the country. This lack of initiative of government and reliance on corporations like Safeway to provide our daily bread has meant that it is virtually impossible to buy fresh fish in my home town of Thompson, yet we are surrounded by a number of communities in which fishermen are trying to make a living. In Thompson we can buy frozen fish that has been imported from other countries but we cannot buy fresh fish. This problem was created by the present government and the previous government.
Instead of providing funds for the FFMC to expand its operations, the government in Ottawa is allowing the Manitoba government to let American buyers back into the market. If this is allowed, the fishermen in the north will again be put into economic serfdom. The FFMC want to keep out the American buyers in order that the fishermen in these communities can have a guaranteed income and be provided with an honest living. If it is allowed to go back to its previous state, the fishermen in my constituency will suffer.

While I am discussing the state of our native people, I would like to turn to the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. How can they expect to promote Indian economic development when freezing the Indian economic development fund and centralizing control of these operations? For example, in British Columbia the final control of the Indian economic development fund has been taken away from the regional director and placed in the hands of the ADM in Ottawa. Treasury Board is winning the battle of control. Soon no regional government employee will be able to do anything other than shuffle paper, pick up requests from the natives, say nothing, pass it on to Ottawa, receive it back from the bureaucrats in Ottawa, again say nothing and return it to the native people. This government claims to believe in decentralizing. However, for them decentralizing does not mean providing service on a regional basis but providing a shield to protect those who make the decisions from the people who make the requests. That is not decentralization.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: 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 Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn)-Housing-Request Canadian Home Insulation Program be extended; the hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. MacLaren)-International Trade-Measures to promote Canadian exports; the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans)-The Canadian Economy-Election campaign platform of Progressive Conservative Party.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper, namely notices of motions (papers).


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 1, 1979, consideration of the motion (Mr. Herbert):
November 8, 1979
[Stage Direction]
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest report on the feasibility of establishing a Crown corporation or other body to carry out forestry research.
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for giving me an opportunity to say a few additional words in response to the motion of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) for the production of papers concerning the intention to establish a Crown corporation or, in his words, some other body that would in the interests of ail Canadians establish some kind of an effort toward the research and development of technology and techniques which could be brought in to manage our national forests.
In his opening remarks the hon. member spoke of the previous government's efforts to establish a national forests policy. I have followed these efforts with keen interest over quite a number of years now, and 1 cannot share the enthusiasm the hon. member brought to the House since I have never been much impressed with the efforts which were made. Indeed, since 1963, over the last decade, the efforts of the Canadian forest service have been cut in half. There is roughly about half the manpower in the Canadian forest service today as there was ten years ago. Of course, many of the scientists who carried out the research and development upon which the industry relied so heavily have left the department and what we find here today are administrators and bureaucrats. There is really no major effort at all being carried on in the area of research and development in this important industry.
The results of this kind of deterioration are very noticeable. Our world position, shown by the percentage of world markets which we once enjoyed, has declined by over 20 per cent in the last ten years and the United States' share of the world market has increased by almost the same percentage.
There are very good reasons for this. One American company alone-the Warehouser Company in the United States- spends more money annually in research and development than does the entire Canadian forest service. This has to be a matter of concern to us, particularly when one considers the crucial importance of the forest industry in our economy and its effect on the well-being of the country in general.
The forests generate more income than gas and oil, agriculture, fisheries and mining combined. Forest companies shipped last year $13 billion worth of goods; $8 billion went to export earnings and contributed to our balance of trade. Every man, woman and child in this country shares or owns the equivalent of about 20 acres of productive forest land. We have about 800 million acres of productive forest lands in Canada. Unfortunately, over that ten year period of which I spoke earlier, 60 million acres of this vital resource, this productive forest land, have been left idle. There has not been a sufficient effort to regenerate these important lands and put them back into operation.
There were some efforts made by the former government; the latest took place just before Parliament dissolved. The one we are well aware of, because the subject was raised in this House on many occasions, was the effort to privatize a very
Forestry Research
important portion of the federal research effort, namely that of the forest products lab here in Ottawa and on the west coast in Vancouver. It was proposed to turn these efforts over to private companies.
The question has to be asked: To what extent can we expect private industry to take over these efforts? I am talking about research and development which needs to be carried out to protect all our forests, to carry on the kind of husbandry which will preserve our forests in perpetuity for future generations. One is faced with this question when one takes into account the fact that last year the federal government took in $1 billion from the forest economy. In the same period of time, on an annual basis, all provinces combined take in about an equal amount, namely $1 billion. This accrues to governments in the form of revenue from taxes, leases, royalties and so on. It makes up a total of $2 billion. And now governments are telling the industry that it will have to carry on its own research and development efforts.
The industry is always prepared to assume these responsibilities providing that governments reciprocate. What the industry would want, in return, is some kind of security of tenure. It would need assurances that if the industry does the research, the regenerating, fertilizing and replanting, the results of such activities would accrue to their benefit in the future. In other words, they would seek longer tenures, ownership of forest lands and so on. It has been the policy of most of the provinces and the federal government not to give industry that kind of control over this vital resource. It is my opinion, therefore, that we should not expect the industry to carry on the research and development that is required to preserve this vital resource in perpetuity.
On this side of the House we are asking ourselves what the former government has done, how far it got in developing a national forest policy. Sadly, sir, we must report that there has really been no advance in the development of such a policy.
What needs to be done, then? Well, the present minister has already taken some important initiatives. There is presently a major review in the terms of reference given to departmental officials. There has to be a concentration and a centralization of the various jurisdictions responsible on behalf of the federal government in the forest policy area. No fewer than 26 different departments of the federal government are in some way responsible for forests. There is the Department of the Environment, DREE, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce-I could not begin to name them all. The idea is, as a result of this review, to bring back and re-establish a component of a Canadian forest service which will once again assume the responsibility for a co-ordinating role with the provinces to preserve this vital resource. That may well mean a structural change in the make up of the committees.
I have just come from the committee and I am half out of breath. Even as I speak here the minister is answering a question I posed to him in that committee. Unfortunately forestry is tied in with the important committee on the environment and fisheries and members of this House are having a difficult time running back and forth trying to determine on

November 8, 1979
Forestry Research
what day the chairman of that committee or the steering committee of that committee chooses to talk about forests. There is nothing about forestry in the estimates at all. There is no reference, no mention of forestry in this big blue book. I know the minister is very concerned about this, as I am. Structural changes are required, including the appointment of senior officials in the public service to assume responsibility and advise the minister in these important areas.
The industry is ready and stands prepared to assume and to share in the responsibility. We made recommendations to the former government on how this sharing should take place. If one fifth of the money which is paid to provincial governments in the form of royalties, or 50 cents on every thousand board feet of lumber harvested and manufactured, were returned into an effort which could be carried out by provincial and federal governments, it would mean that the 60 million acres which are presently lying idle could be regenerated over a five-year period. I am talking about a massive infusion of funds, to the tune of $250 million, which would accrue to the two governments in one year. If that amount of money which comes from private industry were matched by the provinces and by the federal government, we could indeed realize a very significant turnaround and a renewal in the commitment and responsibility we have for preserving this vital resource for future generations.
I am confident that the minister who is presently responsible is as serious as I and, I am sure, most members of the House, about bringing about this kind of structural and administrative change and about bringing about once again the pride and commitment our public servants had to this vital resource which they manage for us. I am confident that over a short period of time we will see a significant turnaround and that our industry, which once enjoyed a very unique position in the world in shipping and delivering this resource to world markets, will once again see the kind of stability and confidence they had in their endeavours before.
I am confident as well that the minister is cognizant of the crucial importance the forests have in terms of the environment and the total eco-system that generates our water and our clean air; and I am also confident that the minister is aware of the incredible importance our forests have in social areas and in tourism where forests provide the backdrop for a $250 million industry every year.
I am confident of all these things, but I am not as confident as the hon. member for Vaudreuil, who is well intentioned and who has given us this opportunity to debate this matter, that another Crown corporation or some other agency, as he suggests in his motion, could fulfil this need. People expect significant change from new governments, and I am confident that this new government is committed to recognizing our forests and our forestry efforts in light of what I have said.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to apologize to the House for interrupting private members' hour.
I have just been informed by the President of the United States, Jimmy Carter, that because of the hostage situation in Iran the official visit to Canada must unfortunately be postponed. The President and I are very disappointed that Canadians will not have the opportunity to welcome President Carter in Ottawa tomorrow, and we are hoping to be able to reschedule the visit for early in the new year.

In the meantime, various issues of urgent nature will be discussed over the next few weeks and months between certain Canadian ministers and their American counterparts.

I know that all hon. members will recognize the enormous pressure on the President and the American people in these difficult days and join me in assuring the President and the people of the United States of the hopes and prayers of all Canadians for a successful resolution of a most difficult situation.


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition I would like to extend thanks to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) for having come into the House today to inform us as quickly as possible of these sad developments.
We understand that the situation of the American citizens in Iran must be President Carter's first preoccupation. We wish him well in trying to find a solution to this grave problem and pray that his fellow citizens will find safety and peace in very short order.
We trust that this important visit can be rescheduled in the very near future, as a visit from the President of our closest neighbour and friend, the United States, is an event to which I am sure all Canadians were looking forward. We hope President Carter and his family can come soon, as we know that he would have received a very warm welcome from all Canadians. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, as I have said, I trust that the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Clark) will indicate to Mr. Carter that all Canadians are praying for him and hope that he will be able to find a rapid solution to this most serious problem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we of the New Democratic Party join in expressing our regret that the visit of the President has had to be postponed but, in common with the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the
November 8, 1979

whip of the official opposition party, we fully understand the situation and that it is necessary for President Carter to remain at home. We join in the fervent hopes which have been expressed that the situation in Iran may soon be resolved.
We are pleased to note that the Prime Minister is already making arrangements with the President for a visit some time early in 1980.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that because of our anticipation of the visit of the President of the United States arrangements were made to adjourn the House tomorrow at one o'clock so that this chamber could be used for an address to us and to our colleagues in the other place. This is now unnecessary, regrettably, so I wonder if I could have unanimous consent to move a motion. In order to indicate the extent of the motion I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre):
That the order adopted by the House on Tuesday, November 6, 1979, as follows:
"That the House adjourn at one o'clock p.m., on Friday, November 9, 1979;
That the address of the President of the United States, Mr. Jimmy Carter, to be delivered in the House chamber on Friday, November 9, 1979, before members of the Senate and the House of Commons, together with all introductory and related speeches, be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates of that day and form part of the records of this House; and
That the President's speech, attendant and related remarks be made available to the media for transmission in the usual way by the House of Commons broadcast system." be discharged.
I hope I have unanimous consent to move that motion and that it will be agreed to so that the House can carry on tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) shall have the leave of the House to introduce that motion at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) could confirm what the business of the House will be after two o'clock tomorrow, at the time we normally would come to orders of the day.


M. Lefebvre:: You mean twelve o'clock.


Herb Breau: I understood that the time of the House would be taken up with announcements on motions until one o'clock.


Thomas Lefebvre: Oh, yes.
Forestry Research


Herb Breau: Could the President of the Privy Council confirm what the business will be under orders of the day?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, my anticipa-i tion is that we will be carrying on with the matters which were before us today just before private members' hour.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Herbert:
That an order of the House do issue for a copy of the latest report on the feasibility of establishing a Crown corporation or other body to carry out forestry research.
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, the motion in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) has very clearly proved one point: there is evidently in this House a very keen interest in and a consensus on the matter of forestry conditions in our country and perhaps even as to how those conditions could be dealt with by the federal government.
I suppose that other interventions will clarify this point further, but it seems to me that at least it can be said fairly at this point that there is a deep concern on the part of members, who in turn reflect the views of their constituents, that our forests need attention. It is surprising to some of us to be told by experts that the picture of seemingly limitless forests and woods is in good part an illusion. The national forest regeneration conference, which was held in Quebec city in October of 1977, concluded that adequate forest renewal was nothing less than an urgent economic need. The conference was attended by some 250 representatives of government, industry, the forestry profession, universities and environmental protection organizations. These representatives agreed unanimously that, as they put it in their communique, inadequate forest regeneration is:
-indeed a serious and fundamental forestry problem. This concern is not yet felt by the general public or by politicians, and there is a real need-as demonstrated by the conference-to "spread the bad news".
Studies released at the conference indicated that only about half of the statistical surplus is "economically accessible". This means that it can be harvested at a low enough cost to enable the producer to sell the end product at a viable price on the world market.
The communique went on to say that:
The new forests which are developing in areas which have been harvested or affected by natural disasters are frequently poorer than the forests they are

November 8, 1979
Forestry Research
replacing. They are often inadequate in terms of preferred species, quality, density of stocking, insect and disease resistence or location suitable for economic wood supplies to existing mills.
The expert consensus was that up to 20 per cent of the land harvested every year does not and will not regenerate properly.
Let me remind hon. members that that was said about two years ago.
The communique goes on:
When areas where regeneration was been blighted by insect infestations, fires, and wind damage are added, a total of 647,000 acres is lost from the nation's potentially productive forest stock every year.
This is being added in turn to a backlog of unproductive forest land accumulated over many years which the Canadian Forestry Association estimates at a staggering 60 million acres. Large parts of this wasteland are to be found in every province. In fact, no province can claim that regeneration within its boundaries is even keeping pace with the yearly cut.
Also, according to the association:
Inadequate attention to forest regeneration is responsible for restricting expansion possibilities in some regions, has reduced employment in others, and will result in a continuing decline in future forest based jobs and revenues.
Some experts predict really critical shortages by the end of the century if large scale forest management and renewal programs are not put into effect.
The question therefore arises as to whether or not Canada can catch up. Some of our leading forestry consultants say yes, and I will quote from a report prepared for the Canadian Pulp and Paper Association which states the following:
A more intensive program of forest management is imperative if market opportunities are to be realized and emerging timber deficits offset.
What needs to be done, and we have the know-how and the means, is to develop or apply improved species that grow faster and have more resistance to insects and disease than those seeded naturally. It will take, of course, a deliberate commitment on the part of governments, industry, and indeed the public at large, to ensure that our forests meet our future needs. There are difficult problems of cost, responsibility, ecology and the claims on the forest of industry and recreation which will have to be resolved.
All these elements put together lead to the conclusion that the provinces have demonstrated that they alone cannot achieve this important economic goal as it relates to our forest industries. I submit to the House that Canada needs a national forestry policy. We have evidence, as demonstrated by reports, conferences and statistics which have been published in many quarters, that not only do we need a national forestry policy but we must have such a policy soon, taking into consideration the limitation imposed by our constitution. This policy would offer terrific opportunities.
I would summarize today's problems and opportunities with regard to our forestry industry in this way in submitting the urgency of and the necessity for this policy, which I would like to impress upon members of this government, on the minister responsible and on the government backbenchers who, as we have already seen in the course of this debate in their interventions, feel strongly and positively about this issue.
First, a national forestry policy will have to deal with the deteriorating competitive position of the industry. The industry

needs attention and needs certain incentives. Second, it will offer a challenge and an opportunity to the industry in the provision of adequate forest replacement. Ottawa, in co-operation with the provinces, could launch a program to double the present rate of plantation to 400 million trees a year. This is an investment for future generations of Canadians in the regeneration of our forests to provide for the needs of our consumers and for maintaining our capacity to export this commodity to foreign markets, thus improving our balance of payments.
There is a third aspect which demands enunciation in the launching of a national forest policy, and that is the recent development of the slowing down of the regrowth process which is apparently caused by acid precipitation. This has become a very serious problem which, if not dealt with effectively, could result in the lengthening of the growing cycle of the forest.
Fourth, a national forestry policy would give a coherent approach to the better utilization of wood as a renewable resource, particularly because of the potential it offers to replace fuel. Wood can be used for the production of methanol to replace gasoline. The industry would develop and create jobs in Canada if we were to start a national effort to exploit and use wood for this purpose. This cannot be carried out by an individual province. It is a function that rests squarely on the federal system and on the facilities and resources that the federal government has at its disposal through the National Research Council and other departments.
Another facet of this national forest policy has to do with the environmental impact of forest fires and pests. We are told that over two million acres of forests have been burned over annually for the past ten years. We are also told that insects and other pests damage large tracts of timber each year, the spruce budworm being just one example.
Again, since the causes of these diseases and damage do not really know provincial boundaries, and since the federal government has a fairly sophisticated Department of Agriculture and Department of the Environment, it also has the capacity and the ability to address itself to this particular facet. A national policy, in my view, cannot be developed by ten provinces acting on their own. In the field of forestry we have a classic example where federal leadership is not only needed but is most desirable.
I would, therefore, commend the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), and those who have spoken before me in such positive terms, for having emphasized the importance of this issue and for having given us an opportunity to register with the government the urgency of this matter and the hope that the government will address itself to an announcement in the field of launching for Canadians and for future generations of Canadians a national forestry policy.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate, in the limited amount of time that is left, in this debate on the need for enhancing a
November 8, 1979

national forest policy. In my riding of Sault Ste. Marie there is a federal government forest research centre that is doing splendid work in terms of trying to control the problem of the spruce budworm, as well as research into other areas of interest to our national forests.
In the last Parliament I spoke out very vigorously against announced cutbacks by the former Liberal government in the budget of the forestry service, and pointed out the necessity of enhancing research and development in this vital sector of our economy. To that extent I was supported by my friend, the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), who also argued for enhancement of this important research sector of the federal service. 1 hope he is effective in convincing the Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment (Mr. Fraser) not to proceed with some of these cutback policies initiated by the former government, but to establish a more vigorous profile in the forestry section of the department of the environment in expanding the good work it has been doing.
There have been repeated warnings that we have not been taking the necessary steps to ensure the future of this vital sector of our economy, namely, our nation's forests. Some 12 per cent of our productive forest land is inadequately stocked, and another 500,000 acres are being added to the backlog annually. The plain fact is that neither the federal government, the provincial governments nor private industries concerned are taking the initiatives required in reforestation so that we will have the trees for our lumber and pulp and paper industries in decades ahead. The warning clarion has been sounded, yet 1 fail to see either at the provincial or federal level a recognition that we have a serious problem and that we have to mobilize funds and manpower to redress what is happening to our forests here in Canada.
Indeed, in my part of the country in northern Ontario we are dependent on the forests and, unfortunately, they are not being restocked. The good timberland is being used up too rapidly, and if we do not replenish these valuable renewable resources it will mean a severe, if not disastrous blow to many communities in northern Ontario and, of course, in Quebec and British Columbia as well.
When we look at what has been happening in the forestry service we have to be alarmed. The strength has been cut drastically, by 1,000 man-years since 1968. These are highly qualified scientists and technicians. We have lost them, and as a result many experimental programs in long-range research, so vital to finding solutions to a number of the problems, have not been going on to the degree necessary. Our forest service budget is one quarter of that of the scientific and technological fields of fisheries, energy, mines and resources, or agriculture. I think it is high time the new Conservative government recognized that forestry must have a higher priority, not only in funds but in terms of staff. Indeed, I would argue that a separate ministry of forestry should be established so that this sector of our economy can get the kind of attention it so richly deserves.
In the last Parliament I spoke against the privatization of the forest products laboratories which the Liberal government
Forestry Research
undertook, and which I understand the Conservatives are still following through. This, in my opinion, will not fulfil the goals the government has proposed. We opposed this privatization because we know that the kind of research the private sector carries on is short-term in its outlook. It is quite naturally designed to try to improve the present product situation in terms of new methods of developing and selling products. The private industry does not have the long-term kind of research goals the federal government can have, and this is where we are falling down if we rely on the private sector.
We need more, not less basic research. We need more of an indication from the private sector, which is being subsidized by the taxpayers through all the various forms of government research, that the private sector in turn will reinvest some of its profits in this vital area of research, and that it will really support and do work parallel to that being done by government laboratories.
We need an impartial agency to supply data to foreign powers. I do not think this will be served by private laboratories as there will be a suspicion that the figures are self-serving, particularly because the industry has always performed development work on products and processes, but not the kind of basic research I have described that is so vital to the forestry sector. What we need to find are the technical innovations required to maintain a competitive position, or the Canadian forestry industry will start to deteriorate.
Indeed, we have a morale problem in the Canadian forestry service as a result of the cutbacks initiated last spring. Many of the scientists are moving off to other countries or into the private sector, and those remaining in the federal domain are, as I say, suffering a severe morale problem, wondering to what end is their scientific research.
It seems to me there are four key areas where the federal government must assume some responsibility. We need a continuous statistical survey of resources, and the federal government, looking at the nation as a whole, can carry this out in a way the provinces or private industry cannot. We must have up-to-date information so we can assess the areas where we need to improve forest rehabilitation. We need a program of intensive forest management.
I think we can learn a lot from the Scandinavian countries. For to say, that we have vast acreages of forest in Canada that we need not worry about the future, flies in the face of all the most recent reports that this so-called renewable resource is dwindling. I would like to see a crash program initiated by the federal government, with some kind of financial assistance to the provinces, in order to begin reforestation to the degree that it is necessary. Indeed, we need an industrial strategy-and how often have we heard that word-for long-range planning to make a stable environment for investment in this sector of our economy.
For example, a report prepared by F.L.C. Reed and Associates about a year and a half ago for the federal government points out that although provincial legislation has been in

November 8, 1979
Forestry Research
place for the last 20 to 30 years, forest management is not practised at acceptable levels and Canada lags far behind her major competitors in management of her forest industry. For example, production of seed trees in Ontario nurseries between 1972 and 1976 decreased from 77 million to 51 million, despite increased requirements. We are in an emergency situation and the times demand action.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 1 regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time provided under Standing Order 48(2) for the consideration of this motion has now expired. There is a provision in that Standing Order which allows a minister of the Crown to contribute to the debate for five minutes and which allows the mover of the motion an additional five minutes to close the debate, whereupon the question could be put. I do not see any ministers of the Crown in the House.


Mr. Joe Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the minister is not present because he is engaged this afternoon before the standing committee which is considering the estimates involved with his particular department, including that of forestry. The motion of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) has presented members of this House with an opportunity to debate the forestry issue and matters relating to forestry. It has given the minister an opportunity to present the government's side of this very important aspect. The motion by the hon. member deals with the production of certain documents which the minister has stated do not exist.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The parliamentary secretary is going beyond the bounds of a point of order. He is debating for the minister what the minister might have said. I would refer the hon. member to the wording of the Standing Order which is very clear, and on which the Chair has already ruled on different occasions, and which has not been contested. Standing Order 48(2) reads:
When debate on a motion for the production of papers, under the order "Notices of Motions (Papers)", has taken place for a total time of one hour and thirty minutes, Mr. Speaker shall at that point interrupt the debate, whereupon a Minister of the Crown, whether or not such Minister has already spoken, may speak for not more than five minutes, following which the mover of the motion may close the debate by speaking for not more than five minutes -
Of course, the parliamentary secretary may feel that parliamentary secretaries should be allowed at different times in our proceedings to replace ministers. If the Standing Order had meant to allow someone to speak in the name of the minister, it would have been stated in the Standing Order. The Standing Order does say that even though the minister has already spoken, he is allowed to speak again for five minutes. I do not think that that opens the door to his parliamentary secretary, however.
I have in front of me a ruling made by the learned Deputy Speaker of the time on March 15, 1979, on the same point. He referred to a previous ruling made on April 17, 1975, when the Acting Speaker at that time mentioned that the only way the parliamentary secretary could speak after the 90 minutes had expired would be by unanimous consent. There seems to be a

disposition to act quickly on this matter and perhaps, to save time, the parliamentary secretary could seek the unanimous consent of the House. By doing so we would not be creating a precedent or forcing the Chair to permit him to speak. Would there be unanimous consent to allow the parliamentary secretary to say a few words?


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to the hon. member speaking. He is a new member and a new parliamentary secretary. You have explained the rules, and I hope that this will not set a precedent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, for this occasion we are quite prepared to let the parliamentary secretary speak on behalf of the minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: By unanimous consent then, the parliamentary secretary will be allowed to speak for no more than five minutes.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, I thank this House for the consideration hon. members have given to the minister who, by reason of his other duties which he feels take priority at this particular moment, is absent. Basically the motion called for the production of certain documents, and particularly a report relating to the feasibility of establishing a Crown corporation or other body to carry out forestry research matters. We submit that that report does not exist.
In the opening comments of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), he referred to certain other documents which constitute a report entitled Forestry Imperatives for Canada- A Proposal for Forest Policy in Canada, and which was prepared for the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers and presented at their annual meeting in Kelowna, B.C. in June of this year. I would like to table these documents now with the unanimous consent of the House. With that tabling, we submit that the motion has been fully answered.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The parliamentary secretary is seeking unanimous consent for the tabling of the documents to which he has referred. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, we have been through quite an interesting exercise last week and again this week. In my opening remarks I referred to this particular study which was presented to the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Ministers in June. It was from remarks made by the previous minister of the environment that I learned that such a study existed.
1 can only say in these few minutes left to me that I found it quite interesting that the parliamentary secretary and other representatives of the government seemed to get very up tight about the words "Crown corporation" included in the motion. The motion refers to the latest report on the feasibility of establishing-and if we ignore the words "Crown corpora-
November 8, 1979

tion"-some body to carry out forestry research. That is exactly what was being considered-somebody to carry out forestry research in order that a proposal could be made to this meeting of the ministers of the environment in June of this year.
Obviously the need for that was underlined by the parliamentary secretary, when he commented on the fact that in the province of Quebec shortages are occurring, especially for saw logs. He speaks also of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick experiencing deficits in soft wood supplies, and he goes on to say that the existing industry in New Brunswick could utilize 25 per cent more wood than can be produced on a sustained yield basis, under existing standards of management. Obviously, what is being emphasized is the need for something to be done, presumably additional research, because of the difficulty that is being experienced in one of our major industries.
It is rather interesting that the then minister said that he would seek to find the document referred to and that, if it existed, it would be made available. I suggest that it might have saved a lot of time if a more thorough search had been made for this document originally, in which case it could have been tabled, instead of there being a denial that it existed. I hope, as a result of this example, that in future, instead of being anxious to stand up in this House and say "documents refused"-I do thank him very seriously for tabling the document-but despite the fact that it has been very pleasant to air this important subject, maybe it will not be necessary to go through a similar exercise.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am faced with a dilemma-to put to the House a motion that an order do issue for a copy of the latest report to be made available, when that document is already on the table. Maybe the best thing I could suggest is that the motion be withdrawn and that the order be discharged.
Is it agreed that the motion be withdrawn and the order discharged from the order paper?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


Mr. Kempling:: May 1 call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being six o'clock, and the time provided for consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Supply


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Stevens that Supplementary Estimates (A), 1979-80, laid upon the table Thursday, October 11, 1979, be concurred in.
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, it is again a great privilege to speak to the "whole" House this evening. Co-operation and consultation are words we learn about daily from the government benches. But how do the native people feel about this government? Do they feel they are being consulted?
This week the ITC heard about the development of the Arvik mine. They did not hear about it from the minister, or the government, but from the press. In the Yukon, the Council of Yukon Indians heard about the minister granting de facto responsible government on Friday before the announcement was made. That is not consultation. That is not co-operation. It is a fait accompli.
The unilateral decision of the minister of Indian affairs to allow mining and pipeline construction before native land claims are negotiated is pure folly. The government is denying the native people any say on land on which they have lived for generations. These developments will have an adverse effect on the life, the culture and the economic livelihood of the native people. This has certainly been the case elsewhere in Canada.
Last week when the minister refused to ratify the already concluded COPE agreement, it again proved that the government is not interested in the concerns and rights of native people. The assumption by Tories, southern Canadians, and even a few northern Canadians, that responsible government is always just and progressive and will always protect the rights of minorities is just not so. The Manitoba school question and the treatment of the Metis people in Manitoba has proven that this is not the case.
Governments based on cultural identity were accepted before Confederation. For example, the creation of the province of Quebec accepted this very principle. Before that, Upper Canada was created for the United Empire Loyalists. Treaties have always recognized native government and the creation of geographic territories called reserves. Manitoba, in becoming a province, allowed for the ethnic composition of its population. Unfortunately it also demonstrated that the rights of a minority cannot always be left to the goodwill of the majority.
As long as we are talking about the duty of government to protect minorities, why has the federal government continually stalled in selecting an arbitrator for the northern flood agreement? The initial agreement was signed over two years ago. This government and the former Liberal government could have worked faster and harder on this item.
Many questions regarding compensation that northern residents should receive for the flooding of their land cannot be

November 8, 1979
Supply
settled and, as usual, it is the natives who suffer. The land is flooded, the fishing affected, and the natives still do not have adequate compensation.
1 understand that the native people and the provincial government have agreed on an arbitrator. It is only the federal government's lack of action that prevents an appointment from being made.
The housing of native people is deplorable and a national disgrace. How does the government expect Indian people to build a house for $12,000? Why does CMHC not provide funds for native people? These are only a few items which these supplementary estimates do not touch. If these estimates dealt with national health and welfare, Mr. Speaker, I would cite a number of examples of neglect and federal-provincial buck passing-and I mean the pun-that are also a mark against this country, and matters that the minister of external affairs would be speaking about in the UN if some other country was perpetrating this disgrace.
The actions of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) have further decreased employment in northern and native communities. The elimination of the Canada Works Program in a number of provinces was both conservative and cruel-the words have become synonymous. The addition of some dollars to the LEAP program did not come close to what Canada Works formerly offered. In my constituency $3.9 million was spent last year on the Canada Works Program. This year there is nothing.


Herb Breau: A good Liberal program.


Rodney Edward Murphy: A good Liberal program which the Liberals wanted to cut back. The only difference is that the Conservatives reduced it by a further $1 million.


Herb Breau: We never cut it back; we added to that.


Rodney Edward Murphy: The hon. member does not know what he is talking about.
The Minister of Employment and Immigration talked about flexibility guidelines for the LEAP program. He said these flexibile guidelines would allow for some of the damage done by the ill-planned actions in cutting Canada Works. The minister announced this, announced it again, and announced it again. The only thing we do not have yet is the flexible guidelines. Perhaps the minister should announce those guidelines before he is denounced.
These estimates, and we all know they are Liberal estimates which the Conservatives have blindly accepted, just like they blindly accepted high interest rates, unemployment insurance cutbacks and other measures, prove that at best they are creating economic stagnation in this country. These estimates prove that the Conservatives have no economic policies of their own except a stupid and lemming-like desire to ruin PetroCan. By doing this, they reject the voice of the Canadian voter.
[Mr. Murphy.)
The proof of the success that PetroCan has already demonstrated, and the logic of the Canadian government keeping the last instrument of control it has on the oil industry, and the shameful state of foreign domination of our natural resources, are a result of the past blindness of Liberal and Conservative regimes.
The blindness of the past is not irreversible, but this Conservative government cannot see that. The Conservatives are out to prove that hindsight is not 20-20, certainly not for those who believe that economic leadership means let the corporations run the country and let the people of Canada suffer the consequences.
As I look at these supplementary estimates I have trouble telling the difference between Liberal and Conservative governments. I believe that on the matters before us, like on the devastating increases in interest rates, there is no difference between these two old line parties. Both parties sound progressive when in opposition, and conservative when in government. The only difference is that in the choice of a name for their party the Progressive Conservatives are honest; well, at least half honest.
Both parties have forgotten the unemployed, and the small businessmen, especially when it comes to advocating and accepting high interest rates. Both have failed, as is evident in these estimates, to prepare a development plan for northern areas. Instead they have relied on large multinationals and allowed them to create a boom and bust cycle, to ignore the needs of northern residents, to let small business fail when these multinationals desert our northern towns, allowed them to pollute our fish and forests with acid rain, and to fail to employ the indigenous people of northern areas, despite all the promises given when these corporations start up.
If government is to take the reins and provide economic leadership, then it must have a northern development plan, a plan made by northerners within the framework of a national economic strategy, a plan which allows the north to develop its own goals and recognizes the cultural and environmental factors in operation in northern regions, a plan which will help northern residents to benefit from their resources, and a plan which will allow northern residents to become more self-sufficient and to assist in the development of all of Canada.
It is the lack of a northern development plan by the Liberals and the Conservatives that helped in part to have me elected to this House. It has helped to elect a number of other members of my party at the provincial and federal level. In this House there are four members, including myself, who lived in the Churchill constituency during the seventies. They are all New Democrats, and all lived in the riding and saw the effects of Liberal and Conservative neglect. Now they are here to change that.
In conclusion, I would remind the members opposite and the members to my right-before they, like the member from Bow River's dinosaurs, become politically extinct-I remind them that there were 10,000 Manitobans who had to leave their province last year because of the lack of economic planning, the economic devastation that the Lyon Conservative govern-
November 8, 1979

ment is causing there. Those 10,000 people are going to go to the constituencies of each and every one of you. In the future there will not be four members from the Churchill constituency in this party in this House, there will be 283, and that includes the seat of each and every one of you, unless something is done. Those economic exiles from Manitoba will be elected to this House unless the government provides the economic leadership it should.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask whether we can now be given an answer to the question that was first raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard). As that hon. gentleman pointed out, it is understood around here that when interim supply is granted, the government always leaves at least one-twelfth to be considered when the main estimates are passed, yet in this motion we have a proposal that nine-twelfths of every item in the estimates be granted, plus an additional three-twelfths of the number of the items set out in paragraph (b). As I said this afternoon, in my simple comprehension of arithmetic, nine-twelfths plus three-twelfths adds up to twelve-twelfths. Even my banker friend who is now the head of the Treasury Board will agree that that arithmetic is pretty hard to challenge.
When the question was asked this afternoon by the hon. member for Drummond, supported by some of the rest of us, there seemed to be a bit of fluttering on the government side as to what to do about it. I realize we are not in committee at this point and therefore not in a situation where we can have questions on a back and forth basis. However, it seems to me that before this resolution passes and before we get the bill to
Supply
be based on the two resolutions, we should have an answer to this question.
As I say, I do not recall in the time I have been in this House that any government ever asked for the total amount of supply before we reached the point of passing the main estimates. That, Mr. Speaker, is one point we would like to be sure about before we agree to this resolution.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very willing to give assurance to the hon. member that I will give a full explanation of the twelve-twelfths requested that he has rightfully mentioned that is now before us.
The short answer at this stage is that in all cases the funds on which we are requesting authorization have literally been spent or it is anticipated they will be spent by the end of next month. In other words, in the time frame that we are looking at, the funds have either been expended already or certainly it is anticipated will be spent roughly by the end of the year.
Our dilemma in this connection is, for example, that the oil compensation amount appearing in the supplementary estimates is the additional amount to what was previously mentioned in the main estimates, and we find that the original amount has already been expended because the oil compensation payments have been so high compared with what was originally anticipated in the main estimates that it is literally all gone. So we are asking for the twelve-twelfths, as the hon. member has quite correctly indicated, because it is the only thing that makes sense; it is no use asking for eleven-twelths because all the money is gone.
I would suggest that this situation has arisen because of the unique situation in which we find ourselves. The main estimates were tabled in February. We have gone through the electoral process, and this is the first opportunity Parliament has had to actually review those estimates and finally approve both interim supply and the main estimates. I should like to assure the hon. member that when we reach report stage 1 will give an explanation on each occasion when we are asking for twelve-twelfths, and I shall be pleased to try to answer any question which may be raised at that time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate Your Honour's generosity in allowing me to ask my question and letting me have the floor again for a minute or two. It seems to me this is one of those occasions when one has to fall back on the old saying that two wrongs do not make a right. It strikes me it is wrong for all the money to be spent before it was approved, and that it does not make it right to come along now and break the rule about interim supply, which is that some portion is always left for discussion on the main estimates.
It is all very well to have an explanation about what the minister has done, but the hon. gentleman has been so high and mighty about the things he has discovered, about the mess he and his friends have inherited from the previous govern-

November 8, 1979
Supply
ment, that it is surprising he should ask the House to approve this new departure under which the full amount of the estimate is put forward on an interim supply basis before we get to the main estimates. It is so long since we have gone through this kind of procedure-only because we have gone through an election and we are facing something unusual-but back in the so-called old days, every time there was a request for interim supply the government gave an assurance that some money was being left for discussion on the main estimates. If it failed to give such an assurance, one was soon sought by the opposition parties.
The main estimates are before the various committees right now, and in those committees some of the members will be discussing the amounts of estimates which, after the bill based on these estimates goes through, will have been entirely spent. I appreciate the assurance from the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) that he will tell us the story of each individual case when we get into Committee of the Whole on the bill, but I register a very strong protest against this "holier-than-thou" government over there which was going to do things right making this kind of departure from the accepted practice of the House for a great many years, if not for 112 years.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If it would assist the hon. member I would give him an assurance that the main estimates in all respects will remain before the various committees. If there is any question on any of these items with which we are dealing on a twelve-twelfths basis, we in no way intend not to answer those questions. This is a rather technical point we are involved in, as I shall be indicating later when we go into Committee of the Whole.
With regard to the 12 items we are dealing with involving the twelve-twelfths, the funds have been expended, or it is anticipated they will be expended very shortly. The only meaningful way to get proper authority is through Parliament, which we are endeavouring to do. The funds have been expended through warrants of the Governor General-that type of thing-and in effect we are trying to get parliamentary authority retroactively for some of the expenditures which were initially anticipated in the main estimates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not approve.


Herb Breau: I admit I am not a specialist in these matters but it seems to me that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) have a good argument. While the minister appears to have a relatively good explanation I am wondering, since these funds would be approved in any case next month, on December 7 or thereabouts when the appropriation bill is expected to be brought down, why the hon. member, in the spirit of open government and the participation of members of Parliament-two parties here are concerned about this even if it is only a technical matter-it does not give rise to any legal problems because the money will be approved in the main

estimates in the appropriation bill right after December 7- does not agree to change his position and not ask for twelve-twelfths at this time but just ask for what has been asked for traditionally and leave one-twelfth open.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, my question also concerns the same problem. I rose on this point of order earlier today. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) is in the House now and I would like to know whether he definitively intends to amend paragraph (b) of motion No. 5 to change-

-an additional three-twelfths to an additional two-twelfths. [Translation]
If you were willing to amend the text of the motion to avoid arriving at twelve-twelfths as we have asked three times at the various meetings of the House leaders, perhaps we would not have to consider introducing an amending motion at this stage, because if we present a motion to amend the motion and this is put to a vote, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) is well aware that this will become a motion of non-confidence in the government if it is refused.
Of course, I do not want to raise the possibility of a new motion of non-confidence today, but I would like the President of the Treasury Board to give a serious explanation to the House and tell us why, in spite of the representations that we have made repeatedly to the President of the Privy Council, he now insists on keeping paragraph (b) of motion No. 5 in its present form, that is twelve-twelfths of the appropriation, when we say that we could avoid the problem by a simple change which would consist in a reduction of one-twelfth at paragraph (b) of motion No. 5. However, I must say quite frankly to the President of the Treasury Board that I will not introduce a motion to amend the main motion, but that it is quite probable that we shall reserve the right to introduce an amendment to the bill to achieve what we want in the Committee of the Whole when the bill is introduced later on and after unanimous consent for second reading is given today, tomorrow or Monday. However, it would be very simple for the President of the Treasury Board to give us a valid argument to justify going against the wishes expressed at the meetings of House leaders and insisting on maintaining the three-twelfths mentioned in paragraph (b) of motion No. 5 instead of amending this paragraph by putting in two-twelfths.
It seems to me that this would avoid the problem, that it would not put him in an embarrassing situation, and that it would be in accordance with all the provisions of our Standing Orders concerning the business of supply.
November 8, 1979


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I certainly welcome the hon. member's suggestion as to whether I can in effect get by with eleven-twelfths as opposed to twelve-twelfths, and I can certainly keep an open mind on that. I think in Committee of the Whole on every explanation I give I can ask the officials if there is any technical or legal reason why, if we revert to eleven-twelfths, we will be creating a problem. My understanding is that in all 12 instances, however, there are in fact legal problems, and that is my dilemma. It is not just as easy as saying, "Let's have eleven-twelfths because there will not be some type of an ongoing problem".
To give the House an idea of the explanations I would be willing to give at Committee of the Whole stage, I could start indicating them now. I just felt it would be more constructive to wait until we got to the report stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You mean Committee of the Whole stage.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 1 am sorry, Committee of the Whole stage.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no report stage on this bill.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, "Your Honour".


Stanley Howard Knowles: No charge.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: However, Mr. Speaker, I am in the hands of the House. If hon. members would like me to go through all twelve explanations, I could go through them at this stage. I felt that a more constructive suggestion would be to go through each explanation at Committee of the Whole stage and if there was some questioning I could deal with it at that time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Because of the fact that the minister has already spoken, he could give the explanations at this stage only if he received the unanimous consent of the House. Otherwise, this would have to be done in Committee of the Whole. The problem is not for the Chair. It is for members of the House, who have to decide whether they are ready to go as far as what the government is proposing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if I need to call a point of order to get to my feet again, 1 remind the government House leader that he told us at our meetings that in no case would we be asked for more than eleven-twelfths. He told us there would be lots of eleven-twelfths, but here we are with twelve-twelfths. Since the motion does go beyond what we were asked for, 1 think that the explanations should be given now.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the minister to speak again for the purpose of giving those requested explanations?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supply


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank all hon. members for facilitating these explanations. If I may, I will read the formal explanation for each item.
The proportions requested in this bill are intended to provide not only for all necessary requirements of the Government of Canada up to December 31, 1979, but also to approve the granting of full supply for some 12 votes which received more than eleven-twelfths under the authority of special Governor General's warrants due to the seasonally oriented nature of the programs and other special circumstances.
The following is a listing of the twelve votes including the reason we are suggesting that we must exceed the eleven-twelfths in each case:
Energy, Mines and Resources-Vote 15-Oil Import Compensation Payments. Higher than anticipated price increases of imported petroleum and petroleum products. Additional amount of $835 million for 1979-80 was included in Supplementary Estimates (A), 1979-80.
In short, the overrun is being reflected in the supplementary (A) amounting to $835 million, which brings the total oil import compensation plan payments to something exceeding $1.5 billion.
Energy, Mines and Resources-Vote L75-Loans for the purchase of Port Hawkesbury Heavy Water Plant. Full draw down to Canadian General Electric was due April 1, 1979.
Industry, Trade and Commerce-Vote L30-Advances to Canadian defence industry. All advances expected to be made before December 31, 1979.
National Defence-Vote 10-Contributions to NATO Agencies. By agreement, funds are due on or before October 31, 1979.
Public Works-Vote 35-Marine Capital. Seasonal operation-most work carried out before December.
Public Works-Vote 50-Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation- Home Insulation contributions. Full amount expected to be spent before December 31, 1979. Additional amount of $15 million for 1979-80 was included in Supplementary Estimates (A), 1979-80.
Public Works-Vote 80-Public Works Lands Company Limited-Operating-Gross amount paid pending approval of authority to spend revenues which are to be credited to the vote.
Secretary of State-Vote 65-Canadian Film Development Corporation. Seasonal activity-most of feature film work done in the summer.
Solicitor General-Vote L30-RCMP Mess Operations-Working Capital Advance Account. Full amount required to finance new mess in Winnipeg. Ministry of Transport-Vote 20-Atlantic Pilotage Authority. Full amount paid in April, 1979 to meet the Authority's urgent cash requirements.
Ministry of Transport-Vote 30-Great Lakes Pilotage Authority, Ltd. Full amount paid in April, 1979 to meet the Authority's urgent cash requirements. Ministry of Transport-Vote 40-National Harbours Board-Redevelopment of Old Port of Quebec. Full amount will be paid by mid-November to meet urgent cash requirements for construction.
As I indicated earlier, if there is any questioning on any of those items, I would be very willing in the Committee of the Whole stage to attempt to answer them, but those are our explanations as to why we have unfortunately, in our view, had to get into the twelve-twelfths concept at this stage.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
1118
[Stage Direction]
November 8, 1979
Supply
Resolutions reported and concurred in.
Mr. Stevens thereupon moved that Bill C-23, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1980, be read the first time and be printed.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a second time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.
Mr. Stevens thereupon moved that Bill C-23, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1980, be read the second time and referred to the Committee of the Whole.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may we have copies of the bill? After all, if we have given it first reading and we are about to give it second reading, we should at least see the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Copies of the bill are to be distributed immediately.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let's just sit for a minute, then.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: You are going to like it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.
[Stage Direction]
On clause 2-$17,409,059,663.50 granted for 1979-80.
Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 2 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, 1 rise on a point of order. I wonder if there could be some understanding, or perhaps some direction from the Chair, as to how we are going to handle this bill which consists of a number of routine clauses that always make up a bill of this kind. It also has four different schedules with different departments under those schedules. Are we just going to allow each member to take up whatever subject he wants, or can we organize it by calling schedules and calling departments? I have no bill of goods to sell in this respect and I am not trying to get something, but it seems to me that it would be simpler, if we were on fisheries that we stayed on fisheries for a while, or if we were on national defence, that we stayed on national defence, instead of jumping all over the waterfront. Perhaps I will put the question to you, Mr. Chairman. How do you intend to call the bill? Having called the clauses, do you intend to call schedules A, B, C and D, or do you intend to bring them down by the various departments?


Yvon Pinard: So far as we are concerned, we were ready to let the different clauses of the bill be approved, but when you would call the schedules, we would intervene with regard to any of the departments. We were ready not to discuss the clauses but to make our points on any item under any department in the schedules. That is what we would suggest. If that suits members of the House, we would be willing to go along those lines.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Chairman, that seems reasonable to us. As a matter of fact the opposition House leader and I had a discussion about that. He was going to indicate the areas in which he was interested so that we could have our ministers here in order to answer questions. If that is agreeable to you, Mr. Chairman, it is certainly agreeable to us. It seems like a reasonable and sensible way of handling it.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. If we are to proceed in the normal way and according to the practice followed in Committee of the Whole, we could approve the clauses first, or we could stand clauses 2 to 6 inclusive and then, if the committee is agreeable, go on to the schedules and only then come back to the clauses.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I think that is a happy compromise. There are items in clause 2 which might be discussed after we have considered the individual departments. Clause 2 is where we get this twelve-twelfths business. I would go along with the proposal that we stand clauses 2 to 6 inclusive-of course we stand clause 1 until the end of the show-and that we proceed to call the schedules.


Yvon Pinard: We would be agreeable to that, Mr. Chairman.


Walter David Baker: So would we, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: Is it agreed by the committee that clauses 2 to 6 inclusive be stood and that we proceed directly to schedule A?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On schedule A-


Mr. Rompkey:: Mr. Chairman, we have some suggestions for the minister of fisheries, but before we start with those questions-and we will have questions in the hours, days, and weeks ahead here-I want to sketch in some context for those questions.
The context was really begun by the hon. member for Nickel Belt this afternoon when he set the scene in his remarks by indicating the direction in which this government is going. Some people maintain that the government is directionless. That is not true. There appears a certain clear direction and it is the direction of business in this country. We want to show that that direction is being maintained in the fisheries policy as well as elsewhere. Indeed, there is already evidence to show that this is a fact. I am not putting the blame for that policy line at the door of the minister of fisheries. We on this side
November 8, 1979

have a high regard for the minister as an individual, but the government party is now in the hands of the corporate interests represented by Bay Street, and the President of the Treasury Board is becoming known in the Atlantic provinces as "the slasher". I believe the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood had another name for him, but that is the name by which he goes in the Atlantic provinces.
Let me point to some of the evidence for the direction that is taking place in small craft harbours, for example. If that is the government that claims to be on the side of small boat fishermen-which I know the minister of fisheries is-then why was $11 million cut from the small craft harbours' budget this year? We questioned this in the standing committee, and it was quite clear to all of us that $11 million less will be spent on small craft harbours than was going to be spent last year. Those of us from the Atlantic area, not only from this side of the House but also the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte on the other side, will remember the time we spent in the committee on public works improving the small crafts harbours budget, in fact tripling it. The hon. member for Westmorland-Kent, when he was the minister of fisheries, continued the practice that the minister had started before him, and improved it.
This year $11 million less will be spent on small craft harbours. 1 do not know how many members are aware of the importance of this facility in the Atlantic provinces, but there is no point in trying to catch fish if you do not have boats, and you do not have boats if you do not have protection for those boats in the form of wharves and breakwaters, and if you do not have something to pull those boats up on in the wintertime. That is the importance of this to small boat fishermen and that is the importance of it to the Atlantic provinces, but that is the direction this government is taking, and that is the kind of policy line we are getting from this government.
Before I leave the subject of small craft harbours let me say this. Right now the Minister of Employment and Immigration has on his desk waiting for approval certain Canada Works projects in the Atlantic provinces. Whatever other members may think of these particular programs, they have been Godsends for the inshore fishermen in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. They have had facilities built that would have been built no other way and with no other funds.
Right now ready for approval are Canada Works projects for building wharves, breakwaters, haul-outs, slipways and fishing stages. However, there needs to be complementary money from the small craft harbours budget, and that money is just not there. Those projects will not be approved. In addition to the $11 million of small craft harbours money in the main estimates that will not be spent, these Canada Works funds will be unspent because of the lack of money in the small craft harbours budget. This is a sad situation in the Atlantic area, and I hope I can make clear to the House how serious it is.
Supply
The second piece of evidence relates to fishing vessel subsidies. The previous government and, indeed, the present government, have been encouraging small boat fishermen to improve their boats, their catching capability, their technology and their gear, but since June we have not had any fishing vessel subsidies.
A 53-foot longliner in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec costs $500,000. Can you appreciate the difficulty of small boat fishermen, small entrepreneurs, raising that kind of money? The federal government normally pays 35 per cent of the cost of such a vessel, or at least in my province it does. That money has not been there since June. This means that boats that were supposed to have been built have not been built, and this means that fishermen have gone without, in spite of the fact that groundfish are coming back and stocks are being rejuvenated. The fishermen have not got boats with which to prosecute the fishery. This is, indeed, a sad situation.
In addition to that, the shipyards which normally build these vessels and provide additional employment to people in that area have been lying idle. If this is a government of small boat fishermen, where is the small craft harbours money? If this is a government of small boat fishermen, where are the fishing vessel subsidies? They are not available in my province which has the highest unemployment rate in Canada. That province is represented by two ministers in the federal cabinet, and the present premier won his election by saying we had two stars in Ottawa now, and suddenly the heavens were going to open and rain gold. We are still waiting for that gold to rain. Six, seven months have gone by, and still we have not seen the evidence of the work of the two hon. gentlemen in the cabinet. I am not laying this at their doors; 1 am laying it at the doors of the people who are controlling this present party in government at the present time, and back of that party the interests of the large corporate organizations in this country.
The real issue that is developing in the fishery, at least on the Atlantic coast, and I suspect on the Pacific coast as well, is not a conflict between the provinces, and not a conflict between the provinces and the federal government. Richard Cashin, the president of the Newfoundland Fish, Food and Allied Workers Union, in a statement yesterday in Newfoundland defined it very well. He said that the real issue that is developing is not so much a constitutional conflict between the provinces and the federal government or, indeed, between the provinces, but a conflict or a power struggle within the fishing industry, a struggle between the large corporate interests and the small boat fishermen. That is the struggle that is emerging, and that is the struggle we want to address ourselves to on this side.
Let me make it quite clear where we in this party stand, as we have stood before. Whatever the hon. member for Nickel Belt may say about the lack of difference between the parties on both sides of the House in policy, it is quite clear that at least in respect of fisheries the policy of this party has been to favour the disadvantaged, the powerless, the people with the least economic and political powers in the fishing industry, and that has been the fishermen.

November 8, 1979
Supply
If there is one thing that the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent was known for it was as the minister of fishermen, not so much as the minister of fisheries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bill Rompkey: The struggle that is going on within the fishing industry is indeed that struggle between the corporate interests in the fishing industry and the small boat fishermen.
Let me make it quite clear where we stand. We, as a party, want to defend the people whom we have represented over the years and whom we continue to represent in our ridings, and they are the small boat fishermen; the inshore fishermen. We do so not simply because we want to improve their economic position but, indeed, because the small boat or inshore fishermen are tied up in a very integral manner with the way of life in the Atlantic provinces and Quebec. Our communities and our families exist because of the inshore fishery and because of the small boats fishery. We want to protect that way of life, not simply the fishery, and not simply to improve their economic position. That is the issue in the fishery today. The question is: who will get the power and the control, and how will that power be shared among those various sections of the fishery?
I am not going to deal with the issue that has come up most recently, that issue in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. 1 am going to leave that to my friend, the hon. member for Gloucester, who championed that issue from the beginning, assisted by the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent and, indeed, by my colleague, the hon. member for Gaspe. They will deal with that issue in some substance. However, that is further evidence of the direction that is being taken in the interests of the corporate powers within the fishing industry.
The issue of freezer trawlers will be the next important issue we want to debate on this side. We think the minister has been premature in discussing with the Fisheries Council of Canada the issue of freezer trawlers within the fishing industry, because here again a conflict takes place. If we increase the number of licences in the fishery for large vessels with freezing capacity to take large amounts of groundfish, in addition to unutilized species, and there is no way they can be economic unless they take a certain amount of groundfish, and I doubt that they can be economic anyway, that is going to have-


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I am sure my friend would not want to mislead the House. I just want to refresh his memory. When the estimates were before the committee I indicated to him that I had not in fact discussed the question of freezer trawlers with the Fisheries Council of Canada.


Bill Rompkey: I accept that from the minister, Mr. Chairman. All we are saying is that before any decision is made we on this side want consultation. We want to be able to debate that whole issue because it is of paramount importance. It is another sub-issue growing out of the one I have been trying to point out. We want to be consulted on that. We want a full debate on it. We want all the facts laid on the table, and we

want adequate consultation with the inshore fishermen whose very livelihood is threatened by this issue of freezer trawlers.
When referring to the struggle between the corporate interests and the small fishermen I would suggest that my colleague, the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, who is not here today, would raise the issue of the squid fishermen of Chedabucto Bay and the Canso area. It is true that the freezers of the companies are full at the present time. The shame of it is that squid in the areas I have indicated is being thrown overboard because the fishermen cannot get rid of it. The companies say they already have their freezers full and they cannot sell it.
The minister is saying that over-the-side sales will not be approved in this area and that he will not allow foreign vessels to come in and take the squid as they have in the past. If the companies are saying that they do not have a market for thei, squid, will the minister of fisheries speak to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and tell her that there is a dire situation in Cambodia at the present time and we as the government have approved $15 million for that area?
I would remind the minister that the main market for squid which is emerging now is the Japanese market. Would the minister tell the Secretary of State for External Affairs that we have this situation in Chedabucto Bay and Canso, and would he arrange, through whatever means necessary, to ship this product overseas to the people who are in dire need of it at the present time? We in Canada have so much of so many other things. There are people who need that product, and I am sure that something can be worked out in the interest of the squid fishermen in that area so that they can get rid of that product that they are catching and having to throw away at the present time.
I understood the minister to say earlier that he was not against over-the-side sales in principle. I thought I saw in his press release that they probably would continue next year. I hope that the minister will clarify his position on the matter because I think that he has to do something about that situation. It is an important situation for these fishermen in that area and, once again, the people who are affected are the small boat fishermen who cannot get rid of their product. The large corporations are not affected because their freezers are already full with that product.
Another issue which I would like to bring to the attention of the minister of fisheries in the hope that he will pass it on to the Minister of Public Works or possibly the Minister of Transport is the issue of navigational devices on the east coast, and specifically the Loran program. The previous government earmarked $14 million for the installation of new Loran facilities on the Atlantic coast. That has now been put aside, and the project will not go ahead even though all the ground work was laid. The Fox Harbour, Labrador area, was to have a Loran station. It is very important to the fishermen in that area and, indeed, to the U.S. coastguard.
November 8, 1979

I understand that not only are the Canadian fishermen upset, but so is the U.S. coastguard because they cannot navigate in the Atlantic area due to the lack of those Loran facilities. The possibility of oil discoveries off the Atlantic coast is further evidence of the need for these navigational facilities at the present time. Both the present government and the previous government have been encouraging fishermen to get the most up-to-date equipment. That technology will use the Loran navigational equipment for fixes at sea. If the government is encouraging the fishermen to get into that kind of boat and that kind of technology, it must have the proper kind of navigational equipment. It would not make any sense at all to leave that money unspent because one goes hand in hand with the other. I implore the minister to speak to his colleagues, the Minister of Public Works and the Minister of Transport, to see if he could have reinstated that $14 million to provide those very necessary Loran facilities on the Atlantic coast.
There are other issues that we would like to raise during the course of this debate. We would like to ask the minister what he intends to do about the Atlantic salmon. He must make a decision on that matter soon. We now know that the stock is in a great deal of trouble and that the decision will not be easy. There are five or six different factors, and during the course of the debate we will be going into this matter in more detail. 1 hope that the decision on that matter will be in the interest of those who need that salmon most and, again, in our opinion that is the small boat fishermen.
One option open to the minister is to reduce or possibly eliminate the salmon catch at the present time in Newfoundland. Certainly, the policy taken by the government of New Brunswick would suggest that it has not brought the stocks back, and I doubt very much if implementing that kind of policy with regard to Newfoundland would make any more sense. 1 think that there are other ways and means to go about solving the salmon problem.
The difficulty we on this side see is the direction in which we are heading in fisheries policy. It is a clear departure from the policy followed by the previous minister of fisheries. If the hon. member for Nickel Belt is looking for a difference in philosophy or approach, then let him look at the fishery policy because, from our point of view, there is a clear difference which we do not like and which we would like to see changed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, as I understand it we are on Schedule A at the present time. The hon. member directed his comments I think to the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, which is referred to in schedule D. For purposes of good order, 1 would suggest that each speaker deal with the schedule before us, and in that way we can proceed in a more orderly way with any questions that may be raised. The reason I say this is because schedule A is really where my hon. friend's points are going to come up on the twelve-twelfths. Schedule A deals with the three-twelfths that we are asking for in addition to the usual nine-twelfths that are dealt with in the bill.
Schedule B deals with the request for two-twelfths, the final schedule is the request for one-twelfth, and schedule D deals
Supply
with the supplementary estimates A. It is supplementary estimates A that have the provision with respect to fisheries and oceans. I could suggest that we come to the various fisheries and oceans discussion points either in schedule D, or when we revert to some of the clauses which we have stood. For example, clause 2(a) is the general nine-twelfths provision which includes, of course, fisheries and all the other departments. I am suggesting that perhaps if we could deal with schedule A we could get that behind us and then schedules B and C, and hopefully we could get to schedule D quickly.


Herb Breau: In view of the fact that we agreed with the government House leader that we would be discussing the fisheries estimates, we were prepared to go to that on clause 2. We stood the other clauses in order to be co-operative. In view of that, would it not be acceptable to the President of the Treasury Board, and to you Mr. Chairman, if we stood schedules A, B and C and went to schedule D, because we are prepared to discuss it?
We thought that we would be dealing with clause 2 and that we could do everything on that clause. That is why we would rather stand the others and go to schedule D. Would that be acceptable?


Gérald Laniel: I have no objection. I had the same preoccupation as the President of the Treasury Board, but by stretching schedule A with regard to marine transportation, I found a way to accept the remarks of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, although at times he referred more to fisheries than to wharfs and shipbuilding. I also recognize the difficulty of hon. members and I have already discussed the possibility of having a further, detailed discussion on fisheries. I have no objection to that, but to stand schedules A, B, C, and go to D, would need the consent of the committee.


Mr. Rose:: From the point of view of this party, Mr. Chairman, we are not prepared to stand this clause at the moment. We still have a number of speakers on it and I think we need its generalities in order to bring up things that are of great concern to those members who are present tonight and who will be present tomorrow, immediately after question period.


Herb Breau: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure if the hon. member who just spoke was here when his House leader agreed to stand clause 2. We have prepared ourselves to discuss clause 2. If they want to discuss something else, we have no objection to the Chair recognizing them proportionately, for the evening. I think it is unfair of the hon. member to bring this up now, when we have agreed to his leader's suggestion to stand clause 2. We are not saying they cannot discuss whatever they want to discuss, if they want an equitable share of the time for debate, but it is very unfair of the member from the New Democratic Party to refuse us the opportunity to discuss what we want to discuss.
We have no objection, Mr. Chairman, if you recognize them equitably this evening-as you always do, of course-but 1

November 8, 1979
Supply
wish the hon. member would not refuse consent for us to discuss what we want to discuss. We were ready to go ahead on clause 2. It was only in order to be co-operative that we decided to stand the clause and go to the schedules. I appeal to hon. members to be a little more co-operative, Mr. Chairman.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, it is true I was out of the House so I do not want to contradict any commitment made earlier that we would prefer to stay with schedule A, standing the various clauses. That is what I heard when I came into the House. I am not aware that we have any objection to that, as long as we stay with schedule A.


Gérald Laniel: I will try to be helpful. 1 do not want to get involved in the essence of the bill. In schedule D there are votes 15a, and L36a which deal with energy, mines and resources and payments to refiners. Would that be enough to allow the minister and hon. members to discuss the questions they want to discuss on schedule A? I am not learned enough to answer the questions that I ask myself.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, certainly we have no objections to standing schedules A, B, and C. If hon. members want to speak on the fisheries and ocean item, it does most appropriately come under schedule D. As you have indicated, schedule D is pretty wide anyway. I think our friends in the NDP can probably bring their remarks in under schedule D.


Bob Rae: Mr. Chairman, would it not be possible to allow us to raise questions involved in all four schedules? I do not see what the problem is, if the gentleman to my right wants to speak to schedule B and we want to speak to schedule A.


Gérald Laniel: The problem arises when amendments are offered. The Chair has to help the committee to proceed in an orderly way, so that we do not end up with confrontation or differences of opinion among members who are talking on one schedule or on another schedule. As far as schedule D is concerned, I do not see any difficulty in the minister answering questions that seem to occupy hon. members in the NDP on the subject of energy, if that is what they want to discuss at the same time.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there is really no problem. If we accept the advice you gave the committee in the first place, we can talk about fisheries under the marine transportation program and we can ask the questions that we want to as well.


Gérald Laniel: The committee will have to decide for itself. Right now I am faced with a decision that has been made to stand clauses 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. We are on schedule A now. If hon. members cannot agree among themselves, we will have to proceed with schedule A and I shall try to keep the debate as orderly as I can.
Shall schedule A carry?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Chairman, if I understood your last remark it means there will be a fairly free-ranging discussion. That is probably the way most hon. members would like it.

This is a new experience for quite a few of us and I suspect the wise and learned views of some of our colleagues would have been useful in the last few minutes. However, we shall muddle through.
Any discussion on fisheries must take place in a rather bizarre context for those of us who remember the period of 1974-75. Most of the tensions and the debate taking place in regard to fisheries matters at the moment are caused by a problem of riches. There is an abundance of fish. It is because the fishery has become so attractive to so many that a lot of discussion is taking place. I modestly take some slight credit for this abundance of riches, although I suspect the oceans are mainly responsible for creating the biological wealth. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans now finds himself approached on many sides by those who want to get in on the action.
The first time we took issue with him was on the decision to allow the larger vessels back into the Gulf of St. Lawrence which came about as a result of conflicting fishermen's interest groups competing for the same fish. The hon. member for Gloucester will have more to say on this issue a little later. I suspect a whole series of issues of the same nature are pending. Reference was made to freezer trawlers. If these vessels are to receive additional licences and not replacements, we will want to know who is to get that next generation of licences. If it is those who can afford them because they already have large fleets, then we will want to know the criteria under which the licences were issued.
We will also want to know if the minister has abandoned the policy enunciated in 1977, to the effect that the holders of fishing licences should not also be the processors or marketers of fish, that there will be a separation of the fleet to create a clientele, if I can use that word, of fishermen who own their boats individually or collectively and who go into the business of fishing while others go into the business of processing and marketing.
When I held that portfolio I concluded that the system whereby large trawlers could transfer some cost other than the cost of catching the fish, created unfair competition for a lot of small boat owners.
In any discussion about the next generation of licences, 1 would be interested in hearing the minister's views on an idea which 1 suggested and which the Premier of Newfoundland espoused at an open federal-provincial conference. It was a matter of public record that the idea of the next generation of licences, or the increase in the licences, should not be in the hands of those who already have them, but should be distributed or put in the hands of a consortium. This consortium could be comprised of a company in which government, present processors possibly, and fishermen, would be represented and in which they would have a say. Fishermen will certainly want to have something to say about the allocation of what I call the next generation of licences.
November 8, 1979

There are a number of other areas in which the sources of conflict between competing groups, not only fishermen but of processors and fishermen, are coming to the fore. Look at the situation on the sale of squid. It is possible that that market has slowed down. Have the companies, before asking the minister to intervene on their behalf, made available to fishermen through their organization all information which would allow fishermen to make a reasonable judgment? The fishermen of British Columbia in the herring roe know the market can bear roughly 90 thousand tons. Way beyond that figure market conditions and their income as fishermen would be in danger. This knowledge is shared among companies and fishermen and they arrive at a reasonable decision.
Those companies which were at my door when I was minister and must be at my successor's door in order to get access to the offshore squid have created very little employment. Squid was caught by freezer trawlers. These ships were chartered. The squid was then transferred to carrier or reefer vessels and taken to the Japanese market. Those companies at that time were not overly worried about the glut condition of the market.
I suspect that having their freezers full and having served themselves very nicely, thank you, then the fishermen who would like to sell fish to Japanese freezers in bays like St. George's Bay-the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion knows very well what I am talking about-find themselves prohibited by this minister whose instincts I am sure are repelled by having to make this sort of decision.
The minister will have to learn one thing, that he will have to resist a popularity contest with the large processors in the fishing industry who have traditionally exercised pressure and who have resisted some of the policies I advocated to allow fishermen to come home as equal partners. He will have to resist the blandishments of those who spoke yesterday to the committee that one had to exploit the fish on what one had to call an economic basis, that is, the fastest buck for the fewest possible. Then things are closed down and the government is left to worry about the rest.
Obviously this is a resource which belongs to the people of Canada and in which there has been almost no investment by large processors. The only investment has been in vessels acquired, accompanied by good tax write-offs, to capture the fish.


An hon. Member:: A Liberal write-off.


Roméo LeBlanc: If the hon. member to my left listened, he might learn a few things.


Herb Breau: Like the difference between cod and herring.


Roméo LeBlanc: The principle of saying to fishermen that when companies do not like it, one must not be allowed to sell fish directly to a foreign freezer, is one that will be hotly debated. We cannot hold the fishermen of this country as hostages to the sort of rhetoric we heard this week in the
Supply
House of Commons Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
If the minister wants to be on the side of the fishermen he will have to take his lumps from those who can advertise in The Globe and Mail-


An hon. Member:: At the taxpayers' expense.


Roméo LeBlanc: Yes, at the taxpayers' expense, because obviously this is written off. These are the people who were so poor a few years ago that at one point they asked me to take over the fleet. They were telling me they could not afford to run it any more. Now that the government has bailed them out with millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars, they are right back to where they were a few years ago.
They are not interested in long term policies like market consolidation for the foreign market effort of Canada. They are not very much interested in developing new markets as long as they can make a fast overnight dollar in some quick chartering operation. The minister will have to come down on one side or the other. I hope that he is brave enough to resist these ideological neo-conservatives who are developing some new altars on which we are supposed to sacrifice in the next few years. As the minister from Nova Scotia said, the fishermen of Cape Breton have been suckered in when trying to defend their interests as small inshore fishermen.
The minister will have to decide if he will speak on behalf of the fishermen or if he will speak on behalf of those he called good corporate citizens the other day. I suspect at some point he will not be able to speak comfortably for both.
I had intended to say a few more words, but I will conclude by saying that I think fishermen's organizations must not be prohibited, as they are in certain provinces, where by law fishermen do not have the right to organize-I am embarrassed to say that my own province of New Brunswick is one of those-


Herb Breau: Under a Tory government.


Roméo LeBlanc: Yes, under a Conservative government. The fishermen of this country must be given a chance to defend their interests as every other group of society is allowed to do. Not only that, but they must be actively encouraged by being heard and listened to. I intend to speak on some other items, but for the moment those are my general remarks.


Bob Rae: Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to talk about fish.


Herb Breau: Do you know what cod is?


Bob Rae: I want to ask a particular question of the President of the Treasury Board. It will take only three minutes and it arises from discussions 1 have had today. Can he tell us whether it is the intention of the government to announce before Christmas further sales of additional Crown corporations?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I am not sure whether or not that comes under schedule A but I will answer the hon.

November 8, 1979
Supply
member in this way: it is likely that the privatization candidate list with respect to Crown corporations will be increased, and an announcement will be made sometime between now and Christmas.


Herb Breau: Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is here in committee. In the last few weeks there have been many subjects that we have wanted to raise with him and he has been good enough to make himself available in the committee on fisheries and forestry. We appreciate that.
I want to say, as have my friends, the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, and the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent, that it is nice to see the Minister of Fisheries sitting with the President of the Treasury Board. One could not exemplify better the problems that are happening with fisheries now. Because this is the start of the session, we want to be nice; we are not going to be difficult right away. As I have said many times in this House to the hon. member for St. John's East, we hope he will be able to do those things that he wants to do.
I wish the President of the Treasury Board would forget his ideology and his blanket cutbacks and slashing on discretionary spending, and realize that what he is doing is humiliating all his colleagues whose departments have, as a vocation, spending and development. After four or five months I do not understand how the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans can sit at the same desk as the President of the Treasury Board, considering the difficulties he has caused. I do not understand how the minister can go back to Newfoundland and the rest of the Atlantic provinces to give an explanation to the fishermen, town councils, village councils, chambers of commerce and all kinds of industrial companies. You know what I am talking about, Mr. Chairman. It must be extremely difficult for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to explain why, for philosophical reasons, changes were made on a certain date, June 1.
I want to take this opportunity to say what a good job was done by the former minister of fisheries and oceans. Everyone in the Atlantic provinces who knows anything about fisheries agrees with that. Yesterday or the day before in the regional development committee none other than the present Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was saying how prosperous rural Newfoundland had become. He stated how economic activity in rural Newfoundland and in fact all over the Atlantic provinces was really alive. That is only because the former minister had influence on the government, something we hope this minister will have before too long.
As I said, we will be nice for a while and give him the benefit of the doubt. The previous minister had influence in the government because our party thought that fisheries was important. That is because external affairs and the diplomatic infrastructure of this country pushed at the Law of the Sea Conference to get the 200-mile limit settled. I was present at many discussions where the former minister pushed the government into unilaterally declaring the 200-mile limit.

It was not only because of the 200-mile limit the fisheries began to prosper. It was because we had a minister, a government and a party which believed we should put our money where our mouth was. That was what we did.
The hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador stated that the budget for small craft harbours last year was about $41 million on a yearly basis. It is now being cut to something like $32 million. That is shameful. We have lost a building season in small craft harbours.
This is the first time in 20 years in my constituency that the traditional construction companies had to lay off men in the month of July. I cannot speak for all of New Brunswick, but I know that in northern New Brunswick, which encompasses three constituencies, not one contract has been signed by the Department of Public Works for any marine structure for fisheries paid for under the small craft harbours program since June 4. That is shameful.
The fishery is an important sector. It is important to the culture and the life of our communities. For a government to accept a fiscal policy to freeze discretionary spending is not only humiliating for members like the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans but it is a policy that does not make any sense. In the past three or four months I have met with fishermen and development associations. They cannot believe the Government of Canada wants to follow a policy of freezing discretionary spending for small craft harbours.
My friend from Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador mentioned that the Canada Works program brought in by the Liberal government was a good program. We have worked with officials and community organizations in our constituencies with regard to making as much use as possible of this program to repair wharves and build small structures, something that can be done by those in the communities. This too was initiated by the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent while minister of fisheries. He convinced Treasury Board and the bureaucracy that it would not only provide employment for fishermen but would be more economical and efficient. As my friend said, hundreds of thousands of dollars had been approved under Canada Works.
The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and his officials will have to tell the community organizations that they are sorry, they have no money. That is shameful. I wanted to emphasize what was said by the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, because the President of the Treasury Board is in the chamber.
I wish to discuss a subject that I am sure we will have ample time to discuss with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in the days before this bill is approved. On August 22 the minister announced a decision to increase the quotas for cod in regions 4T and 40 in the Gulf of St. Lawrence. He also announced he would provide 6,000 metric tons off that quota to fishing vessels, trawlers 100 feet or more. He permitted them to come back to region 4T of the Gulf of St. Lawrence for the first time since 1975, at which time they had been asked by the then minister, the hon. member for Westmor-
November 8, 1979

land-Kent, not to do so. I spoke to the minister since that time. We raised the matter in the House.
[ Translation]
The minister has been told, I do not know how many times, that if he really made a mistake, we would understand that: it is quite possible for a man who has been a minister for only about ten weeks to make an error; there is so much material to be gone over and assimilated in so short a time that a mistake would be understandable; but, Mr. Chairman, what this minister did was to make an irresponsible decision. He decided to allow trawlers of 100 feet or more to enter the 4T zone in the Gulf of St. Lawrence without consulting anyone but the owners of those trawlers. The minister has replied several times in the House, and I have a few answers here in my hand which 1 would like to quote because I think that the minister, though he may not want to mislead the House deliberately is trying to be "tortuous". And just in case someone does not understand what I mean by that, 1 want to say that-

-the minister has been devious.

Mr. Chairman, on October 17, in reply to my colleague from Gaspe the minister said, and I quote:

Mr. Speaker, that decision was taken after scientific advice had come to us-

The quotation can be found on page 296 of Hansard for October 17.

-that we could take an additional 13,000 metric tons in the Gulf. On the basis of that advice, consultations were held with the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Committee. There was consultation, and on the basis of that consultation it was agreed that 4,000 metric tons would be assigned the Gulf-based vessels, which left an additional 9,000 metric tons. We decided-
When he answers he is very clever. He just spoke about consultations on the increase of the quota.
We decided that on the basis of that new TAC, we would assign 6,000 metric tons to the 100-footers, or the offshore fleet which had fished in the Gulf prior to 1976.
Again, yesterday, in the House of Commons the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and the Prime Minister, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Gaspe, said there had been consultations on the question of the entry of the 100-footers. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans should come clean with the House and tell us if he did consult with the governments of New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland, Quebec and Nova Scotia on the question of entrance into the Gulf of St. Lawrence in region 4T of these large trawlers. If the minister wants to clear this up right now, I am ready to yield him the floor.
The hon. gentleman always answers by saying there was consultation with the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Commit-
Supply
tee. I have read the minutes carefully, I have spoken to the people who were here, and 1 have evidence here that would suggest that on the question of the 100-foot trawlers there was no consultation. An official of the Prince Edward Island government appeared before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry this week and said there had been consultation only on the increase of the quota.
Before I go further I want to ask the minister whether he did, or did not, consult with anyone except the owners of the 100-foot trawlers or the plant owners? Did he consult with anybody whose Fishery was based on the Gulf on the issue of 100-foot trawlers entering region 40 or not?


James Aloysius McGrath: This question has been raised in the House on a number of occasions. I have answered it. The hon. member has just quoted one of my answers from Hansard. He is now implying, whether inadvertently or deliberately, that I misled the House. I have given my answer in the House and I am prepared to put it, now, before the committee and to substantiate it when I reply to the hon. member. There was consultation. That consultation was explained in committee when the matter was before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. It was repeated on numerous occasions in reply to questions in the House. There was consultation. I intend to demonstrate, with evidence, that in fact there was consultation. I am saying to the hon. member, for whom I have the greatest respect, I am sure it is not his intention to imply that 1 have misled the House. That is the course on which he is setting out tonight. He has to accept my word.


Herb Breau: I did not imply anything. The reason I asked the minister to stand up and answer the question before I went further was precisely because I respect him, too. I give him the benefit of the doubt. But I have evidence to show that on the question of the entry of the 100-foot trawlers some people say there was no consultation, and I am ready to quote, for example, the minister of fisheries for New Brunswick, Mr. Jean Gauvin who, in L'Evangeline-
[ Translation]
1 would like to quote from an article published on page 5 of L'Evangeline of September 21 under the title:
Large trawlers authorized to enter Gulf. Gauvin-
That is New Brunswick Fisheries Minister Jean Gauvin.
-surprised and concerned by the McGrath decision.
The Minister was surprised not only by the lack of consultation, in his view, but because he did not even know that this action was being considered. The reporter then describes the problem, Mr. Chairman, and 1 come immediately to Mr. Gauvin's statement. He said he was surprised, and I quote:
That the federal minister did not consult him prior to taking this decision, although Mr. McGrath may have tried to get in touch with him.
Now I can translate that:
1126

November 8, 1979
Supply

I can translate that. The minister of fisheries of New Brunswick, Mr. Gauvin, said he is surprised that the federal minister did not consult him before making a decision.


James Aloysius McGrath: I said in the House there was no consultation at ministerial level. I said that yesterday.


Herb Breau: Now we are starting to get more facts. Why does the minister not come out and say there was consultation on the increase of the quota at the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Committee meeting in July but that the question of the 100-foot trawlers being permitted to enter the Gulf was not discussed? Why doesn't he come clean and say that? I don't want to imply anything. I don't want to say he misled the House but I want the minister to tell the whole story and I want the record to show that when the minister says there has been consultation, there has been consultation at AGAC on whether the quota should be increased or not, but that on the crucial question of whether the quota should be taken by the large trawlers or not there was no consultation at all.
I wish the minister would admit he made a mistake, that he proceeded too quickly on an issue of great importance. He might, for example, tell us that he moved too quickly-that he was a new minister and did not have time to consider properly the briefs the officials prepared for him.
I have here the ministerial briefing note that the minister should have read and which explains very clearly what the problems were. It explains that the problems were not only scientific, not only related to establishing the total allowable catch, not only to whether the quota should be increased or not. The question is one of direction.

Mr. Chairman, this is a question of philosophical approach to fishery development. That is the question. Some members suggested we are questioning the competence of scientists. Such has never been our aim. Scientists deal with facts and data. The important thing here is that an area and a sector, coastal fishery-either near or further away from the coast- does not accept the minister's philosophy. It cannot accept that the minister should allow, two or three large companies owning some 50 trawlers 100 feet long or over to reap an extraordinary volume within the 200-mile limit.
I have figures here, Mr. Chairman, showing that this year-
I have asked officials for figures for this year, and they are going to supply them later. But it is now my feeling, Mr. Chairman, that 100-foot or over trawlers will be catching this year, in 1979, about 120,000 metric tons of cod-only cod,
120,000	metric tons; by the end of August they had already taken 83,000 metric tons of cod. It is a matter of determining whether the Government of Canada which is responsible for managing a resource for all Canadians is going to decide to continue to give more to those who have a chance to operate elsewhere and endanger coastal fishing in all Atlantic provinces.

It is not only a matter affecting the Gaspe area, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, because if the philosophy of the minister is that all he is going to do is accept the recommendations of his scientists on some data and say, "There is an allowable catch of X thousand pounds, let those who have the boats"-and those happen to be the big companies, two or three big companies-"go and get that fish." Well, areas in the Atlantic provinces depend on coastal fishing, depend on smaller boats where there are hundreds of independent fishermen who are not good corporate citizens, as the minister suggested in the fisheries and forests committee as well as in this House when he asked what could be done against those companies because they were good corporate citizens. Mr. Speaker, hon. members know as well as I do that coastal fishermen of Canada, New Brunswick, Quebec, Magdalen Islands, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland are good Canadians: the only difference is that they are not corporate citizens.
But, Mr. Chairman, they are citizens, people who have been trying for many years to earn a better living and who see that, in this country, in the area of fisheries, with the 200-mile limit, they now have a better chance and they can go and fish in that 200-mile limit. Why? Because of those 400,000 to 500,000 boats, and they own boats 45, 50, 65 or 80 feet long, Mr. Chairman, it is not economical to go and fish off Labrador or Newfoundland or between Nova Scotia to the south, and Newfoundland, in zones 4X, 4W and 4VS in the Atlantic ocean. That is not economical for them. So they have to depend on fishing in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and plants which depend on the Gulf for their fish supplies are also curiously underutilized. The minister says that they-
Mr. Chairman, I see that my time has expired. I would like to give an opportunity to the minister to come clean before we go further on this question and to admit that he did not consult anybody who was interested in the Gulf fisheries on the question of permitting 100-foot trawlers and longer to enter region 4T of the Gulf of St. Lawrence. I would like the minister to admit that he made an error and to say that he will not do that again.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, it was not my intention to reply. I wanted first to hear from my friend, the hon. member for Gaspe. I listened to the speech of the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador and the speech of the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent, but I do not want the record to suggest that the hon. member feels that he has me over a barrel in any way. Just to correct the record, I am going to quote the minutes of the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Committee meeting which was held in St. John's July 11, 1979.
The representation at that meeting is listed here, and it shows, for example, that there was a representative of the government of the province of New Brunswick. It is not my
November 8, 1979

fault if that representative did not report back to his minister, but that is in fact what happened. There was a representative from the province of Quebec. There was a representative from the provincial government of Newfoundland, and there was a representative from the provincial government of Nova Scotia.


Herb Breau: I have read all that.


James Aloysius McGrath: There was no representative from the province of Prince Edward Island.
Then the minutes list industry representatives as well, and 1 quote from the minutes as follows:
Members generally favoured an increase in the current TAC; however, conflicting views were expressed over a possible TAC increase and allocations to vessels under 100 feet and over 100 feet.
It was discussed at that meeting, and on the basis of these discussions there were consultations.
As a result of these consultations regarding Gulf-based vessels it was determined that they could use an additional
4.000	metric tons of the 13,000 metric tons that we were allowed to allocate over the existing TAC. So we allocated
4.000	metric tons to Gulf-based vessels because that was all they could use. That left 9,000 metric tons. Of that 9,000 metric tons 6,000 metric tons were allocated to the over 100-footers or the trawler fleet based outside the Gulf, primarily in Nova Scotia and southern Newfoundland. They are now in the southern Gulf taking advantage of that allocation.
My friend, the hon. member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, might be interested in knowing that as of today there are 16 trawlers in there, and the 16 of them are from south coast of Newfoundland fish plants providing good work for Newfoundlanders, and he opposes that. I am going to have more to say about that later on, but these are the facts, and I cannot help it if the hon. member does not read or does not understand what he reads. The facts speak for themselves.


Mr. Sargeant:: Mr. Chairman, during this week there have been a number of comments made in this House to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding the Garrison diversion project. Some of the comments were directed to the Prime Minister with regard to his discussing this with President Carter tomorrow. Unfortunately, President Carter will now not be visiting us tomorrow, and this matter will not be brought up, so I would like to direct some comments to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In the province of Manitoba there is a very large freshwater fishing industry. This fishing industry will be seriously affected by the Garrison diversion project. I urge the minister to make representations to the Prime Minister on behalf of fishermen in Manitoba, in other provinces, in northwestern Ontario and parts of Saskatchewan who will eventually be adversely affected by the environmental pollution caused by the Garrison project.
Essentially the danger Manitoba is afraid of is that the Garrison diversion is causing a link-up between the Mississippi River and the Missouri River basin and the Red River, Lake
Supply
Winnipeg, Nelson River or really the Hudson Bay basin system in Canada and parts of north central United States.
By making this link-up, certain species of fish will be brought into the Hudson Bay watershed which have not been in the Hudson Bay watershed for some 8,000 years. Among these are the gizzard shad, the rainbow smelt, and a number of others. The gizzard shad and the rainbow smelt in particular will cause serious and irreparable harm to the freshwater fishing industry in Manitoba. The gizzard shad particularly is a rather ugly and voracious little thing.


An hon. Member:: Probably a Conservative.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Someone has noted that he might be a Conservative fish. There is probably a strong resemblance between the gizzard shad and the happy hacker. The gizzard shad will eat all of the natural feed of the Lake Manitoba white fish, the Lake Manitoba pickerel, the sauger and the northern pike. It will also kill the eggs of Lake Winnipeg fish.
The rainbow smelt is an incredibly rapid multiplier. He will also affect the food supply for the natural fish of Lake Winnipeg, Lake Manitoba and Lake Winnipegosis, and will also foul up the nets of Lake Winnipeg fishermen. Their nets will be filled with rainbow smelt and cause an incredible amount of work, while the rainbow smelt has no value itself. The rainbow smelt cannot be commercially used. Fishermen will spend hours emptying their nets of rainbow smelt.
Figures from studies by the IJC and recently a study undertaken on behalf of the Manitoba Indian Brotherhood show that $3.1 million worth of Manitoba freshwater fishing will go down the drain. The fishing industry is somewhat larger than that, but the Garrison diversion will cause $3.1 million in annual damage, in today's dollars. This is something the people of Manitoba cannot accept. It is something which will affect native fishermen and non-status native fishermen in Manitoba. There are communities in the northern part of my riding and in the riding of the hon. member for Churchill which will be completely shut down if the fishing industry is lost. There will be nothing left for those communities.
1 have a number of comments to make regarding freshwater fishing. I would like to make them at some other time. At this time I would just like to wrap up my comments by urging the minister once again to make representations to the Prime Minister and to do all he can on behalf of Manitoba fishermen to ensure that Garrison does not


The Deputy Chairman:: Order.
Progress reported.

November 8, 1979
Adjournment Debate



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, on November 7 last I put a question either addressed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) or, as it turns out, the minister in charge of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, with respect to the home insulation program. The program has laudable objectives. The main objective, of course, is to encourage people who own private homes to insulate them and therefore reduce the amount of energy they are consuming in order to heat their homes.
Originally the program provided financial assistance to those people who owned homes erected prior to 1946. In the middle of the last federal election, on April 20, the then minister of energy, mines and resources all of a sudden came out with a new plan. He extended the program to homes built prior to 1961 and arranged for people to obtain up to $500, a real scoop, in order to assist them in their home insulation.
What concerns many of my constituents is that the standards of home insulation for houses built during the 1950s and 1960s, indeed until the early 1970s when our energy problems became apparent, were virtually the same. The same type of standard of insulation was required in my municipality and, I suspect, in most municipalities across Canada. Yet the program was extended to provide for assistance to those persons who own homes that were built prior to 1961.
There are people in my constituency who live on the same street, and some of them have houses built prior to 1961 or in 1961. In both cases the houses are virtually the same in terms of design and insulation, yet what this package does is to make fish of some people and fowl of others.
Second, there are a great number of people in subdivisions who, being good and intelligent citizens of Canada, insulated their homes prior to April of this year. Some of them have written to me complaining bitterly that they paid for their insulation with their money and now it is their taxes that are being used to help their neighbours insulate.
It is not a question of a program to assist the poor. This is not a program to assist the deprived in our society. It is a program to assist home owners, a program to assist only certain home owners who happen to own houses built prior to 1961. It is not a program that is designed to conserve fuel oil. Indeed, that is the major energy resource of which we are short. We have lots of electricity, presumably we have lots of natural gas because we are exporting more of it, and we have

lots of coal. Indeed, we have a surplus on the energy account of over $1,008 billion in trade. What we are short of is petroleum.
The program does not differentiate between electrically heated homes, oil heated homes, gas heated homes, or wood heated homes for that matter. It is a program that gives certain people for undisclosed reasons the benefit and the right of going to the treasury and saying, "Give me 500 bucks, please;" a program that says to others that they can pay the taxes to cover its cost.
I have raised the issue with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, though I must admit I have not raised it with the minister who is struck with administering the program, that is, the minister in charge of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
The matter has been brought home forcefully in the committee where the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), in talking about the fiscal problems of Canada, has said that the program is costing a fortune and we do not know what the end to it will be. In looking at Supplementary Estimates (B) I see that there is another $120 million for this program in addition to the original $47,300,000 in Estimates (A). I am told, in talking with people more familiar with how to read these estimates, that buried somewhere else is another $15 million or $20 million, and the amount goes up and up. Where are we going, and why should some people get this and some people not?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to continue this discussion about this interesting topic in the House of Commons. Let me say to my friend, the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), that he is quite right, it is an expensive program and a program that has been changed since it was first instituted in September, 1977. It is very widely utilized, and in the last few weeks applications have been averaging about 10,000 per week, and the payments represent a charge of $3.5 million to $5 million per week on the treasury. There have been about 800,000 kits made available to Canadians and there have been 289,000 applications received. There have been over 200,000 cheques sent out representing about $62 million spent so far in this fiscal year.
It is a matter of debate as to whether the program should be extended and made more universal. I am sure my friend realizes that if this is to be done, bringing houses built up to two or three years ago into the eligibility category, it is going to cost the treasury a lot of money.
The hon. member is also quite right in saying that CMHC only administers the program for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. It may well be, if it meets with the approval of the House and members generally, that there is something to be said for making the program more universal. That would also be very expensive. I will undertake to the hon.
November 8, 1979

member to get some statistics on just how expensive it would be.
One hon. member opposite, the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong), made the suggestion that it might be a good thing for some members of Parliament to look into this whole question of insulation on an objective basis. As we all know, architectural and climatic conditions are quite different across this country. The House might benefit from input from members of Parliament from different regions in this respect, in order to determine whether this program might be usefully combined with another type of program under CMHC, and to see whether it would be useful if an energy package could be devised to generate more revenues and to spend some of those revenues to make the program more universal.
1 want to thank the hon. member for keeping this matter before the House. It is a very pertinent issue at a time when energy issues are among those most paramount in the minds of the public. I look forward to continuing dialogue and input in the House on this subject by the hon. member and other colleagues.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE-MEASURES TO PROMOTE CANADIAN EXPORTS
Mr. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, in addressing a question to the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson) on October 24, 1 had in mind the fact that governments today are everywhere more active in promoting exports. This is hardly surprising in a world where reduced tariff and non-tariff barriers offer additional opportunities. Canada is more dependent than most nations upon trade for its prosperity, and being outside the great trading blocs will feel this competition all the more.
In the past, our search for additional markets has been global. However, the combined impact of geography and investment has ensured that almost three quarters of our trade-much of which is in fact inter-company transfers-is today with one country, the United States. This involves additional constraints on our export opportunities. On two occasions recently the Minister of State has deplored the limitations placed by parent companies on the exports of certain foreign-controlled subsidiaries in Canada. The minister has, however, said nothing yet of what he intends to do.
With further reference to the United States, the minister announced some months ago that Canada's search for new overseas markets has failed. He urges that we must now concentrate on the United States. I would in turn urge the minister not to give up so easily. Both patience and determination are essential to develop new markets. Canadian initiatives in Europe, Japan and the Third World need not imply any slackening of our efforts to sell in the United States. We can do several things at once-and do them all well-if we but have the determination to do so.
In addition to the constraints on Canadian exports resulting from the high degree of foreign investment, another arises from a variety of barriers to internal trade. To achieve an
Adjournment Debate
internationally competitive industry generally requires a domestic launching pad. Various provincial purchasing, labour and investment policies are a self-inflicted handicap in creating such a domestic base, as well as contributing to inflation. What measures does the government intend to take to reduce or eliminate such barriers to industrial rationalization for the enhancement, inter alia, of our export capacity? While on the subject of federal-provincial relations, what does the government intend to do to encourage the elimination of the wasteful duplication in export promotion between the two levels of government?
My comment on our self-imposed barriers to trade within Canada leads to an observation about the continuing absence of an industrial strategy, a strategy that must focus on sectors, including their export potential, and provide a greater degree of consultation and planning among business, labour, and the federal and provincial governments. Without such a strategy much of the work of FIR A and the Canada Development Corporation must necessarily continue in a sort of vacuum. And so must some of our export promotion activities.
1 hope that in replying, the minister will not merely refer to the national economic conference which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. de Cotret) is reported to be planning. We do not need another conference to recognize that yet further improvement in formal consultation and planning among the major players in our economy has become a pressing necessity.
One more point about the need to relate export promotion to an industrial strategy is that, as a result of recent GATT agreements, we shall in eight years reach virtual free trade with the United States. If we fail in the time ahead to increase Canadian control of our own industries, and their ability to compete abroad, I am not confident that we shall be able to retain our remaining economic independence in what will virtually be a free market between Canada and the United States.
In raising a few fundamental questions about export promotion, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to overlook the shorter term techniques. In a recent speech, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce urged the private sector to do more for themselves in seeking export markets. The Canadian Press reported that the minister subsequently added, and I quote, that "government intervention on their behalf has ended . . . including market surveys and trade negotiations".
Is this a statement of new government policy, or has the minister been misquoted? Apparently, in way of explanation, the Minister of State for International Trade said in this House on October 24, as reported at page 549 of Hansard:
There is no intention on the part of this government to remove itself from assistance on trade promotion or trade negotiations where it is appropriate for the government to be involved.
Does this mean that certain past trade promotion practices are now considered by the government to be inappropriate public sector activities? If so, what specific public sector

November 8, 1979
Adjournment Debate
activities does the government hope that the private sector will now assume? There is no point in the government lecturing the business community on their alleged shortcomings when the government itself does little more than confuse the observer about its intentions.
Does the government, in fact, intend to reduce or eliminate market surveys, as has been reported, at a time when the Canadian Export Association has made clear its dissatisfaction with both the quality and distribution of market intelligence? If the government does not intend to continue to engage in trade negotiations and somehow to leave these to the private sector, does it mean all trade negotiations or only certain ones? If so, which ones? Any withdrawal would seem especially paradoxical when the government itself forecasts a record trade deficit.
Against this background, how does the government intend to provide Canadian exporters with services equivalent to those available to our competitors? Let me cite two areas of concern. In export financing, Canadian exporters face disadvantages in competing with Europe and the United States.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. I regret I have to advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Etobicoke North (Mr. McLaren) has raised questions of fundamental interest, and it is a pleasure for me to represent my colleague, the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Wilson), this evening in order to respond to him.
The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has in place a series of export support programs and marketing services which have an excellent success record and have wide support in the export community.
The trade commissioner service, which has been in existence for over 80 years, enjoys a reputation as one of the world's finest overseas trade promotion organizations. This organization is the main focal point for the preparation of market surveys, to which the hon. member referred, and the question of information on trade opportunities abroad. Their efforts are supported in Ottawa by a number of sectoral and geographical specialists who provide marketing expertise as well as advising direction on trade negotiations.
Among the direct marketing programs administered by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is our program for export market development or, as it is known, PEMD. This program has been increasingly utilized by the exporting community. For example, there has been a 60 per cent increase in appplications for PEMD assistance in the last year.
I would also point out the current government initiative known as Export Canada "79". This is a $1.6 million initiative, aimed at assisting small and medium size manufacturers and processors, many of whom are new in export business.
In the area of overseas trade missions and trade fairs, I would point out that spending for 1979-80 for the promotional
[Mr. MacLaren.)
project program will be over $7 million and increased for $5 million in 1978-79.
The importance of export promotion is further underscored by the government's initiative in creating the cabinet position of Minister of State for International Trade. For the first time in history there is a minister whose principle mandate is to promote international trade. This appointment has again been most welcomed by the business community and, more specifically, the export business community.
While several of the aforementioned programs have been in existence for several years, the government is currently undertaking a review, under the direction of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, with a view to making these programs more accessible to Canadian firms, more streamlined, and more cost-effective.
This review will include the final report of the private sector task force, which is examining the export promotion apparatus. This task force is studying how government can most effectively and efficiently support the private sector in its effort to sell Canadian goods and services abroad.
It is certainly not the intention of this government to simply maintain the status quo but rather to expand these programs so as to capitalize more fully on the efforts of the Canadian exporters.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-ELECTION CAMPAIGN PLATFORM OF PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my questions were raised on October 30 and November 2 with regard to an attempt on my part and on the part of my colleagues to uncover the validity of the government's favourite response to every question that has been posed by the opposition regarding economic issues, a response that indicates that no action is now possible and that the election promises made by the "now" government cannot be kept due to the terrible state of the economy left by the previous government.
My question was intended at that time, to show what I believe to be the facts, that the current government knew full well the state of the economy, and in spite of that knowledge made promises to the people of Canada that could not be kept after the campaign. They knew full well at the time that these promises could not be kept without creating economic chaos.
What response was provided to me? The response was precisely the same response that we had received for the previous four weeks. We were told that no action was possible due to some hidden factors that were only discovered by this government after taking office. We asked on another occasion in the same vein to specify in which area these hidden factors were to be found. Were they to be found in inflation? Were they to be found in economic growth? Were they to be found in the current account deficit, in investment, or in savings? Where were these hidden factors to be found? We have not to this day received even a semi-adequate response to any of these questions of an economic nature.
November 8, 1979

Mr. Speaker, the responses we have been getting in this House with regard to economic issues are pure and utter rubbish. Contrary to what people were led to believe, this government has no concrete policies in the area of economics. This government has wasted its years in opposition, years that an opposition should be using for reflection and policy formulation. This government wasted its time with vacuous criticism and the creation of what it knew at the time to be unrealistic promises.
I am certain that this government had clear knowledge of reality during those months prior to the election campaign. The evidence is there. The facts are well documented from comments made by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens). These can be found in Hansard, and in the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and other committees of an economic nature. The questions that were asked and responses given in the House and in the committees indicated quite clearly that the government of this day knew full well what the economic situation was that they were getting into prior to the election. But they were more concerned with destroying the government than with developing policy alternatives. The result is what we see now: six months of inaction, six months of ad hockery, with no sign of well thought out priorities.
This government made promises during the campaign which they had no intention of keeping, no intention whatsoever. Let me cite examples. First, the embassy move. This was a clear case of crass political opportunism, one that has and will continue to cost Canada dearly. Second, the mortgage and property tax credit bill is another example. This is a costly, unaffordable, inequitable, ineffective and unnecessary election goody which the Minister of Finance admits is a millstone around his financial neck. This is crass political gimmickry of the worst sort and people are beginning to see the light.
The government says it has no options with regard to monetary and fiscal policy. That is nonsense, Mr. Speaker. There are options. The problem is, and it is becoming clearer each day, that this government does not understand the nature of the problems we face. It has not considered the alternatives and it has not produced any new thoughts in this area.
This is a time for new initiatives. Instead of new initiatives, we are getting a stall game. The government has no new ideas for restructuring the ailing Canadian economy. It never did, and 1 contend that it is defrauding the Canadian public. The stall game will not work much longer. People are getting wise. 1 have heard it said in my riding and in my travels throughout Ontario that people are beginning to realize that this government is on the ropes. It is bankrupt. It is bankrupt, not financially, but intellectually and morally. The members of the government know that I am right.
We already hear of rifts in the Tory ranks, rifts which indicate that they never were firm on any major new policy directions before the election and are now frantically trying to find a consensus. Members on the other side are in for a rude awakening. The public is starting to demand action and
Adjournment Debate
answers. From what we have been hearing over the past few weeks, this government is going to be hard put to deliver either.


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans) on behalf of my colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Bosley). I will try to confine my response to the question the hon. member asked and not to the other references he made. The question related to financial surprises that this government encountered after taking office on May 22. I would like to recite four or five examples of such surprises that we encountered.
First, the Liberal regime had never publicly forecast federal revenues, expenditures and the deficit more than 18 months in advance. On July 20, 1979, however, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) released to the public four-year forecasts to fiscal 1983 that had been prepared during the previous administration. What we discovered was most astonishing.
These forecasts showed a steadily increasing budgetary deficit from $11.8 billion in fiscal 1980 to $14 billion in fiscal 1983, and a doubling of the federal net debt from $51.5 billion in fiscal 1979 to $104.7 billion in fiscal 1983. The forecasts were in sharp contrast to the Liberal claim last year that the federal deficit problem was a temporary phenomenon.
Second, in his last budget the former minister of finance, the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), had spoken of a "sustained expansion" of the Canadian economy. According to the former minister, the expansionary forces already at work suggested that he should not stimulate the economy further. The new government found the U.S. and Canadian economies sliding toward recession. The official forecast on which the former minister's fiscal policy was based was wrong and known to be wrong by that government. Less than three months after it had been made, the former minister was already making changes to it.
Third, and most important, when it looked at the assets and debt of Canada, the new government discovered that the accounts of Canada did not properly represent the financial position of this country. In the Accounts of Canada Adjustment Act, the government proposed to write off more than $3.9 billion of assets, the carrying value of which was questionable. While the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Andras) was quite correct in noting that such adjustments do not affect the cash requirement, such adjustments increase the net debt of Canada by the amount of the write-off, almost $4 billion.
Further distortions were found in the treatment of some Crown corporation borrowing. Such borrowing, which exceeded $1.15 billion in fiscal 1979, does not appear in the accounts of Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: A 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 10.29 p.m.

Friday, November 9, 1979