1981-10-14

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
30 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, October 14, 1981

Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has received from the Chief Electoral Officer certificates of the election and return of Hon. Roch La Salle, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Joliette, and Dean Heap, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Spadina.
* * #


INTRODUCTION OF NEW MEMBERS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Roch La Salle, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Joliette, introduced by Right Hon. Joe Clark and Hon. Flora MacDonald.
Dan Heap, Esquire, member for the electoral district of Spadina, introduced by Messrs. Edward Broadbent and Neil Young.

Madam Speaker:: We have introduced two new members, but there is a very old member who is not in the House today, and that is very unusual. Of course I am speaking of the Hon. Stanley Knowles, the member for Winnipeg North Centre. He has just called me on the phone to tell me that he is with us all in thought, and I think he is doing pretty well. I know I express the sentiment of all this House by sending him our best wishes for a speedy recovery. Get well, Stanley, fight through it, and come back very soon!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WELCOME TO NEW PAGES
Madam Speaker:: I would also like to welcome our pages who are with us for the first time today and say to them that they are the darlings of the House, that we always appreciate everything they do for us and that we hope they will find this experiment rewarding.


DOMINION CONTROVERTED ELECTIONS ACT
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that 1 have received from the Hon. Mr. Justice Osier and the Hon. Mr. Justice Cromarty, both of the Supreme Court of Ontario, the two judges appointed for the trial of a petition pursuant to the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, a certificate of judgment in the matter of an election in the electoral district of Spadina.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. Mac-Guigan):
That the House express its deep sense of shock and sadness over the assassination of the late statesman, Anwar Sadat, President of Egypt, and send its sincere condolences to the family of the late President and to the Egyptian people, and that the House express its renewed support for the continuation and implementation of the Camp David Peace Accords, which are a message of peace that the late President brought to this troubled region.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the motion?

October 14, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Because of the increasing concern over the political upheaval in Poland, and because citizens of that country are suffering from obvious hardships, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That the Canadian government act quickly to ensure that those Polish citizens seeking refugee status in Canada be accepted as conventional refugees; that provision be made within the refugee quota to allow Canada to accept more Polish refugees than presently announced by the minister, in view of the ever-increasing numbers in Polish refugee camps in Austria; and that the Canadian Polish Congress be commended for, and aided in, its efforts to assist needy Polish entrants to Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its consent to this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter which has now reached crisis proportions to Canada's farming, small business and fishing communities.
High interest rates are bludgeoning these critical economic sectors, as demonstrated in the 26 per cent increase in business bankruptcies between the months of August and September. In light of this catastrophic situation I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That the Liberal government admit that its historic high interest rate policy has failed, and that this House urge the government to take immediate steps to reduce interest rates and refrain from driving these critical economic groups to their knees.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, at a meeting with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) on October 8, the wives of some 300 farmers from the Bruce-Grey constituency, and later, a Port Elgin Chamber of Commerce meeting of 275 people, confirmed the crushing impact of high interest rates on the Canadian farm community. So I rise on this matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the terms of Standing Order 43.
In light of the number of farm bankruptcies, which are up 147 per cent over the 1979 figures, the record number of forced sales and foreclosures, the record rate of Farm Credit Corporation interest rates, the near depletion of the Farm Credit Corporation lending budget, and the resulting threat to Canada's food security because of the total lack of government action and commitment in solving or alleviating any of these problems, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise):
That the government immediately enact the appropriate measures necessary to meet this national farm crisis, measures such as the immediate infusion of funds for the Farm Credit Corporation lending budget, the extension of the Small Business Development Bond to unincorporated farmers, and a national moratorium on farm bankruptcies, foreclosures and forced sales, until the merits of each case can be examined and new measures can be enacted.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, having returned from extensive visits with many Canadians and seeing first-hand the heartbreaking results of this Liberal government's deliberate high interest rate policy and the results of this Liberal government's deliberate high unemployment levels which have jumped to 8.2 per cent in September, the highest increase in unemployment in one month since 1945, of which 45 per cent are youth aged 15 to 24, and after seeing the demoralizing effect they are having on small merchants, the agricultural sector, and the human suffering and weeping in Canadian families because of the loss of their homes, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Crombie):
That this House instructs the Minister of Finance to introduce immediately measures to alleviate the impact of record-high interest rates and record-high unemployment levels among our youth, single-parent families, home owners, the agricultural sector, and small merchants.
October 14, 1981


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


WINTER OLYMPICS
Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the city of Calgary's successful bid to host the 1988 Winter Olympics and the strong commitment of support which this project has received from the federal, provincial and municipal governments, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Gingras):
That this House express its pride in and continuing support for the 1988 Calgary Olympic Games which will not only act as an inspiration for our own young athletes but will also serve once again to reflect the greatness of Canada to the rest of the world.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Public Interest Research Group in the United States has released a report indicating that the water in the Niagara River presents a serious health threat; and in view of the fact that some of the toxic chemicals present in the Niagara system are proven to cause cancer, birth defects and damage to the central nervous system; I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar);
That unpolluted bottled water be provided to all those communities presently drawing water from the Niagara system until such time as an independent panel of scientific experts reviews the findings of the Research Group and all current medical information on the pollutants.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas about half a million mortgages will come up for renewal during the next 12 months, and every night more than a million pillows are wet with the tears of Canadians who fear the loss of their homes because they are unable to meet the gigantic increases in interest rates which the Liberal government permits and condones, and whereas the mortgagor, in many cases, rather than foreclose, forces the sale of a house at bargain prices, which robs the mortagee of his house and his equity in the house, therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart);
That the Right Hon. Prime Minister bring in legislation at once to protect the homes of Canadians who are caught in this high interest squeeze.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The government's high interest rate policy has resulted in interest rates in Canada 4 to 5 per cent higher than those in the United States. For example, the Bank of Canada rate is 18.95 per cent, the Euro-dollar rate is 14.5 per cent. This government's T-bills are quoted at 18.55 per cent; American T-bills are 13.53 per cent. Banker's acceptance money for 30 days in Canada is quoted at 18.9 per cent; in the United States at 14.35 per cent. First mortgages in the United States are 16 to 16.5 per cent, and Americans deduct the interest from their income taxes. Candi-ans pay 21 per cent and more without relief. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney), the same motion moved in a previous session by the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray):
That this House immediately order its Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to undertake an immediate review of the interest rate policy of this government and of the Bank of Canada, and that for this purpose the Governor of the Bank and the Minister of Finance appear before it to explain their actions.

October 14, 1981


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Mel Gass (Malpeque):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc), under the recommendation of the New Brunswick members of the Scallop Fisheries Board, and under protest of the Prince Edward Island members, has closed down the scallop fishery in the Northumberland Strait, leaving Island fishermen, who want to work, unemployed, at a time when unemployment among Atlantic fishermen is reaching crisis proportions. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That this House condemns the Minister of Fisheries for ignoring the welfare of P.E.I. fishermen by again rendering a political decision in favour of his own constituents.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given that an independent American study has indicated that the sewage treatment plant at Niagara Falls, New York, has been dumping virtually untreated chemical waste into the Niagara River for three years, and further given that, in spite of his campaign promises, the Prime Minister has failed to press U.S. authorities on this grave bilateral issue, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That this House condemn the Prime Minister for once again failing to live up to his campaign commitments, thereby assuring Canadians' lack of trust in him and his government.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister, who will know that the lack of interest in economic policy shown by his government has, over the last several months, driven literally thousands of Canadians out of. their homes, out of their businesses, out of their farms. The Minister of Finance has been vaguely promising that a budget will be introduced. Can the Prime Minister tell the House of Commons today the date on which a budget will be presented to this House of Commons?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I should first point out to the Leader of the Opposition that what he calls lack of interest by this government in economic matters has resulted in a growth in Canada during the first nine months of this year of 6.3 per cent in real terms. That is real growth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is certain when the economy grows at this speed that Canadians' expectations remain high. People who are unable to defend themselves, those who were mentioned in the various Standing Order 43 motions that you have heard just now, those who have been hard hit by this inflationary process, by this high growth that goes to others and not to them-it is certain those people need consideration.
I understand the party opposite has been waiting all summer to talk about the economy. I hope they will talk about the economy and not just ask questions, but that they will be prepared to listen to the answers. Some of them will be mentioned in the budget, Madam Speaker. The Minister of Finance has indicated repeatedly, I believe, that he plans to bring down a budget before the end of this month.


ASSISTANCE FOR HOME OWNERS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I guess it is no surprise to the people of the country, particularly those who have been forced out of their homes, out of their businesses and out of their farms, that even after three months around the world, three months away from here, this Prime Minister still cannot decide on a budget date. He might be able to wait; the people of Canada who are the victims of his economic policy cannot wait. If he cannot give the House of Commons a straight answer on that, perhaps he should go away again and let the country carry on in his absence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 14, 1981


Charles Joseph Clark: Surely the Minister of Finance must know; perhaps he can brief the Prime Minister on the date. We would like to know the date of the budget. Also we would like to know, if the Prime Minister could address his mind to it, what the Government of Canada will do to help, among others, one of the groups of victims most acutely hurt by the disinterest of his government, by the refusal of the Liberal government to care about the economy, the Canadians who are being forced out of their homes.
I remind the Prime Minister that his own throne speech indicated that the government will act to assist those unable to bear the burden of renegotiating their home mortgages in the present abnormal situation so that the spectre of foreclosure can be avoided. That spectre of foreclosure has become a reality to hundreds of thousands of Canadians across the country. I want to know from the Prime Minister whether there will be, in the budget that ministers refuse to announce the date of, specific help by the Government of Canada for those Canadians who are being forced out of their homes. Will that be a part of the budget whenever the budget comes down?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition is asking me to tell him, before the budget date, what will be in the budget. I am sure he would be the first to complain that I was breaking the conventions of this House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -by letting out budget secrets. He himself has had some experience as prime minister, and he knows that budgets are only known on the dates that they are read by the Minister of Finance.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF ASSISTANCE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister well knows that while he might be sitting in some comfort, a lot of Canadians across the country are not, and that many Canadians now who are forced to consider renewal of their mortgages-and there will be half a million of them in the next twelve months-need to know immediately. They cannot wait for whatever date is in the mind of the Minister of Finance; they cannot wait for the Prime Minister to turn his attention back to Canadian affairs. They need to know immediately what kind of help will be offered. The Minister of Housing has said one thing. It has been contradicted by the Minister of Finance.
Could not the Prime Minister indicate to the House now that there will be help for Canadians who will be forced out of their homes? Can he not tell the House of Commons and the people of Canada who are waiting for his word, now that he is back in the country, what kind of help will be available to them to stop them from being forced out of their homes, forced to give up their investment, forced to abandon their future, because the Liberal Party does not care about the economy of the country?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the reason is obvious why the Leader of the Opposition wants me to tell what is in the budget before the budget date. The Leader of the Opposition is very anxious to start making speeches that he plans to make during the budget debate. I encourage him to continue to rehearse those speeches. I am sure he can improve them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think the House will realize that his third question is an exact repetition of his second. He wants to know whether the budget will contain certain things, and I repeat that it is against the conventions of this House to say what is in the budget before the budget is brought down.

[ Translation]


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND CO-OPERATION OF MOROCCO
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to call the attention of the House to the distinguished presence in the gallery of His Excellency M'Hamed Boucetta, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Co-operation of Morocco, to whom I extend a warm welcome.


THE ECONOMY
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, my question will also be directed-


Some hon. Members:: He has not changed-


Roch La Salle: -Madam Speaker, those opposite have not changed, and in view of the way things are going in Canada, I came back just in time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roch La Salle: My question is supplementary to those asked by my leader to the Right Hon. Prime Minister, whom I salute, and he has certainly noted since his return from his travels that the present economic situation is a major concern to thousands of Quebecers and Canadians especially with regard to interest rates.
The Prime Minister has refused to reassure the home owners and tenants who will be faced with great hardship and guaran-

October 14, 1981
Oral Questions
tee that his budget will include concrete measures to help them keep their homes while at the same time promoting a recovery of the building industry.
Can the Right Hon. Prime Minister assure the House today, since thousands of Canadians are listening to us, that action will be taken to help these Canadians keep their homes and promote recovery of the housing industry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, you will recognize that the hon. member for Joliette, whom I salute in return, has asked exactly the same question as his leader. This does not surprise me, but I wish to remind him that in this House, both languages are official, unlike the situation in that other assembly to which he tried to be elected. Here, both languages are official; we have heard the question in English and he is now repeating his question in French, which is fine. I shall point out to him as I pointed out to his leader that the budget should be tabled before the end of the month and that it is the practice that the contents of the budget be not revealed before the evening when it is brought down, and that if he is so set on contributing to the preparation of a budget, he has chosen the wrong capital and the wrong party.


Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, if the Right Hon. Prime Minister wanted to tell me that he speaks English better than I do, he is quite right. However, the Prime Minister has not proven to be more able than 1 in economic matters, for instance.
Madam Speaker, my question is this: In view of his answer, the Prime Minister shows an almost outrageous indifference for small home owners and tenants. The Prime Minister is aware that these people are worried, but I wonder if he realizes the extent of that concern among small home owners and thousands of his fellow citizens. The only thing that 1 want to know, Madam Speaker, is whether the Prime Minister, or else his Minister of Finance, if the Prime Minister is not able to do so, can assure these people that there will be compensation formulae, corrective action and direct financial assistance available to them so that they can keep their homes and remain good citizens?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I should point out to the hon. member that I made no comment about the way he speaks English, or French for that matter. I simply said that he was repeating in French the same question as the one his leader asked in English. If he insists on asking it a second time-


Roch La Salle: We want an answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, but I have already replied to the leader, of the hon. member for Joliette. If he wants me to repeat it, I shall-


An hon. Member:: Yes, or no.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is either yes or no, Madam Speaker, or else it is yes and no, but in any case, the hon. member will find out on budget night.


HOUSING
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister who is allegedly responsible for housing. The government has been attempting to downplay the families who are going to be confronted right now with the housing crisis. I should like to ask the minister if he will produce the secret document that has been prepared in his department that shows how 85,000 Canadian families will lose their homes by Christmas because they cannot afford to renew their mortgages. Also, will he assure us that the government will take action to make sure that those families can maintain their homes?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question does reflect the Prime Minister's comment on conventions of the House. The Leader of the New Democratic Party, I am sure, is referring to a document which was prepared for me as the minister and which, under the new information act, would be made available when that legislation is presented to the House. Following those conventions, that will be available.
I would hasten to add, Madam Speaker, that it is commonly known how many mortgages are up for renewal in the next 12 months, and the difficulties that Canadians are facing at the present interest rates are commonly known.


Mr. Nielsen:: What is the remedy facing us now?


Paul James Cosgrove: Those are facts that are known and recited by members on both sides.


John Carnell Crosbie: What are you doing about it?


Paul James Cosgrove: As the Prime Minister indicated, although we await the budget, I invite you to take a look at what this government has done in the last 12 months in housing.


An hon. Member:: We have!


Paul James Cosgrove: I invite you to consider, for example, that unlike the previous administration, we reintroduced support for the industry through the MURB provision in the last budget. That resulted, I am sure, Madam Speaker, in an additional 15,000 starts in the last 12 months. On top of that, to assist Canadians of modest income, we increased social housing under section 56(1). That is a good record, and I am sure that record will be continued.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
October 14, 1981


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister should try that answer on the 85,000 families who are going to lose their homes.



THE ECONOMY


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I have a question now for the smiling Minister of Finance. The Governor of the Bank of Canada just recently said that, notwithstanding the insignificant drop in interest rates, his policy as Governor of the Bank of Canada is that Canadians should expect, for the foreseeable future, a continuation of the high interest rate policy.
My question to the minister is straightforward. Since the Liberals promised in the last election campaign to bring down interst rates, will he instruct the Governor of the Bank of Canada now, to implement that policy, or will he fire him?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I was smiling, but that question certainly would put a frown on anyone's face who is interested in examining the economic realities we face and who is dealing with them in a serious way, rather than through rhetoric. The hon. member knows that the quickest way to bring down interest rates in Canada is not through firing the Governor of the Bank.


John Carnell Crosbie: Fire the government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He ought to know that the best way to bring down-


John Carnell Crosbie: Let's have an election.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -interest rates in this country is to bring down the rate of inflation. That is precisely the argument that the Governor of the Bank has made. I hope that at some point the argument will sink into the opaque mind of the hon. member.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, so much for another Liberal promise that has clearly been broken in that answer.



LEGISLATION TO DEAL WITH ECONOMIC SITUATION

John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I should now like to ask the Prime Minister a question which has absolutely nothing to do with budget conventions. We have been away for three months in recess, and during that period record numbers of small businesses have gone broke, farmers are losing their farms, and there has been a 100,000 increase in unemployment in one month. Right across the ledger there is economic disaster. Could the Prime Minister tell us why we came back this week and there is not a single piece of new legislation to deal with the economic crisis before us?
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is referring to the record of the economy. In my first answer today I indicated that, indeed, there were many citizens in this economy and many groups in the population who are suffering from the inflation this government is trying to fight, and that it would be our intention in economic measures in the future, as it was in the past, to alleviate the suffering of those who are in most need. I do not have to remind the hon. member of our increase in the guaranteed income supplement to the old, and so on. It is fully indexed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It's all gone!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, the hon. member says, "It's all gone." He does not realize that it is fully indexed and that, as inflation goes up, these pensions go up. The nature of inflation is that some people get hurt more than others. That is why we have brought in and we will bring in measures to help them. However, I do not believe the hon. member is showing the true picture when he quotes a few indicators of people who are really suffering, and says, that that is how the economy is performing. I told the Leader of the Opposition that in the first nine months of this year real growth in this country went up at 6.3 per cent. That is higher than the United States, which is way below that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, no, I understand. If the hon. member wants me to tell that to a person who has just lost his job or is losing his house, this will not be a consolation. I just want to explain to the hon. member that when he says that the economy is performing badly, he should say that it is performing badly for some people, not for Canadians-


An hon. Member:: Most of them!


Charles Joseph Clark: You're all right, Pierre.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: And Chenier, you're all right, too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Madam Speaker, this is the first day of this sitting, and it seems to me that we are giving a bad example to the pages whom Your Honour has welcomed so generously.


Walter David Baker: You are!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order. The pages were warned by me this morning that there are rough days in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

October 14, 1981
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE



MEASURES REQUESTED TO AID FARM INDUSTRY

Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, I do have an example of the1 sector of the economy where it is not functioning very well. I want to pose a question which is similar to the subject matter raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Bruce-Grey, in his motion under Standing Order 43. While the Minister of Agriculture wrestles with his conscience and soberly considers his future, I want to put my question to the Minister of Finance, if I could get his attention.
I am certain that the minister, through dialogue which he has had with his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, is very much aware of the fact that a combination of high interest rates, high farm input costs, coupled with low market prices, has caused a financial crisis in the farm community today. In the short term, because I really think that it is serious, would the Minister of Finance now announce and implement a moratorium on farm bankruptcies, foreclosures, and power of sales immediately? Second, would he also transfer immediately-now-an amount of money in the neighbourhood of $500 million to the Farm Credit Corporation to be used exclusively for refinancing the agricultural industry today? These are short-term solutions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that among the sectors of the economy that are currently receiving my consideration as I prepare for a budget, is the farming sector. I have had a number of discussions with the Minister of Agriculture, with farm representatives, and with representatives of the provincial governments. I will be addressing all the questions of the economy in the budget. But I would ask the hon. member-


John Carnell Crosbie: You will be stripping them, you mean.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -to consider whether he is really serious about the suggestion of transferring half a billion dollars at the present time in the light of the strictures which I have received so frequently from his leader-


An hon. Member:: How about your energy tax?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and from the former finance critic, about increasing the deficit. The advice from that party has been to decrease the deficit. I heard the Leader of the Opposition, not so long ago, with his own voice, advise me-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -advise me, by radio, to reduce the deficit. Therefore, while I am prepared to consider specific proposals, I believe that I would like to get one which is more selective than the rather huge deficit-increasing suggestion that the hon. member has made.



SUGGESTED EXTENSION OF SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT BOND PROGRAM

John Wise: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Obviously, if he had a little better management, he could at least come up with an extra $1 billion, to say nothing as far as what he will come up with concerning the new national energy agreement. I believe that is in the neighbourhood of $50 billion. Perhaps that is an area at which the minister could start looking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Wise: I do appreciate the problem of the Minister of Finance, but when he is putting together his budget would he consider accepting the challenge of the Bank of Montreal as it relates to the amendments required in the Small Business Development Bond? Would he also seriously consider the implementation of the agri-bond principle as well as the annual averaging trust account principle? Would he give very serious consideration to those three recommendations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am familiar with the suggestion made by the Bank of Montreal with respect to the extension of the Small Business Development Bond program to unincorporated farmers. Indeed, the Bank of Montreal has said that it expected to make this financial instrument available to unincorporated farmers in the expectation that the Minister of Finance would pick up the bill. Last week I had a suggestion from presidents of two of the banks. They proposed another scheme which involved the Minister of Finance and the taxpayers picking up the bill. In these circumstances I would like the banks to strive more diligently to find schemes which would cause them to bleed a bit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE ECONOMY


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the unprecedented increase in unemployment in the Atlantic provinces, the highest in Canada, as well as the severe drop in employed people, and in view of the closure of fisheries plants, lumber mills and small businesses, and whereas the maritimes are the first hit, the hardest hit, and the last to recover from the effects of high interest rates and restrictive monetary policies, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance if he is contemplating any new and immediate initiatives or strategies to deal with these urgent matters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker.
October 14, 1981



REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS RENEWING MORTGAGES

J. Robert Howie: I thank the minister for his answer. I had hoped that the poor people of the maritimes might receive a more encouraging comment. When will the minister make a commitment to do something for Canadians who are losing their homes because of high interest rates, high home heating costs and high unemployment? Since the previous government had plans to deal with all three of these problems, will the minister make a commitment to eliminate at least one of these situations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has raised the question of home owners who may be facing and are facing renewal of mortgages at much higher rates of interest. There is no question about the fact that that is a serious concern to the government and to myself, as minister of finance. I have indicated to the House several times that 1 have been involved with the financial institutions which, in my view, have a responsibility in this situation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Who elected the banks, Allan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That includes the banks, it includes the mortgage companies, and it includes the credit unions and the caisses populates, all of which are involved in the mortgage business and deal directly with home owners facing renewal. The object of my several meetings with the representatives of these institutions-


Charles Joseph Clark: Was to duck.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -was to induce them to do what they could to enter into special arrangements to permit home owners to carry their obligations. I am happy to say that in certain instances, flexibility in arrangements has been offered. For example, the caisses populates have flexible arrangements permitting their customers to carry on. I believe more can be done by the financial institutions to offer special arrangements.


Walter David Baker: Twenty four per cent is flexibility?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Something has been done, but more can be done. After their part has been played, then it will be a question for the government to determine what its responsibility is under the circumstances.



REQUEST THAT GOVERNOR OF BANK OF CANADA BE INSTRUCTED TO LOWER INTEREST RATES

Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.


Charles Joseph Clark: There isn't one.
Oral Questions


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: If the Minister of Finance was in Canada during the month of August, he may recall that there was an expression of a sense of outrage by the electors of the riding of Spadina over the government's policy of trying to cure high prices with high interest rates. In fact the electors of Spadina sent me here to remind him of that particular sense of outrage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: My question to the minister on behalf of the electors of Spadina is simply this: when does the Minister intend to give instructions to the Governor of the Bank of Canada to lower the interest rate structure to a tolerable level?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, before answering the hon. member's question I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his first question in the House of Commons-


John Carnell Crosbie: And for getting rid of Coutts.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and to say in reply that if he reflected upon the situation for a bit, I think he would agree with me that an instruction to the Governor of the Bank to lower interest rates might have the desired effect in the short run. But it would lay the foundation for even greater inflation and higher interest rates after that. I am sure that the electors of Spadina did not have that counterproductive solution in mind when they sent the hon. member to Parliament.



ALLEVIATION FOR THE UNEMPLOYED

Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also to the Minister of Finance. On Friday, for example, we learned that another 144,000 Canadians have become martyrs to the theory that high interest rates will cure inflation and restore the economy. These people do remind us that the minister's cure for inflation is worse than the disease itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Since the minister seems unwilling to consider any change in policy regarding high interest rates, what does he intend to do to alleviate the misery that is being encountered now by a million or more Canadians who are unemployed as a result of high interest rates which are mowing down employers?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I take exception to the hon. member's diagnosis of the problem. It is not the antiinflationary stance of the government that is causing unemployment, it is inflation itself that is causing unemployment and slow growth in all of the industrialized countries of the world.
I want to tell the hon. member that unless we succeed in getting inflation down and bend every effort to getting the rate

October 14, 1981
Oral Questions
of inflation down, then there is not much hope of growth or future employment for Canada, or any other industrialized country for that matter. That is the situation.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and it concerns the transportation of dangerous goods. Since Bill C-18 was passed over a year ago and since the Canadian Transport Commission issued its regulations following up on the Grange inquiry's report, a couple of weeks ago, could the minister tell us what is the status of his ministry's work with respect to the regulations to supplement Bill C-18 and thus bring us safer transportation methods for dangerous goods?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend is right in identifying these two developments as being of major importance to the transportation of dangerous goods. Indeed, the bill the House passed a year ago has progressed. Laws have been passed by some of the provinces, which are complementary to that bill. Regulations are being drafted. It is expected they will be ready by early summer, 1982. As well, federal inspectors are being appointed, and so on.
With respect to the Grange report, 12 recommendations have already been acted upon and three are now the subject of decisions by the CTC. The Canadian Transport Commission will be issuing orders in the coming days. Therefore, progress is being accomplished, and I would be delighted to send a more detailed report to my hon. friend.



HOUSING


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for housing whose earlier response indicated his insensitivity to the social unrest that the government's high mortgage rate policy is causing to so many Canadians. For instance, thousands of women are being forced into the labour market in order to bring a second income into the family hoping that with it they will be able to keep their homes, but in a stagnant economy jobs cannot be found. Without jobs, people are unable to keep their homes. It is a vicious circle caused by high interest rates.
Is the minister at all prepared to do anything, anything except tell home owners, as he did on September 15, to grit their teeth and hang on until the budget, because I can assure him that there are a good many people who would rather sink their teeth into the government?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I would like to assure the hon. member that earlier in September, I had the opportunity to meet with-


John Carnell Crosbie: Surrounded by mounties.


Paul James Cosgrove: -approximately 50 people representing those who expressed the same sentiments, probably in a much more vociferous manner than did the hon. member this afternoon. Some of the positions presented to me on the day of the convoy of anger to the House were from people in the same circumstances as those which the hon. member has just expressed. Eloquent expressions were made to me and to other members of our caucus. We listened to them for approximately one hour. I communicated their message to members of my government and to my caucus. I believe the Minister of Finance has responded to that question. He has indicated that along with other people in the marketplace, such as the financial institutions playing their role and taking their responsibilities seriously, the government too will take its responsibility.



RENTAL OF VANCOUVER APARTMENT FOR SENIOR CIVIL SERVANT

Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, the minister has made it clear just in that last response that he has done nothing, and it does not appear as though the government is prepared to do anything. Since he is not taking his responsibilities seriously as minister of housing to thousands of Canadian families who are losing their homes, can he tell me why he, as Minister of Public Works-or perhaps it was the Secretary of State for External Affairs- authorized the rental of an apartment in Vancouver at $4,000 a month for the next five years for a senior civil servant in charge of transpo? He does nothing for beleaguered home owners, but he authorizes the expenditure of $4,000 a month in rent for a senior civil servant. What in heaven's name is he thinking of?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member's introduction that I am not taking my responsibilities seriously, I would like to assure her that I am. I would like to assure her that since interest rates have gone into the above 15 per cent category I have met not only with home owners and people affected in that regard, but I have also met with people associated with housing construction. As a matter of fact I will be meeting with representatives of HUDAC tomorrow afternoon. I have met with provincial ministers responsible for housing. I have also prepared advice for the government, which it is presently considering. I have taken those responsibilities seriously, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Kempling:: What about the $4,000 a month expenditure?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 14, 1981


Paul James Cosgrove: I would say, Madam Speaker, that it is very easy for any member in this house to take any particular item of expenditure and throw it up as an example in that scene. But I would ask them to consider as well the increased commitment of this government, for example, to those most in need, the co-ops and non-profit people and those with low and middle incomes who have been assisted recently right across the country with the increased allotment for those kinds of people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



VIA RAIL


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Given the record high level of unemployment currently and the fact that the Minister of Transport, by his statement of July 27, in which he announced the cutback of Via Rail service by 20 per cent, will directly affect the jobs of 1,600 railway workers, plus countless hundreds of others who will be indirectly affected, and given that this decision will inflict severe hardship upon millions of Canadians who need and use the trains, not to mention the economic impact particularly with regard to tourism, and given the fact that since the minister's announcement we now have a new energy agreement with projected gasoline prices rising to $4 a gallon, which in itself will necessitate an expansion and further development of public transportation systems rather than a reduction-in light of these new factors I would ask the minister if he will not now reconsider the shortsighted, illogical and arbitrary decision he announced by way of a press conference on July 27, thereby denying Parliament, the CTC and the Canadian public an opportunity to respond to his decision?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I find answering the question is not easy because my friend posed at least three questions in the same sentence, that is, energy, the effect on labour, and other matters.
I have a suggestion to make to him. There is one thing I have missed throughout the summer. It is the lack, unfortunately, of the opportunity to meet my colleagues on both sides of the House to explain that decision we made on July 27. If he wants to co-operate with others I am sure a way will be found for the committee on transport to invite me to appear, at which time I will go and explain and justify the policy in terms of all the questions the member has raised.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister knows very well that the hearings we conducted were public and open to anyone, any Canadian or any group of Canadians who wanted to appear, and he certainly would have been welcome. As a matter of fact a lot of Liberals, members who
Oral Questions
call themselves Liberals but who have some second thoughts about it now, did appear before us, as did members of other political parties. Just for the purpose of clarification, Madam Speaker, is the minister saying in his answer that he is prepared to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Transport before a decision is taken? If the minister were to do that I think it would certainly restore some confidence in the mind of the Canadian public that there is in fact some semblance of democracy in this country. If he does not, then the minister is clearly breaking with tradition, historical patterns, and perhaps even convention.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I did not intend to do that. What I had in mind was that during the summer the committee had a mandate to investigate generally transportation matters in Quebec and Ontario, if my memory serves me well enough. It seems to me that if the committee wanted to hear our explanation of the policy, that could have been located within its mandate.
My hon. friend is quite right when he says that 1,600 employees of either VIA or CN and CP will be affected. My hon. friend is aware that $30 million are in a program to take care of the situation by way of pre-pensioning, by retraining and so on and so forth. There are answers to the three questions he has raised and I am looking forward to the opportunity of giving them.



REQUEST THAT STANDING COMMITTEE CONSIDER MATTER OF PASSENGER TRAIN ABANDONMENT

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport, who has been described as the worst thing to happen to passenger trains since Jesse James. Jesse James held up the railroads, and the transport minister is holding up 1.2 million VIA Rail passengers.
Since the federal government has bypassed public hearings by the Canadian Transport Commission, has ignored the demands of the public for better train service, and has violated statutory agreements and federal and provincial statutes, will the minister now at least refer this matter of passenger train abandonment to the CTC or refer it to the Standing Committee on Transport? Rather than just showing up and explaining what he has already done, will he refer it to the committee in such a way that the committee might have an opportunity to undo the damage he has already done? Will he consider doing that?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I have already explained quite a number of times why the government felt it should go by way of orders in council, which is quite legal. The reasons are essentially two. The first one is that such a reference to the CTC was made before, in 1976, and the results were not those that could have been expected. That is the first one. The second reason is simply that had we gone to the CTC we would have had to give indications or directives to the CTC which would have

October 14, 1981
Oral Questions
been considered by my hon. friends as a disguised way of giving orders.
Figures have been mentioned, for example, that this decision will affect 1.2 million travellers. That is not so. The commuters in this 1.2 million figure will continue to commute. The only thing we have suggested is that the provincial governments should take responsibility for those commuter services, and I dare say they will.



REASONS FOR MINISTER'S DECISION

William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, it may be clear to the Minister of Transport why the government has done what it has done, but many Canadians fail to understand how the minister is going to improve train service, create jobs, save energy and promote national unity by abandoning the Atlantic Limited and the Super Continental, two of the most heavily patronized trains in Canada. We would like to know how he figured that one out. If the minister's case for abandonment is as good as he says it is, why is he afraid of scrutiny in a public forum, the transport committee, the Canadian Transport Commission or Parliament itself? The people of Canada are furious about these cutbacks and they want a chance to show how well-founded their anger is. They want to be able to show the minister. I ask the minister just what is he afraid of?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I do not know where my hon. friend was three or five minutes ago when I suggested-I was the first one to do it-I would go to the committee and give explanations of the announcement I made on July 27. I am sure that through the committee we would reach a great number of people. That is the answer I have given to the question already asked, three or five minutes ago.



THE ECONOMY


Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. The minister will know that last month this country suffered the largest single increase in the jobless rate since 1945. He will also know there were 101,000 additional people unemployed in a single month. This now means we have in this country 980,000 people looking for jobs they cannot find. Those figures are devastating for the individuals involved and they should be unacceptable to the government. I ask the minister what he or his government intends to do to put these people back to work?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has referred to the unemployment statistic released for the last month for which the data is available. I must say that the Figure came as a real surprise because the preceding figure was
7 per cent in August. It was the lowest unemployment figure in Canada since 1976. In addition to that, within the past year Canada was the only major country that showed a decline in unemployment. To record the largest single month-to-month increase ever in Canada was a very definite surprise and not forecasted by anybody. One wonders whether it represents a basic trend in the economy or whether it represents some aberration or a sampling error. In any event I take the hon. member's question at its face value and I wish to assure him that the over-all economic situation, including high and rising inflation and unemployment as registered last month, will be very much a part of the over-all economic policy I will be presenting as soon as possible in the budget.



REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

David Edward Crombie: Madam Speaker, I might say that the people who are unemployed and looking for work regard this as more than a sampling technique, as I am sure he knows, and are very interested in something more solid. It is time, Madam Speaker, the minister got out of theory and into practice, because people are being hurt. In particular, when the minister was talking in the past about employment growth he always talked about an increase in growth. We have dropped in employment growth by 188,000 jobs since last May, when the minister took credit for it.
I would finally ask the minister, when he brings in his budget, when he deals with any economic statement he wants to make, will he bring in real programs that help real people, and simply not sit in his office theorizing on the phone?


An hon. Member:: Real jobs, too!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I am to some extent, surprised by the hon. member's question, suggesting that we are not interested in real people, that we are not developing programs for real people. It is my understanding that it was real Canadians who benefited from the best employment performance of any country over the last year. That occurred in Canada. We had the lowest unemployment figure in August that we have had in five years.


David Edward Crombie: Had.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We had the best unemployment drop-


An hon. Member:: Give us an example.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -of any major country in the world, over the last year. But when these statistics-


An hon. Member:: Bring yourself up to date.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -when these statistics were evident to the hon. member he was not getting up in his seat and saying, "Well done, you have helped real people in Canada." He gets up and talks when the figures get gloomy. It is my intention not to keep them gloomy, Madam Speaker.
October 14, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I have time for one question more by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.



HOUSING


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Madam Speaker, interest rates are breaking families not only economically but, equally as important, they are breaking families socially. People are losing their families and their homes by being forced to take third and even fourth jobs to meet the increased rates.
Since the government claims that our interest rates must float around United States interest rates, will the government reduce mortgage interest rates to bring them into line with United States interest rates which are currently 3 per cent to 5 per cent lower than in Canada? Will the minister responsible for housing answer that question?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I believe that the Minister of Finance has addressed that question in his answers this afternoon. I would like to repeat part of my answer earlier pertaining to housing, that I am aware of the difficulties that are being faced by families. I have received representations not only in Ottawa, not only in this forum, but in forums right across the country. I have had the opportunity in the last couple of months to meet with people in every province. I am fully aware of the difficulties being faced by Canadians.



PRIVILEGE


Madam Speaker:: I have notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, the matter of which I gave you notice is one that I sincerely believe affects the rights and privileges of all members and infringes on and violates my privileges as a member of this place. It concerns order in council 1981-2171 which orders the abandonment of several passenger train services across Canada.
Madam Speaker, I am not here to ask you to judge the legality or illegality of the actions of the government; I am here to ask you to find a prima facie case of privilege. Based on the actions of the government, whether legal or illegal, my privileges have been infringed upon.
I will briefly cite three schedules in the order in council and then state my question of privilege, which is in three parts.
Privilege-Mr. Benjamin


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would prefer it if the hon. member would state his question of privilege immediately; he can talk about the schedules later if there is a prima facie case. He must go immediately to why he feels his privilege has been abused.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My question of privilege is the following. Since order in council 1981-2171 overrides legislation of provinces and this Parliament, my privilege in carrying out my legislative duties has been violated because I am prevented by this order in council from asking for and obtaining a hearing before the Canadian Transport Commission on VIA Rail passenger routes ordered abandoned by the order in council. The law provides for such hearings. The order in council prevents it.
The legislature of British Columbia in 1910 ratified an agreement with the Canadian Northern Railway which said in part that, in exchange for property and timber rights, the company was bound by statute to maintain a regular daily first-class passenger and freight service between Victoria and Jasper. I would like to be able to present that case before the Canadian Transport Commission. The order in council prevents me from doing that.
Second, the order in council permits the government to take these actions without presenting legislation to which I could speak or endeavour to amend or improve or defeat. Also, the Canadian Transport Commission previously held hearings at which I and other hon. members appeared and ruled that 15 of these 21 routes ordered abandoned by the government in their order in council be retained.
I have no way of getting at this fiat in Parliament through the statutes or government legislation, or even through a private member's bill, certainly not in this session of Parliament. I can only do this through questions or debate which the government can, and will, ignore. I cannot appeal or attempt to amend, defeat or even approve legislation which violates legislation in several of the provinces and in the Parliament of Canada. I submit, Madam Speaker, that this impinges not only on the integrity of this place but on the individual rights of an hon. member.
In 1882 the Quebec legislature ratified an agreement with the CPR in which the province conveyed to the CPR ownership of the Quebec-Montreal-Ottawa and Occidental Railway.


Madam Speaker:: Order please. I am afraid I have to interrupt the hon. member. It seems to me quite obvious from what he has said that he does not have a prima facie case of privilege. I must remind him to look at Beauchesne and realize for himself that if he is not satisfied with the manner in which the government has undertaken a certain action, that does not constitute a question of privilege. The dissatisfaction of the hon. member deals with an interpretation of the laws and statutes, and the hon. member of course knows that I am not able to interpret the laws and statutes. There is a difference in interpretation, I can see that; but it is not for me to determine

October 14, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Jelinek
that that difference in interpretation constitutes a question of privilege, and I will determine that that difference in interpretation does not constitute a question of privilege. 1 must therefore tell the hon. member that I cannot hear him any further and that he cannot pursue his question of privilege.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I was hoping you would allow me to complete the third point. There are three points in my question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: Order. In the time I gave the hon. member he was not able to convince me that he had a prima facie case of privilege. Therefore, I am afraid I cannot allow him any more time.



MR. JELINEK-INTRODUCTION OF SPORTS BETTING POOL-ALLEGED DENIAL BY MINISTER

Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I did indeed serve notice of my question of privilege earlier today relating to questions I put to the minister of fitness and amateur sport on June 26 and June 30 relating to his subsequent announcement in the form of a press release dated September 14 regarding the introduction of a national sports betting pool. Obviously this is the first opportunity, Madam Speaker, to bring the matter to your attention and, in order to make my point, I hope you will permit me to quote quickly and briefly from Hansard for June 26, 1981.
In my first question to the minister I said in part, and I quote:
It has now come to my attention that the minister is well on his way to extending federal gambling programs to what is known as all-sports betting-
The minister answered, also in part, by saying, and I quote:
I would inform the hon. member that the government has no such plans.
I went on to say, and I quote again:
Is the minister telling us that neither his department nor any other department of government has been considering sports betting? ... At the same time can he assure the House that all-sports betting or any other new gambling operation will not be implemented, now or in the foreseeable future, by that government?
After sarcastically ridiculing me in this House the minister concluded, and I quote again from Hansard'.
We do not contemplate any such scheme as the hon. member has mentioned.
Just a few days later, on June 30, I brought to the attention of the minister a sample betting ticket entitled "Sports Select" which was produced by the federal government outlining 15 National Hockey League games to be bet on by the purchaser of the ticket to be sold to the Canadian public at one dollar.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I can see that the hon. member is making many quotations from Hansard, but I would like him to tell me right now where he feels that his privilege has been breached. I see nothing in the presentation he has made up until now which would allow me to find a prima facie case of privilege. Obviously the hon. member is not satisfied with an answer given to him by a minister, but that does not constitute a question of privilege, so the hon. member
will have to make some effort to indicate to me where his privilege stands.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, if you will bear with me, you will note that I will conclude that the minister violated my privilege as a member of Parliament and, indeed, the privileges of all members of Parliament by either deliberately misleading the House at that time-as my colleague says, not telling the truth-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member of course knows that he cannot say that a member has deliberately misled the House. He risks having to withdraw, and I ask him to withdraw that because he cannot say the minister did it deliberately. He might say he misled the House, but "deliberately" is a different matter. I ask the hon. member to rephrase his sentence so I can listen to him.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, it is on the record that he said he had no knowledge of this scheme, including no knowledge of this ticket which was produced by his department.
On September 14 the minister released a press release which says, in part, and I quote:
-legislation would be introduced as soon as possible to permit the operation of a sports pool program-	.
The record says-not me but the record-that he was deliberately misleading the House. I am not saying that. The record of Hansard-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot say indirectly something he would not be allowed to say directly. I ask him to withdraw that phrase. I cannot accept it in the House. Would the hon. member please rephrase that sentence and come to the point of his question of privilege; otherwise I will just have to cut him off.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, I withdraw the statement that he was deliberately misleading the House. The record shows that he deliberately misled the House. As a result-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am sorry. It is just as if the hon. member were quoting in the House an article in the newspaper saying something unparliamentary; he is using the subterfuge of quoting an article to say something he would not say directly. I think the hon. member can make his case without being unparliamentary, and I ask him to try to do that.


Otto John Jelinek: I have withdrawn my personal statement saying that he deliberately misled this House, but the rest of what I said stands.
The issue at hand in my question of privilege, therefore, is that both on June 26 and June 30 of 1981 the minister of fitness and amateur sport categorically denied that he, his department or any other department of his government was contemplating or even considering the introduction of a sports betting program-and the record speaks for itself-and then just a few months later while Parliament was in recess, on September 14 to be exact, the minister proudly and ceremoniously announced that indeed they would be announcing such a
October 14, 1981

program. It is obvious, since a program of this magnitude requires months of preparation and planning, that the minister of fitness and amateur sport on those dates either misled this House or did not know what was happening in his department. If he was unaware of these activities in his department, then he should do the only honourable thing open to him, and that is to resign from his responsibility as a member of the cabinet within that portfolio.
If, on the other hand, he was intentionally misleading the House, then I humbly ask Your Honour to judge whether I do indeed have a prima facie case of privilege arising out of the minister's obvious attempts to mislead this House. Should your judgment be a positive one, it would be my intention to move that this whole matter be brought to the attention of the appropriate standing committee.


Madam Speaker:: I think I can rule immediately on this matter. I think the hon. member will agree with me that it is obviously a matter for debate as to whether the minister was aware or could make the kind of statement he made in the House in answer to a question of the hon. member. A minister may change his mind. He may not be ready to make an announcement, and it is up to the minister to express the matter in the way he feels he might express it. He stands or falls on the way he deals with these questions in the House. Therefore that is a matter for debate. I am afraid it is not a question of privilege, and I do not find a prima facie case.


Mr. Paproski:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order on that same question of privilege, if I may-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. No, the hon. member cannot come back on the ruling. I have already ruled, and I can hear no more on this particular question. The hon. member knows the rules. I am just applying the rules hon. members have made for themselves.


Steve Eugene Paproski: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about something related to the preceding question of privilege. It is just related.
Many people in Canada say that this minister of fitness and amateur sport lied when he went ahead with this.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is debating and referring directly to a question on which I have already ruled. I am afraid I cannot hear him.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE '80s
Fifth report of Special Committee on Employment Opportunities for the '80s-Mr. Allmand.
[Stage Direction]
Petitions
[Editor's Note: For text of above Report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

[ Translation]

Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the special committee set up to act as a parliamentary task force on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


TABLING OF ORDERS IN COUNCIL RESPECTING ROSTER OF CABINET MINISTERS AND APPOINTMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARIES
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41(2), I am tabling a copy of an order in council establishing a roster of acting ministers and a copy of the membership of the cabinet committees. For the convenience of hon. members I suggest that these be printed as an appendix to today's Hansard. I am also tabling a copy of the order in council appointing parliamentary secretaries.


Madam Speaker:: Is it agreed that these documents should be appended and printed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is so ordered.
[Editor's Note: For text of orders in council above referred to, see Appendix "A".]


PETITIONS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Madam Speaker, I ask leave to present a petition protesting the government's decision to cancel transcontinental VIA Rail services through Edmonton. This petition, signed by 30,000 people in Edmonton, was assembled by the Kinsmen Club of Edmonton and handed to the PC VIA Rail task force in September. It is the largest petition ever sent to Ottawa from Alberta's capital. The petition requests that the government rescind its decision,

October 14, 1981
Petitions
and it assumes an added urgency with only 31 days left before the government's decision takes effect.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I ask leave to present petitions from home owners in Midland, Ontario and in Saint John, New Brunswick who were part of the convoy of anger who came to Parliament Hill to try to force this government to pay some attention to the plight of Canadians who are being forced to abandon their homes by the deliberate high-interest rate policies of the Government of Canada.
The petition from Midland, Ontario contains some 1,660 names; the petition from the Saint John Home Owners Association contains some 3,478. I should forewarn you, Madam Speaker, that there will be several more to come.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present these initial petitions on behalf of a large number of Vancouver lower mainland residents who are in dire straits because of exorbitant interest rates and a corresponding lack of interest shown by the government toward the plight of home owners. The prohibitive cost of taking out new mortgages and renewing old mortgages are depriving Canadian citizens of their basic right to shelter. Therefore, these petitioners have asked as follows;
Wherefore the undersigned do hereby protest the Government of Canada's policy on housing and interest rates and do pray that the House of Commons will act to ensure that
1)	Interest rates be reduced,
2)	Adequate, affordable housing become recognized as a major government
principle and objective-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member can only make a brief statement about the petition. He cannot read the whole petition. Once the House has received the petition, it will be examined and I will report on it later.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I refer you to Standing Order 67(8). I recognize that no debate shall be permitted upon the presentation of petitions. However, I refer you to the last part which gives an exception. That exception is:
-if it complains of some present personal grievance requiring an immediate remedy, the matter contained therein may be brought into immediate discussion.
Recognizing that all members of the House from all sides have just previously indicated the immediacy of and necessity for discussion of this matter, I think I can personally within my petition directly refer to matters of personal and immediate concern relating to individuals within this petition who, in effect, will lose their homes if we do not have discussion and a resolution.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Standing Order which the hon. member is now reading to me and on which he raises
the point of order, I remind him, pertains to the report. The report has not yet been given; the hon. member is simply presenting his petition. He is allowed a very brief statement on the matter with which the petition deals. However, discussion takes place only later. The phrase the hon. member is reading refers to once the report has been made. It has not been made. The petition has to be examined by the bureau to ascertain whether it is in accordance with the rules and regulations of this House.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: For further clarification on the point of order, Madam Speaker, am I to understand that in presenting this petition it will be examined and, if found to be correct as to form, the Speaker will again call it in the House of Commons tomorrow in order that I might proceed with a debate, in view of the imminence regarding this matter?


Madam Speaker:: The petition will be reported tomorrow or on another day. The hon. member is treating this petition as though it were a matter of immediate urgency, that it supersede everything in the House and be debated immediately. He has not made that kind of request to the House.
The hon. member may present the petition. I will report on it tomorrow or at another date. We will then see what rules apply. For the time being the hon. member may not continue with his statement. All he can do is let the House know the subject of that petition and he has done that.


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, I ask leave to present a petition from residents of the regional municipality of Peel and the regional municipality of Halton, which includes residents from my riding. I would like to present this petition on behalf of 6,725 people who feel that this government must enact legislation or introduce budgetary measures to assist all those suffering from the current level of interest rates, such as home owners, farmers, small businesses and those on fixed incomes.
I believe, Madam Speaker, that this petition reflects the attitude of most Canadians who feel that they have waited long enough for some form of remedial action by this government.


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-84, Act No. 2 to amend the Small Businesses Loans Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
October 14, 1981
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I wanted to table some documents but I fear I missed my opportunity. I therefore seek the consent of the House to table the text of an agreement between Alberta and British Columbia and of an agreement between the Government of Canada and British Columbia.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to let the Minister table forthwith a document, as he intented to do?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is agreed.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table, in both official languages, copies of an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Alberta on pricing and taxation of energy resources as well as the joint statement by the Prime Minister of Canada and the Premier of British Columbia on oil and gas prices and on the relevant tax measures. By courtesy, copies have already been distributed to members.


Madam Speaker:: I have received three notices of motion for emergency debates, two of which are quite similar in nature. Since I received the one from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) first, I will allow him to make his statement first.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House of Commons, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), to move the adjournment of the House under the provisions of Standing Order 26 for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration, namely, the economic crisis facing Canadians today.

Over the three-month long summer recess, interest rates reached record highs and, in spite of minor fluctuations, they are not likely to fall below their current level in the foreseeable future. These rates have pushed Canada gradually toward a recession and have compelled many Canadians to either sell or give up their homes.
Canadians who have invested carefully in the future find themselves penalized by economic policies they could not have anticipated and from which there is absolutely no protection. I believe it is proper and necessary for the House to debate this spreading paralysis in the economic life of Canada so that the views of the House of Commons will be taken into account by the government as it prepares its fall budget-a budget which must find the means to halt the decline in economic performance before the current tragedy deepens.
This matter, Madam Speaker, is particularly urgent, given the refusal of the Government of Canada even today to indicate the date of a budget that could begin to address these problems. If you accept this application for debate, Madam Speaker, I am naturally prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Madam Speaker:: The Chair does recognize the importance of the matter raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). In making a determination there are certain criteria set out in the Standing Orders that have to be considered, and that is what I have done in light of the notice which the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has sent me.
For instance, the provisions of Section 16(d) of Standing Order 26 are, of course, very clear. It reads as follows:
-the motion must not revive discussion on a matter which has been discussed in the same session pursuant to the provisions of this Standing Order;-
As hon. members are aware, the subject of the economic conditions of this country was discussed, referring to some of the same matters mentioned in the advice, on December 18 and 19 of last year in a marathon debate under the provisions of this Standing Order. This is still the same session.
The Chair has on other occasions tended to resist applications dealing with matters that appear to be of a chronic or continuing nature, as opposed to sudden or unexpected occurrences.

Although I recognize the merits of the arguments put forward by the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in his motion, I waver but I cannot in view of the rules of this House and the remarks I have just made, authorize an emergency debate, as requested by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I am sure he will have a great many other opportunities to deal with these important issues in the House and I urge him to avail himself of these opportunities as they arise.

October 14, 1981

The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


Erik Nielsen: A point of order, Madam Speaker. In the past your predecessors and I believe you yourself have established the precedent of calling motions under Standing Order 26 in the order in which the Chair received them or the order in which they were received by the Clerk. In this case, I believe yesterday at around 10.30 you received a submission by the member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) with respect to VIA Rail. I do not believe the Standing Order 26 that you were about to recognize was received until long after the office-


An hon. Member:: What about Joe?


Erik Nielsen: What about the Leader of the Opposition? The Leader of the Opposition had his filed at 10.05 a.m. yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, in keeping with that practice, which has been prevailing for such a long time in this place that it has almost the force, one might say, of a convention, I suggest that you recognize the hon. member for Vegreville since his notice was filed prior to the one on my left.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that yes, it is true that I have been in the habit of recognizing questions in the order in which they come into my office. I hope the times are correctly noted because I have to rely on the notes that appear on the notice when it comes to my office.
Of course, the courtesy to recognize the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is a normal one. 1 did want to recognize the hon. member for Oshawa because the question he raised is of a similar nature. I did say that before recognizing the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. For this time I think the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will abide with me and allow me to recognize the hon. member for Oshawa. Then we may deal later with the hon. member for Vegreville.


Mr. Lambert:: But not as a precedent.


Madam Speaker:: There is no rule. It is true that I am in the habit of doing this, but from time to time, for reasons I might have-I hope they would not be capricious-I might do something else.


Erik Nielsen: May I just reassure myself that your action in this particular instance is not to be construed as a precedent?


Madam Speaker:: Indeed.


John Edward Broadbent: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hope the member who just spoke will agree that the issue before us, the Canadian economy, is a little more important than who gets to move which motion first.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I ask leave, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae), to move the adjournment of the House pursuant to Standing Order 26 for the purpose of debating a specific and important matter requiring urgent and immediate consideration; namely, the record increase in the non-food consumer price index in September, the ruinous levels of interest and mortgage rates, and the record 100,000 increase in unemployment which took place in September-all of which make it urgent that we have an immediate debate on which can only be described as a national economic crisis.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I can only repeat that the request made by the hon. member for Oshawa is quite similar in nature to the application which I have received from the Leader of the Opposition and on which I have just ruled. I will also rule on the request made by the hon. member for Oshawa. I remind him that some of the questions he has spelled out in his application have been dealt with earlier in this House on many other occasions. The problems to which he refers are of a continuing nature and do not justify the allowance of a debate of an emergency nature.
I,	therefore, regret I cannot receive the application of the hon. member for Oshawa.



VIA RAIL


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 26, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), to ask leave of the House to consider a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It arises out of the announcement made on July 27, shortly after the House adjourned for the summer recess, of drastic alterations in Canada's passenger rail service which affected some 19 per cent of the lines, deprive 1.2 million Canadians of service and result in the loss of an estimated 1,600 jobs of railway workers.
This action has not been debated, nor approved by the Canadian Transport Commission or the House of Commons. It will inflict untold hardship upon those whose jobs will be lost. It will have a serious social and economic impact upon others affected both directly and indirectly. These cuts will substantially diminish the comprehensiveness and utility of our
October 14, 1981

rail system and hamper future attempts to promote public transportation systems and fuel economy.
I believe it is extremely important for Parliament to debate this impending termination of rail service before the order in council implementing the cuts takes effect on November 15, 1981. For dozens of communities and tens of thousands of individual Canadians, this is an emergency situation on which Parliament is entitled to be heard. Madam Speaker, if you find this situation does justify the invocation of Standing Order 26, I will be prepared to move the appropriate motion.


Madam Speaker:: Again there is little doubt that the matter raised by the hon. member is of national interest and of great concern to Canadians generally. However, in determining whether the question raised may require an emergency debate, I have to measure this application against a number of criteria.
The hon. member realizes it would be difficult to apply the provisions of Standing Order 26 in the case of decisions taken by outside entities while carrying out their normal functions, namely, the Canadian Transport Commission. It is obvious that modifications to rail service in this country are made on a continuing basis. These matters have been constantly rejected by the Chair as not constituting a proper subject of debate under the provisions of this Standing Order. As a former minister of transport, I am sure the hon. member is aware of other avenues in which he can raise his concerns. Of course, if is with reluctance that I cannot accept his application.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 410, 588, 592, 811, 892, 1,009, 1,050,	1,051,	1,324,	1,329,	1,434,	1,529,	1,541,	1,615,	1,774,1,901,	2,103,	2,111,	2,123,	2,129,	2,137,	2,142,	2,146,	2,167,2,175,	2,203,	2,227,	2,251,	2,263,	2,325,	2,361,	2,365,	2,368,2,371,	2,376,	2,392,	2,435,	2,443,	2,450,	2,452,	2,453,	2,467,2,487,	2,499,	2,500,	2,502,	2,506,	2,516,	2,520,	2,532,	2,543,2,562,	2,573,	2,574,	2,575,	2,586,	2,588,	2,598,	2,599,	2,600,2,622,	2,623,	2,627,	2,628,	2,631,	2,632,	2,634,	2,636,	2,637,2,638,	2,660,	2,667,	2,668,	2,693,	2,694,	2,709,	2,717,	2,727,
2,729, 2,738, 2,754, 2,791, 2,796 and 2,871.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many public servants, by department, commission, Crown corporation, etc. earning over $18,000 per annum in the past year, received overtime pay?
2.	How many received overtime pay (a) up to $1,000 (b) between $1,000 and $2,000 (c) between $2,000 and $3,000 (d) between $3,000 and $4,000 (e) between $4,000 and $5,000 (f) $5,000 and over?
Order Paper Questions


David P. Smith: 1	2(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)	(0Agriculture Canada	2466	1012	398	283	216	167	390Canadian Dairy Commission	16	10	4	1	1	_	_Farm Credit Corporation	4	3	-	1	-	-	-Communications	395	326	32	12	8	6	11Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission	27	19	2	2	3	ITeleglobe Canada	*374	97	45	48	43	33	108*3/4 of these represent night shift duty. National Film Board	102	54	14	13	6	5	10National Library	25	19	4	-	-	1	1National Museums	149	114	14	8	7	3	3Public Archives	25	23	2	-	-	-	-Consumer and Corporate Affairs Canada	420	364	46	5	3	_	2Canada Employment and Immigration Commission/ Department	3942	3168	460	169	76	33	36Energy, Mines and Resources	560	258	131	74	42	16	39National Energy Board	88	54	15	7	6	2	4Environment Canada	2765	1367	590	310	174	112	212Finance	73	52	8	3	4	3	3Office of the Auditor General	92	51	23	8	4	3	3Insurance	5	5	-	-	-	-	-Fisheries and Oceans	1126	421	271	162	89	65	118Indian Affairs and Northern Development	655	416	105	49	31	20	34Northern Canada Power Commission	52	3	2	4	4	9	30Industry, Trade and Commerce	103	87	12	2	_	2	_Federal Business Development Bank	7	6	1	Foreign Investment Review Agency	2	2	Metric Commission Canada	23	18	-	3	1	-	1Justice	29	26	1	2	_	_	_Canadian Human Rights Commission	4	2	2	Tax Review Board	6	-	-	4	2	-	-Labour Canada	46	28	10	4	1	_	3Canada Labour Relations Board	17	10	5	2	-	_	_National Defence	1640	1332	200	61	19	11	17Defence Construction (1951) Ltd.	19	12	2	2	2	1	_National Health and Welfare	815	556	111	49	41	17	41Medical Research Council	1	1	-	-	-	-	-Post Office	3774	1853	675	467	283	196	300Prime Minister's Office	11	8	3	_	_	_	_Commissions	2	1	1	_	_	_	_Economic Council of Canada	3	2	1	_	_	_	_Federal-Provincial Relations Office	4	2	1	1Privy Council Office	12	9	2	_	_	_	IChief Electoral Office	14	-	2	2	-	3	7Public Works	950	619	166	62	26	31	46Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation	85	62	18	4	1	National Capital Commission	32	22	9	1	-	-	-Regional Economic Expansion	84	52	19	11	_	2	_Cape Breton Development Corporation	238	97	43	35	17	22	24Revenue Canada Taxation	1356	1135	135	50	16	10	10Customs and Excise	2626	1382	553	337	184	78	92
October 14, 1981
Order Paper Questions
I	2(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	<e)	(0Science and Technology	7	6	_	_	_	1	_National Research Council	297	191	50	24	10	4	18Natural Sciences & Engineering Research Council	9	8	1	Science Council of Canada	2	2	-	-	-	-	-Secretary of State	159	114	25	11	3	1	5Public Service Commission	528	423	69	23	10	1	2Secretary of State for External Affairs	240	189	32	6	3	4	6Canadian International Development Agency	69	45	8	10	2	3	1Solicitor General	14	13	-	-	1	-	-The Correctional Service of Canada	2890	1236	612	381	233	145	283National Parole Board	23	20	3	-	-	-	-Royal Canadian Mounted Police	69	41	12	9	4	2	1Supply and Services	The information requested is not readily available, and
to retrieve it in the form requested would involve prohibitive expenditures of time and manpower. Overtime payments in the past year, however, totalled $1,783,765 for Supply and $1,100,000 for Services.
Statistics Canada	152	127	20	4	-	1	-Canadian Arsenals Limited Crown Assets Disposal	14	9	2	2	1	-Corporation	9	5	1	3	-	-	-Royal Canadian Mint	23	18	2	3	-	-	-Transport Canada	6427	3473	1335	697	330	200	392Canadian Transport Commission	110	61	15	15	10	3	6Management of Air Canada	The Air Canada payroll system has no	automated	means to retrieve or requested manner.	reconstruct payroll data	in theNational Harbours Board	344	119	76	43	43	35	28Pilotage Authorities	Atlantic	49	8	15	9	9	2	6Laurentian	24	7	2	7	4	1	3Great Lakes	102	28	38	25	3	1	8Pacific St-Lawrence Seaway	35	17	7	6	'	'Authority Seaway International	292	214	40	14	5	5	14Bridge Corp. Ltd.	2	-	1	-	1	-	-Via Rail Canada Inc.	3207	2795	395	13	4	-	-Treasury Board Canada	51	39	7	4	1	-	-Veterans Affairs Other Departments and Agencies	283 None.	231	37	II	3	*	~


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	What was the cost of operating the Metric Commission during 1979?
2.	What was the total cost expended on the Metric Commission since its inception?
3.	Under what legislation and under what provisions is the financing of the Metric Commission handled?


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: In so far as Metric Commission Canada is concerned: 1. Operating costs for fiscal year 1979/80 were $6,740,991. Contributions under the workers' metric tools assistance program for the same period were $2,113,941.
2.	The total operating cost from June, 1971, to March 31, 1980, was $31,165,669. Contributions under the workers' metric tools assistance program over the same period were $3,034,541.
3.	Metric Commission Canada was established by order in council PC 1971-1146, dated June 10, 1971, pursuant to section 18 of the Government Organization Act of 1969. This authorization is incorporated into the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce Act, chapter 972. The parliamentary vote is vote 5 under the trade industrial program, Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) As of the date the answer to this question is prepared, how many (i) dwelling units (ii) other types of establishments, have been repossessed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation for non-payment of mortgage fees (b) what is a breakdown by province under each category (c) what is a general description of the categories of places under the description of "other establishments"?
2.	What does the government plan to do with such properties and what are all the detailed plans in this regard?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1 am
advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1.	(a) (i) The total number of units acquired by the mortgage insurance fund from January 1954, (the inception of NHA loan insurance) to March 31, 1980, is 44,890, while the total number of units acquired by CMHC from 1946 to March 31, 1980, with respect to its direct uninsured lending is 21,980 units.
(ii) Not applicable.
(b)	A breakdown of repossessions by province is not available.
(c)	Not applicable.
2.	The government plans to sell the acquired properties as quickly as possible, recognizing market conditions.
CMHC's marketing program is as follow:
(a)	single detached and condominium units are offered for sale at current market value;
(b)	multiple unit projects are offered for sale to the private sector through the request for proposals (RFP) technique. Proposals are invited from proponents with demonstrated financial and management capability and satisfactory credit standings. Projects not included in an RFP are sold on the open market through the multiple listing services or public tender call. In the case of non-profit projects, where provinces, non-profit groups or co-operatives indicate interest in acquiring the projects, these organiza-
October 14, 1981

tions are given first priority over disposal on the open market.


Mr. Towers: 1.	By year, what was the total amount of funds disbursed on the metric conversion program?
2.	(a) How many persons are employed under the program (b) how many man-years are allocated to the program?
3.	(a) How many contract employees or consultants are employed under the program (b) what was the total amount of funds disbursed, by year, on contract employees or consultants?
4.	(a) How many contracts with consultants has the metric program (b) who are the recipients of the contracts and what is the total amount of their emolument, by year?
5.	What was the total amount of money disbursed to date, for paid media advertising to publicize or promote the metric conversion program?
6.	How many letters of comment has the Metric Commission received from concerned Canadians regarding the implementation of the program and how many were letters (a) of complaint (b) praising the program?
7.	Are weights and measures that have been adopted in the Canadian metric conversion program fully compatible and interchangeable with weights and measures used by other nations which use the metric system (b) is the Canadian "tonne" fully interchangeable with all other nations?
8.	What percentage of Canada's trade is carried on with nations using the metric system?
9.	Does the government possess information on the plans of the critical path of the government of the United States with regard to implementation of a metric system in that country and, if so, what is such information?


Ralph Ferguson: In so far as Metric Commission Canada is concerned: On the date this question was asked, a complete significant answer was not available. This information has now been compiled as of January 31, 1981.
1.	The amount of funds spent and/or disturbed by the commission by fiscal year is as follows:
Fiscal Year	Expenses	Contributions (Workers Metric Tools Assistance Program)1971/72	$ 44,541	$1972/73	530,943	1973/74	1,590,792	1974/75	2,634,101	i 97 5/76	3,316,100	1976/77	4,380,300	1977/78	5,753,000	120,6001978/79	6,174,901	800,0001979/80	6,740,991	2,113,9411980/81*	3,963,581	1,447,158*Note: Fiscal Year 1980/81 up to January 31, 1981	2. (a)	As of December	15, 1980, 96 persons wereemployed by Metric Commission Canada;	
(b) As of December 15, 1980, 96 person-years were allocated to Metric Commission Canada.
Order Paper Questions
3.	(a) As of December 15, 1980, Metric Commission Canada employed nine contract employees or consultants;
(b) The total amount of funds disbursed and/or authorized by year for those contract employees or consultants employed on December 15, 1980 is as follows:
Fiscal Year	Amount
1978/79	$ 61,900
1979/80	46,650
1980/81 to Dec. 15/1980	147,790
4.	(a) During the 1980/81 fiscal year, Metric Commission Canada had seven consultant contracts in force.
(b) Consultants under contract during fiscal year 1980/ 81 (up to January 31, 1981) including funds disbursed and/or authorized by year are as follows:
Consultant	Fiscal Year	Amount1. Mr. Brian Dixon	1980/81	$ 3,6992. Intertask Limited	1980/81	15,0003. Bob Mellor and Associates	1978/79	33,0001979/80	26,1504. Public and Industrial Relations	1980/81	34,200Limited	1980/81	17,7155.	Mr. Alan Rogers 6.	Bryce Taylor Leisure and	1980/81	21,900Recreational Consultants Ltd.	1980/81	21,4267. Ms. Nola Wade	1980/81	25,0005.	Due to budget limitations, Metric Commission Canada has a policy of not buying media advertising time and space. On one occasion only, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Office of Information and Public Relations, on behalf of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, did spend $130,000 on March 31, 1975, for newspaper advertising relating to weather conversion.6.	The number of letters of comment received by Metric Commission Canada during the period April 1, 1974, to March 31, 1980 is as follows:Total	(a) Letters of	(b) Letters PraisingLetters	Complaint	the ProgramApril 1/74 to March 31/75	66,033	_	108April 1/75 to March 31/76	98,827	77	121April 1/76 to March 31/77	42,947	112	160April 1/77 to March 31/78	34,969	157	147April 1/78 to March 31/79	25,956	72	106April 1/79 to March 31/80	22,799	99*	88
Note: During the fiscal year April 1, 1979 to March 31, 1980, 826 printed form letters protesting metric conversion were also received.
7.	(a) The Weights and Measures Act, Section 4, which received royal assent on April 7, 1971, stipulates that "Le Systeme international d'unites" should be the basis of all units of measurement used in

October 14, 1981
Order Paper Questions
Canada. These SI units and their prefixes are given in Schedule 1 of the act. These units are fully compatible and interchangeable with most weights and measures used by other nations employing the metric system. Some countries are slower than others, however, in phasing out the use of certain non-preferred and non-coherent multiples or submultiples of metric units which have become obsolete.
(b) The Canadian tonne or metric ton, meaning 1,000 kg, is a fully interchangeable unit with all other nations. To avoid confusion in verbal communications, the expressions "metric ton" (in English) and "tonne metrique" (in French) should be used to distinguish the tonne from the short and long tons in the imperial system.
8.	It is estimated that over half of Canada's trade is already being carried on using metric units. Almost all of Canada's trade is with countries which are either in the process of converting to the metric system or with countries which have historically used metric measurements. The 1980 issue of the Exporters Encyclopedia and World Marketing Guide published by Dun and Bradstreet International Limited states that, "The U.S. is the last industrial country to go metric: only Brunei, Burma, Liberia and Yemen have not adopted the metric system or are in the process of phasing in its use". Since that time, both Brunei and Liberia have announced their intentions to adopt the metric system. Forty-five countries, including the U.S. and Canada, are signatories of the Treaty of the Metre and financially support the research and activities of the General Conference of Weights and Measures (CGPM). Contributing members of CGPM represent only a fraction of the countries in the world using metric measurements. The CGPM co-ordinates the ongoing development of the metric system of measurements units of which the International System of Units (SI) is the latest evolution. All countries profit from the improvements being made to the metric system whether they do or do not contribute financially to the operation of the CGPM.
In 1979, the United States accounted for 72 per cent of Canada's imports and 67 per cent of her exports. It has been estimated that as of December, 1980, over 45 per cent of the exports to the U.S.A., in 31 leading sectors, are described in metric units. The automobile and parts related manufacturing sector in the U.S. and Canada is the leading industry in this regard with about 70 per cent of manufacturing and orders for parts now in metric units.
Outside the U.S., many countries produce and accept only goods described in metric units. Most countries in the European Economic Community and the European Free Trade Area have passed laws which call for the exclusive use of SI units. The EEC is Canada's second most important export market after the United States. Japan, another metric country, is third. In 1979, 14.7 per cent of Canada's exports went to countries which have passed such legislation.
Overseas trade in metric units has become sizeable for many sectors of the Canadian economy. Total Canadian agricultural exports have exceeded $6 billion per year which represents approximately 40 per cent of farmers' cash receipts. Over 80 per cent of these export products are shipped to metric countries such as the EEC (21.3 per cent), developing countries (22.8 per cent), and Japan (17.7 per cent). Consequently, approximately one third of the farmers' cash income is dependent upon exports to metric countries. During 1979, the Canadian fishing industry processed products having a market value of approximately $1,713 billion. Over 77 per cent of this value was exported with over 50 per cent of exports going to countries that use only the metric system or are well advanced in converting to its use.
9.	Federal government policy concerning metric conversion in the United States is co-ordinated through the interagency committee on metric policy which is chaired by the chairman of the U.S. Metric Board. The role of the U.S. Metric Board is to educate, inform and assist those parties who make a decision to convert. At the federal level, both the U.S. departments of commerce and defense have issued metric conversion plans. The U.S. federal alcohol administration act has been amended and prohibits any sale or import of wines and spirits bottled after January, 1979 (for wines) and January, 1980 (for distilled spirits) unless they are in specific metric only sizes. The conversion of gasoline pumps to litre dispensing is being accomplished by amending state legislation where required. Over 18,000 pumps have been converted as of December, 1980. The U.S. petroleum industry expects that more than 50 per cent of the pumps in the country will be converted by December, 1982.
The voluntary conversion to metric measure by U.S. private industry is being co-ordinated by the American National Metric Council which is funded entirely by its members. As of December, 1980, 46 ANMC sector committees were involved in the planning, scheduling and implementation of metric conversion programs. Several sectors are further advanced than their Canadian counterparts. Dr. Louis Polk, chairman of the U.S. Metric Board, reported at a December, 1980, USMB meeting in New Orleans that the United States was already metric or going metric in 44 different product areas which he listed.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In the past five years, have the payments from the Canada Pension Plan Fund been covered by the contributions and, if not (a) what years are involved (b) in each case, by what amounts were the contributions exceeded by the payments?
2.	Is it estimated that contributions will be exceeded by payments in the present fiscal year and, if so, by what amount.
3.	In the past five years, did the government at any time find it necessary to use the accumulated assets of the fund in any year to meet a deficit and if so, what was the amount used in each year and the total amount used in all the years?
October 14, 1981

4.	Is there a possibility of the fund eventually running out of money and, if so, does the government have any plans to correct this situation and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes;
(a)	not applicable,
(b)	not applicable.
2.	No.
3.	No.
If no changes are made to the legislation governing the Canada Pension Plan, the possibility does exist that the CPP fund could be in a deficit position by the year 2003. However, it is anticipated that an increase in the CPP contribution rate put into effect sometime before 2003 would eliminate the possibility of the fund running into a deficit. The question of the future funding of the Canada Pension Plan is under continuing study by both federal and provincial governments.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 91 which states in part that the total cost of printing the "Metric Monitor" to date amounts to $971,624, what are all the reasons justifying such an expense?
2.	Is it government policy to expend funds on printed material concerning the metric system whether or not the system has been endorsed by Parliament?


Ralph Ferguson: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. The mandate of Metric Commission Canada established under section 18 of the Government Organization Act, 1969, includes the following purpose, to "furnish, publish and disseminate information concerning conversion to the metric system" (order in council, PC 1971-1146, June 10, 1971).
2.	The Parliament of Canada made the metric system legal in this country as far back as 1871, as part of our first law on weights and measures. The Canadian government tabled in the House of Commons in January, 1970, the white paper on metric conversion which received support from all party leaders in the House of Commons. A program of guideline dates for metric conversion was approved by the government and debated in the House of Commons on March 17, 1975. The Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs studied this matter at length and reported it back to the House of Commons on December 17, 1976, with a recommendation that the House consider the advisability of adopting this program and introduce additional legislation to facilitate metric conversion. Subsequently, the Statute Law (Metric Conversion) Amendment Act, 1976, was passed by the House of Commons on July 25, 1977 and received royal assent on August 5, 1977.
Order Paper Questions "CULTURES CANADA"


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does volume 1, number 5, May, 1980, issue of "Cultures Canada" highlight or promote the public image of Liberal politicians or members of Parliament and, if so, is it government policy that this pamphlet should be used for such purposes?
2.	Does the front page of the issue praise the Minister of State (Multicultural-ism) and the hon. member for La Prairie and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Does the issue contain anything of the views, accomplishments, suggestions etc. of the multiculturalism policies of other parties in the House of Commons and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Jim Fleming (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: 1.	Since its inception in 1979, "Cultures Canada", the official newsletter of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism has pursued an independent editorial policy. This newsletter's primary objective is to keep interested individuals abreast of the numerous processes concerning policy development and its implementation including profiles of individuals who are actively committed/involved with multiculturalism.
2.	The front page of the issue does not praise the individuals mentioned. It simply reports on the minister's direct involvement in resolving the W5 issue and elsewhere on the same page it provides broad information on the newly nominated parliamentary secretary to the minister of multiculturalism.
3.	Previous issues of "Cultures Canada" contained information on the views, accomplishments and suggestions on the multiculturalism policies of another government administration.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does volume 1, number 5, May 1980 issue of "Cultures Canada" refer to the hon. member for La Prairie as being chosen the Liberal candidate for the constituency and that he had won his seat with a majority of 33,000 votes and, if so (a) in what way is this connected with multiculturalism (b) is it government policy through such publications to promote the political fortunes of Liberal members of Parliament?
2.	Does the issue refer to the member's hobbies and cultural activities and, if so (a) in what way is this connected to multiculturalism (b) is it government policy to promote such activities of Members of Parliament?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: 1.	Since its inception in 1979, "Cultures Canada", the official newsletter of the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism (CCCM), an advisory body to the Minister of State for Multiculturalism, has pursued an independent editorial policy. This newsletter's main objective is to keep interested individuals abreast of the various processes occurring in the area of policy development, its implementation and the individuals who contribute to the shaping of said policy. The minister's predecessor and various members of the CCCM have been highlighted in the newsletter. The information provided on the member for La Prairie is factual in its mention of election figures.
2.	The member's hobbies and cultural activities are mentioned to provide a more complete picture of the newly appointed parliamentary secretary to the minister.

October 14, 1981
Order Paper Questions CFDC-FILM "OUT OF THE BLUE"


Mr. Friesen: 1.	(a) What was the projected and Final cost of the film Out of the Blue (b) what was the cost to CFDC?
2.	(a) How many persons were hired without union contracts, if any, to work on the film (b) how many persons other than Canadians, were hired without work permits authorized by the Department of Employment and Immigration?
3.	(a) Who was the first director of the film (b) was he/she fired in favour of Mr. Dennis Harper and, if so, for what reason?
4.	Is the film to be certified as a Canadian film and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: 1.	(a) According to the initial offering memorandum with
which the producers approached investors dated July 25, 1979, the projected budget was $2,199,418.
(b) To be answered elsewhere.
2.	(a) and (b) The Secretary of State's Canada Film
Certification Office has no access to this kind of information.
3.	(a) Mr. Leonard Yakir.
(b) See 2(a) above.
4.	Yes.
(a)	The producers are Canadians.
(b)	An aggregate of six units of production for the key creative personnel was acquired for the individuals employed in the film.
(c)	Not less than 75 per cent of the aggregate of the remuneration paid or payable to persons for services provided in respect of the film (other than remuneration paid or payable to, or in respect of individuals who are the producers or who performed the duties of the key creative "point" positions, or remuneration paid for processing and final preparation of the film) was paid or payable to, or in respect of services provided by, Canadians and;
(d)	Not less than 75 per cent of the aggregate of all costs incurred for processing and final preparation of the film was incurred in respect of services provided in Canada.
Canadian Film Development Corporation:
1.	(a) To be answered elsewhere.
(b) None.
2,	3 and 4. To be answered elsewhere.


Mr. MacKay: For the fiscal year (a) 1977-78 (b) 1978-79 (c) 1979-80, what was the per diem rate to the legal counsel at the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?


David P. Smith: The chief counsel of the Commission of Inquiry into Certain Activities of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police was paid at the rate of
(a)	$100 an hour,
(b)	$100 an hour,
(c)	$100 an hour.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Was a proposal made to the government of Nova Scotia to assist in the development of the Donkin Coal Mine in Cape Breton, directly or through the Cape Breton Development Corporation, once exploration work had been successfully completed and, if so, what was the proposal?
2.	Did the government provide funds to assist in the development of the mine for future fiscal years and, if so, in what amount?
3.	Who are the officers in the public service responsible for negotiations between the government of Nova Scotia and the government on the mine?
4.	Was a report made to the government or any agency thereof respecting the economics of developing the mine and, if so, does the report recommend for or against development?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansin):: The response for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows; 1. It is difficult to say whether a proposal was made to the Government of Nova Scotia or made by the Government of Nova Scotia in respect of the development of the Donkin Coal Mine in Cape Breton. What is public knowledge, however, is the fact that a proposal was discussed for the development of the Donkin Mine through a separate corporation with shareholdings by Consolidation Coal Company of the United States, the Government of Nova Scotia, the Cape Breton Development Corporation (Devco) and with an expression of interest from Alberta.
2.	No.
3.	The responsibility for coal development in Cape Breton generally rests with the president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. There have been no negotiations as such between Devco and the province of Nova Scotia in respect of part (1) above.
4.	Several studies on the economics of developing the Donkin mine have been undertaken. Analytical observations have been made on the most appropriate timing for the development of the Donkin mine.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Was the construction subsidy given to Canadian shipyards reduced from 20 per cent to 9 per cent and, if so, what were the reasons behind the government's decision?
2.	By province, what are the government's estimates for jobs which will be lost in the shipbuilding industry as a result of this action?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. Yes. On applications received by
October 14, 1981

June 30, 1980, the rate of subsidy was 20 per cent. On applications received after that date, the rate is 9 per cent. This change was in accordance with an announcement made by the previous government in December, 1979. It was confirmed by the present government on the basis that consultations be held by a government team, with industry, with organized labour and with the provinces before making a decision on future policy for the shipbuilding industry. These consultations are now under way.
2. No jobs will be lost as a result of this action. As one indication of the health of the industry, Dome Petroleum has recently purchased Davie Shipbuilding and has announced expansion intentions.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Did the government contract for industrial benefits for any province by name in the contract with McDonnell Douglas Corporation for the new fighter aircraft and, if so (a) which provinces were named (b) what is the total dollar value of any industrial spin-off allocated to any specific province?
2.	What is the total dollar value of any industrial spin-off assured to the province of (a) Prince Edward Island (b) Newfoundland (c) Nova Scotia (d) New Brunswick (e) Quebec (f) Ontario (g) Manitoba (h) Saskatchewan (/) Alberta (j) British Columbia under the terms of the contract?
3.	Will the government be meeting with (a) Standard Aero Ltd. (b) Boeing of Canada (c) Bristol Aerospace Ltd. (d) C.A.E. Aircraft Ltd. (e) Standard Aero Engine Ltd., all of Winnipeg, concerning the awarding of contracts as a result of the new fighter aircraft contract and, if so (i) on what dates (ii) on what date will the government be announcing the contracts and their dollar value?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. The CF-18 contract with McDonnell Douglas requires that the province of Quebec be the location for two new manufacturing facilities, with a total investment commitment of $63 million expected. No other specific industrial benefits are contracted for any province.
2. The majority of industrial benefits are secured in favour of Canadian industries in general, but it has been estimated that these benefits, amounting to $2.91 billion, will accrue to all provinces in all regions of Canada. See also question 882 answered June 12, 1980.
3.	(1) The government regularly meets with officials of Canadian aerospace firms within the context of established programs.
(2)	These companies have or will be given an opportunity to participate in the CF-18 industrial benefits program.
(3)	There has been established an office which provides general advice and assistance to all Canadian firms seeking participation in the CF-18 industrial benefits program.
(4)	Of course, individual companies must be willing to take advantage of these opportunities.
(5)	Bristol Aerospace, for example, has received orders from the General Electric (Aircraft Engine Group)
Order Paper Questions
for over 600 shipsets of the F-404 engine exhaust frames. It is anticipated that this business will continue over the next several years to reach a total estimated value of $80 million. At the same time, Bristol declined to bid on any portion of the structural components package put out by McAir.
(6)	The government intends to publish occasionally on contracts awarded to Canadian firms which are of general interest, and to publish regularly on the over-all progress of the program.


Mr. Cossitt: What is the total number of public servants receiving equal or higher annual salaries than the total indemnity paid to a Member of Parliament and (a) what are their names and job designations (b) what is the salary and the department in each case?


David P. Smith: As of October 17, 1980, the indemnity of a Member of Parliament was $30,600. Members also received a non-taxable expense allowance of $13,500. This allowance increased for certain electoral districts that over large geographic areas; as of October 17, 1980, it was $17,900 for ridings in the Northwest Territories and $16,600, for those outlined in Schedule III of the Canada Elections Act.
As of October 1980, there were 23,187 federal public servants as defined in Schedule I, part 1 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act earning over $30,600 per annum. Of these, 2,430 earned more than $45,000 per annum. These figures, however, include only personnel for whom the Treasury Board is the employer: they do not include governor in council appointments or employees of Crown agencies.
From the totals given above it is obvious that the cost in terms of time and money of attempting to list this number of persons by name, job designation, salary range and department would be prohibitive.


Mr. Stevens: For the current fiscal year, what are the estimated expenditures of de Flavilland Aircraft of Canada Ltd. for (a) advertising (b) free or subsidized publications (c) other information conveyed to the public?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
(a)	Estimated expenditure for advertising is approximately 0.5 per cent of annual sales. The precise figure is held as confidential by the company in recognition of the commercial market conditions within which it operates.
(b)	Estimated expenditure for free publications is:
"High Lift" $80,000

October 14, 1981
Order Paper Questions (Controlled circulation, free brochure, sent to people in the trade and the firm's employees).
(c) Estimated expenditure for other forms is:
Employment advertising	$ 191,000.
(This budget is particularly high this year owing to Dash 8 personnel recruitment needs).


Mr. Stewart: 1.	What are the names of the funds, such as the Prairie Farm Assistance Fund, Public Service Superannuation Fund, Canada Pension Plan, etc., administered by the government which are comprised of voluntary or compulsory contributions from Canadians?
2.	Which of the funds are held on deposit in general or consolidated revenue?
3.	What, if any, rate of interest is paid to each fund?
4.	What amount, if any, is saved by the government because it is required to borrow less by using the funds?
5.	What interest earnings have been denied, where interest is not paid, to contributors using commercial interest rates and what are the names of the funds?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. The list below states the trust funds comprised of contributions by Canadians, as of the date this question was asked.
2.	All the funds are held on deposit in general or consolidated revenue.
3.	The list below states the rate of interest, if any, paid to each fund, as of the date this question was asked.
4.	None.
5.	None.
List of Funds Administered by the Compulsory Contributions Canada Pension Plan
Superannuation Acounts Public Service
Canadian Forces Royal Canadian Mounted Police
Supplementary Retirement Benefits
Unemployment Insurance Account
Regular Forces Death Benefit Account
Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Account
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Dependants' Pension Fund
Public Service Death Benefit Account Retirement Fund
Annuities Agents' Pension Account
Government
Voluntary Contributions
Army Benevolent Fund
Canadian Army Welfare Fund
Canadian Forces Personnel Assistance Fund
Royal Canadian Mounted Police Benefit Fund
Veterans Administration and Welfare Trust Fund
National Museums of Canada Trust Account
Past
Halifax 1917 Explosion Pension Account
Mackenzie King Trust Account
Strathcona Trust Fund
Account	Type of Interest	Rate of InterestCanada Pension Plan	weighted average on securities issued interest on monthly operating balance	10.5 per cent 9.45 per centSuperannuation Accounts	Public Service ) Canadian Forces ) RCMP ) Supplementary Retirement Benefits	8.2 per cent 8.63 per centUnemployment Insurance Account interest on deposit with Receiver General	10.53 per centRegular forces death benefit account	interest on contributions	7.81 per centMembers of Parliament retiring allowances account	quarterly interest	6.7 per centRoyal Canadian Mounted Police Dependents' pension fund	interest on contributions	7.89 per centPublic Service Death Benefit Account	interest on contributions	7.69 per centRetirement fund	interest on contributions	4 per centAnnuities agents' pension account	interest on contributions	4 per centArmy benevolent fund	interest on minimum monthly balance	8.9 per centCanadian army welfare fund	interest paid semi-annually	8.56 per centCanadian Forces personnel assistance fund	interest credited semi-annually	10.94 per centRoyal Canadian Mounted Police Benefit fund	interest on contributions	9.6 per cent
Veterans administration and welfare trust fund
financed mainly by canteen profits
nil
National Museums of Canada trust account
calculated monthly on minimum monthly balance
90 per cent of rate for 3 month treasury bills
Halifax 1917 explosion pension account
Mackenzie King trust account Strathcona trust fund
interest on contributions
interest on deposit semi-annual interest
7.32 per cent 8.89 per cent 11.5 per cent


Mr. McKnight: 1.	For each crop year from 1976-77 to 1980-81, did the Canadian Wheat Board sell bushels of (a) barley (b) oats under the corn competitive formula and, if so (i) how many bushels by grade (ii) at what price?
2.	For the same years, what was the number of bushels of (a) barley (b) oats purchased by the Canadian Wheat Board by grade and at what price?
3.	What is the definition of the corn competitive formula?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. For the crop years 1976-77 to 1980-81 the board sold the following quantities under the corn competitive formula. The information is shown for each pool account which is the selling period for the crop year.
Barley	Oats
Pool Account	(Tonnes)	(Tonnes)1976-	77	373,606	150,7391977-	78	50,251	117,3241978-	79	34,967	1161979-	80	65,572	51,5981980-81	Not complete as yet
October 14, 1981

In order to protect the interests of western producers, it is the Canadian Wheat Board's policy not to divulge details of grades and prices on any sales, whether to the domestic or export market.
Order Paper Questions
2. The following table shows the quantities and initial prices of the principal grades of barley and oats purchased by the Board from producers by pool account for the crop years 1976-77 through 1979-80.
Barley
#1 Feed	#2 Feed	Others	Pool	Price	Price	Price	Account	Tonnes	per tonne	Tonnes	per tonne	Tonnes	per tonne	Total Tonnes1976-77	3,463,895	S 80.38	173,296	S 79.00	406,747	$ 78.54	4,043,9381977-78	2,096,121	$ 80.38	207,286	$ 79.00	584,777	S 75.62	2,888,1841978-79	1,811,392	S 79.67	118,114	$ 77.67	284,141	S 74.78	2,213,6471979-80	2,690,616	$ 89.57	185,030	$ 87.19	209,524	$ 83.69	3,085,170Oats	#1 Feed	#2 Feed	Others	Pool	Price	Price	Price	Account	Tonnes	per tonne	Tonnes	per tonne	Tonnes	per tonne	Total Tonnes1976-77	440,460	$ 74.57	8,013	$ 71.33	78,521	$ 74.57	526,9941977-78	240,441	$ 74.57	23,464	$ 71.33	133,237	$ 74.91	397,1421978-79	6,885	$ 74.00	178	$ 71.00	22,932	$ 77.53	29,9951979-80	3,987	S 68.08	190	S 64.00	20,753	$ 85.59	24,930
3. Under the domestic feed grain policy the Canadian Wheat Board prices its offerings of feed grains to the domestic market on the basis of a formula which ensures that those grains are competitive with U.S. corn landed at Montreal. This formula takes into account the feeding value of wheat, oats, and barley relative to U.S. corn and soymeal. The formula price for the various feeding grades of these grains is set daily, based on the costs of U.S. corn and soymeal landed at Montreal. Handling and transportation costs from Thunder Bay to Montreal are deducted and the price is quoted instore Thunder Bay.
the funds. The purpose of internal or other inquiries is to establish the facts that contributed to the incident so that action to prevent a recurrence of such an incident can be taken; it is not for the purpose of taking disciplinary action. Although an inmate may be involved in an incident and be subsequently charged with a disciplinary offence, this is not related to the convening of an inquiry.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Were there incidents in 1979 and 1980, of such a nature to precipitate internal or other inquiries which led to disciplinary action against inmates at (a) Shulie Lake Institution (b) Springhill Institution (c) Dorchester Penitentiary (d) Westmorland Institution and, if so, in each case (i) on what date (ii) what was the nature of the offence (iii) what was the punishment?
2,	In which cases were the reports of the incidents made public?
2. It has never been the practice of the Correctional Service of Canada to make the report of inquiries public. Inquiries into most incidents often contain explicit information regarding the security of the institution which, if made public, could seriously threaten institutional security. Inquiries may also contain confidential information regarding the identity of individual staff members or inmates, which if released, could constitute a serious violation of an individual's civil rights or place the safety and wellbeing of a person in jeopardy.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: [DOT] * (i), (ii), and (iii) Data are maintained on all incidents precipitating internal or other inquiries, and, as well, on disciplinary offences by inmates. However, the two are not correlated or cross referenced and to do this would require an extensive research project for which the Correctional Service of Canada has neither the manpower nor


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Were there incidents in 1979 and 1980, of such a nature to precipitate internal or other inquiries which led to disciplinary action against inmates at (a) Leclerc (b) Laval (c) Montee Saint-Franqois (d) Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines (e) Archambault (f) Cowansville (g) Regional Reception Centre (h) Correctional Development Centre (/') La Macaza (j) Federal Training Centre and, if so, in each case (i) on what date (ii) what was the nature of the offence (iii) what was the punishment?
2.	In which cases were the reports of the incidents made public?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: See reply to question No. 2,111 answered this day.

October 14, 1981
Order Paper Questions LIQUEFIED NATURAL GAS TERMINAL


Mr. Howie: 1.	Since January 1, 1980, were studies conducted by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources concerning the location of a site for a liquefied natural gas terminal and, if so, what site or sites were recommended?
2.	(a) Was any site in New Brunswick considered (b) was a site recommended and was it rejected and, if so, for what reason?


Marc Lalonde: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: 1 and 2. No studies have been conducted by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources concerning the location of a site for a liquefied natural gas terminal. On October 14, 1980, the Minister of EM&R stated in the House, regarding the Arctic pilot project and the site of the regasification terminal, that "the decision at this point is up to Petro-Canada and the National Energy Board".


Mr. McGrath: 1.	What is the number and percentage of unattached (a) Canadians (b) female Canadians (c) male Canadians over 65 years of age currently receiving no private pension income?
2.	What percentage of the Statistics Canada poverty line does the combined old age security and guaranteed income supplement benefits for unattached persons represent for 1980?
3.	What percentage of the poverty line does the combined OAS and GIS benefits for couples represent for 1980?
4.	(a) During 1980, what was the number of Canadian families living below the poverty line (b) what percentage does this figure represent (c) how many families were (i) male headed (ii) female headed?
5.	Of all (a) female headed (b) male headed families in Canada in 1980, what was the number and percentage living below the poverty line?
6.	Between 1973 and 1980, in absolute terms, did the number of (a) female headed (b) male headed families living below the poverty line increase or decrease?
7.	What percentage of all children live in families below the poverty line?
8.	For 1980-81, what is the estimated cash contributions to the ten provinces and the territories under the Established Programs Financing Arrangements, excluding tax transfers and associated equalization for (a) hospital insurance (b) medical care (c) extended health care?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and Statistics Canada as follows: 1. Based on 1976 data, the estimated population without private pension income was:
Unattached individuals aged 65 and over
Estimated
population	Percentage
(a)	Both sexes
(b)	Females
(c)	Males
490,000	74%
352,000	75%
138,000	72%
2. The income guaranteed to unattached persons through the old age security and guaranteed income supplement programs represented 82.19 per cent of the Statistics Canada low
income cut-off for a medium-sized city (population 30,GOO-99,999) in 1980.
3.	The combined income guaranteed to two-pensioner couples through the old age security and guaranteed income supplement programs represented 102.41 per cent of the Statistics Canada low income cut-off for a medium-sized city (population 30,000-99,999) in 1980.
4.	Data have not yet been collected for 1980, neither are final estimates available for 1979.
(a)	It is estimated that 614,000 families were below the Statistics Canada low income cut-offs in 1978.
(b)	This figure represents 10.3 per cent of all families.
(c)	Of the 614,000 low income families in 1978:
(i) 410,000 were headed by males and (ii) 204,000 were headed by females.
5.	It is estimated that in 1978 there were:
(a)	204,000 low income families headed by females, and this figure represents 35.9 per cent of all female headed families.
(b)	410,000 low income families headed by males, and this figure represents 7.6 per cent of all male headed families.
6.	The change cannot be calculated because data for 1980 and final estimates for 1979 are not available. Estimated numbers for 1973 and 1978 are as follows:
Estimated numbers of Low income families	All families
1973	1978	1973	1978(a) Female headed families	204,000	204,000	453,000	568,000(b) Male headed families	537,000	410,000	4,820,000	5,374,000
The number of low income families has decreased. The number of female headed low income families has remained stable, although it has decreased as a percentage of the total number of female headed families.
7.	It is estimated that in 1978, 12.4 per cent of all children under 16 years of age lived in low income families.
8.	(a) Hospital insurance $2,480,300,000.
(b)	Medical care $859,600,000.
(c)	Extended health care $640,400,000.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Were there incidents in 1979 and 1980, of such a nature to precipitate internal or other inquiries which led to disciplinary action against inmates at (a) the Ontario Prison for Women (b) Joyceville (c) Millhaven Institution (d) Pittsburgh Institution (e) Bath Institution (0 Beaver Creek Correctional Camp (g) Regional Reception Centre (h) Warkworth Institution (/') Regional Psychiatric Centre (j) Collins Bay Institution (k) Frontenac Institution and, if so, in each case (i) on what date (ii) what was the nature of the offence (iii) what was the punishment?
2.	In which cases were the reports of the incidents made public?
October 14, 1981


Robert Phillip Kaplan: See reply to question No. 2,111 answered this day.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Were there incidents in 1979 and 1980, of such a nature to precipitate internal or other inquiries which led to disciplinary action against inmates in the prairies region at (a) Stoney Mountain Institution (b) Rockwood Farm Annex (c) Saskatchewan Penitentiary (d) Saskatchewan Farm Annex (e) Regional Psychiatric Centre (f) Bowden Institution (g) Drumheller Institution (h) Edmonton Institution and, if so, in each case (i) on what date (ii) what was the nature of the offence (iii) what was the punishment?
2.	In which cases were the reports of the incidents made public?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: See reply to question No. 2,111 answered this day.


Mr. Friesen: 1.	Were there incidents in 1979 and 1980, of such a nature to precipitate internal or other inquiries which led to disciplinary action against inmates in the Pacific region at (a) Mission Institution (b) B.C. Penitentiary (c) Elbow Lake Institution (d) Ferndale Institution (e) Kent Institution (0 Matsqui Institution (g) Mountain Institution (h) Regional Psychiatric Centre (i) William Head Institution and, if so, in each case (i) on what date (ii) what was the nature of the offence (iii) what was the punishment?
2.	In which cases were the reports of the incidents made public?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: See reply to question No. 2,111 answered this day.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In the last year, did companies in Quebec receive aid from the National Research Council and, if so (a) which ones (b) what was the amount in each case (c) for what purpose?
2.	Is any assistance given to firms concurrently receiving aid from either the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce or the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and, if so, what is the budget for (a) Quebec (b) Canada (c) for similar assistance in the next year?
3.	What amount was contributed by the National Research Council in the past 15 years to Hydro-Quebec?
4.	What liaison mechanism is established with the Department of Agriculture that determines the respective responsibilities and participation of both funding groups?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the National Research Council and the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion as follows: 1. Yes.
(a) Company	(b) Amount Fiscal Year 1980-81	(c) ProgramAgropur Cooperative	$116,400	IRAPLes Aliments Mont-Rouge Inc.	41,200	IRAPLes Aliments Nova Inc.	47,300	IRAPAMH Canada Lt6e	10,000	mini-irapAmber Electro Design Ltd.	32,500	mini-irapAquanic Inc.	24,600	MINI-IRAPAsphalt Laboratories Ltd.	11,502	PILPAssociation Cooperative des pecheurs de Carleton	25,000	MINI-IRAPAstro Productions Ltd.	90,500	IRAPLes Ateliers P.A.T. Inc.	10,800	MINI-IRAPB & K Plastic Industries Ltd.	25,000	MINI-IRAPBomem Inc.	50,000	PILPCIL Inc.	363,000	IRAP
Order Paper Questions
(b) Amount Fiscal Year
(a) Company	1980-81	(c) ProgramCanadair Limited	320	PILPCanadian Marconi Company	231,941	PILPCanadian Thermostats & Control Devices	61,000	IRAPCanadian Vacuum Equipment of Canada	2,838	PILPChamplain Industries Ltd.	45,400	IRAPChemor Corp. Ltd.	16,200	MINI-IRAPControtec Inc.	20,400	MINI-IRAPControles Bob Audet Inc.	6,100	MINI-IRAPConsultronique Inc.	14,000	MINI-IRAPDominion Bridge	93,300	IRAPDominion Engineering Works	480,000	IRAPDomtar	53,800	IRAPEastern Coated Papers Co. Ltd.	61,000	IRAPElectroline TV Equipment Inc.	3,000	MINI-IRAPEonizer Inc.	43,400	IRAPEonizer Ltd.	4,200	MINI-IRAPEquipment Monitor Inc.	52,000	IRAPFailure Control International	12,000	MINI-IRAPGaza Products Inc.	21,000	MINI-IRAPGentec Incorporated	15,097	PILPHonco Inc.	7,500	MINI-IRAPI.A.F. Production Inc.	56,399	PILPI.A.F. Production Inc.	298,900	IRAPIndustries Provinciales Lt6e	103,200	IRAPInstitut de Bioendocrinologie	205,400	IRAPInstrumentation GDD Inc.	3,000	MINI-IRAPIsofab Inc.	9,500	MINI-IRAPLeedye Ltd.	173,000	IRAPMPB Technologies Inc.	46,200	IRAPMPB Technologies Inc.	67,565	PILPMark Hot Inc.	101,800	IRAPM6cart Inc.	22,900	MINI-IRAPMerium Labs Ltd.	16,700	MINI-IRAPMetiers d'Art Epsilon Inc.	14,200	MINI-IRAPMirachem Corp.	25,000	MINI-IRAPMontreal Terra Cotta (1966) Ltd.	10,700	MINI-IRAPPocatec Lt6e	24,900	MINI-IRAPPotton Chemicals Ltd.	55,200	IRAPPratt & Whitney Aircraft Ltd.	374,200	IRAPPratt & Whitney Aircraft of Canada	87,000	PILPPulp & Paper Research Institute of Canada	585,200	IRAPQIT-FER et Titane Inc.	113,300	IRAPRJR Foods	119,100	IRAPRadionics-Medical Division	4,219	PILPReed Ltd.	47,300	IRAPRoche vert Inc.	57,600	IRAPRoctest Lt6e	40,100	IRAPS&G Products Inc.	42,300	IRAPSNC Inc.	53,900	IRAPSaft Batteries	17,000	IRAPSodispro Technology	5,000	MINI-IRAPSolutec Lt6e	6,900	MINI-IRAPSytrolec Control Ltd.	4,000	MINI-IRAPTern bee Inc.	95,700	IRAPTican Pharmaceuticals Ltd.	25,000	MINI-IRAPTrolec Inc.	19,200	MINI-IRAPWilson Machine Co. Ltd.	22,600	MINI-IRAPNote:	IRAP - Objective is to increase caliber and scope of indus-	
trial research in Canada in situations where it leads to high business effectiveness with economic benefits to Canada. Details of projects are confidential to companies.
11760

October 14, 1981
Order Paper Questions
PILP - Objective is application and use in Canada of scientific research and engineering know-how of government R & D results.
M1NI-IRAP - A salary support program to encourage R & D in small manufacturing companies.
2.	Of the companies receiving assistance from NRC, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concurrently providing assistance to the following:
Company	Amount	ProgramCanadair Limited	$ 9,694,143	DIPPCanadian Marconi Company	4,789,863	DIPPEquipment Monitor Inc.	25,725	EDP-ProductivityGentec Inc.	108,450	EDP-DevelopmentMark Hot Inc.	573,682	EDP-DevelopmentPratt & Whitney Aircraft of Canada	33,823,671	DIPPRoctest Lt6e	129,375	EDP-DevelopmentSaft Batteries	73,150	EDP-DevelopmentB & K Plastic Industries Ltd.	3,895	PEMDBomem Inc.	4,017	PEMDCanadian Marconi Company	33,070	PEMDDominion Bridge	28,482	PEMDDominion Engineering Works	99,389	PEMDGentec Inc.	2,348	PEMDInstitut de Bioendocrinologie	3,054	PEMDIndustries Provinciales Lt6e	2,770	PEMDInstrumentation GDD Inc.	3,569	PEMDRochevert Inc.	1,365	PEMD(a) No budgets are established by	province	(b) Expenditures 1980-81 for Canada	- EDP	$ 55,585,000- DIPP	121,300,000- PEMD	11,112,000(c) Budgets 1981-82 for Canada	- EDP	$ 76,368,000- DIPP	151,600,000- PEMD	7,600,000
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion offers incentives and makes payments to firms in accordance with the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Program. Of those companies listed in response to part I, the following firms have accepted offers of incentives during the last year.
Company
Canadian Marconi Company Dominion Engineering Works Pratt & Whitney Aircrafts Ltd.
Montreal Terra Cotta (1966) Ltd.
Equipment Monitor Inc.
Payments will be made in future years per each offer agreement, rather than by departmental budget for a specific geographic area, with all payments in each case normally being made within 24 to 36 months of the company commencing production on a commercial basis.
3.	$766,911.
4.	For the projects that involve agricultural projects, the scientific liaison officer is most often from the Department of Agriculture working in a field allied to the subject of the
project. In addition a staff member of the Department of Agriculture serves on the IRAP project selection committee. At the policy level the assistant deputy minister (research) Department of Agriculture works closely with senior NRC executives and has recently been appointed as a council member of the National Research Council.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is it the policy of the Canadian Wheat Board to announce final payments of grain sales and. if so, on what date was the latest announcement made?
2.	(a) Is it the policy of the government to announce final payments of grain sales and, if so, on what date was the latest announcement made and in the name of which cabinet minister (b) has any official or non-official complaint been brought to the attention of the government and, if so (i) in what form (ii) on what date (iii) by whom (iv) what was the response of the government and on what date was it made?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1,	2. (a) It has been the practice for many years for both the Canadian Wheat Board and the government to concurrently issue press releases providing the results of the Board's pool account operations and the final payment levels. The most recent announcements were made on January 9, 1981, and pertained to the 1979-80 pool accounts. The announcement by the government was made in the name of the Minister of State responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
(b)	On January 9, 1981, the Canadian Wheat Board advisory committee passed a motion as follows: "That in future announcements of final payments be made by the Canadian Wheat Board and not by the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board or the minister's office."
The government has noted this motion but has not responded to it.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 50 which in part gives a list of the names of those persons appearing in the Gouzenko commission record along with details of prosecution, etc., for persons who had become fugitive, what is an up-to-date list of the disposition of all cases (a) subsequently dealt with (b) not disposed of (c) not dealt with?
2.	In each case, what is the present location of all the persons listed?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: 1.	(a), (b) and (c): The following is a list of those persons against whom charges arising out of the revelations made by Mr. Igor Gouzenko were laid and which were dis-
Amount of Incentives


[Stage Direction]
October 14, 1981
[Stage Direction]
posed of finally subsequent to December 31, 1946:
Harold Samuel Gerson:
Verdict of October 11, 1946, set aside by Ontario Court of Appeal and at a second trial, found guilty on October 9, 1947, of conspiracy to commit an offence under the Official Secrets Act and sentenced to four years imprisonment.
James Scott Benning:
Appeal allowed and conviction quashed by Ontario Court of Appeal, April 24, 1947.
David Gordon Lunan:
Appeal dismissed on February 28, 1947. Also sentenced to one year for contempt of court for refusing to testify in the prosecution of Israel Halperin, which term to be served consecutively.
Philip Durnford Pemberton Smith:
Appeal dismissed by Ontario Court of Appeal on April 24 1947.
Frederick Poland:
Acquitted on first charge on January 16, 1947. Second charge dismissed.
Israel Halperin:
Acquitted on March 4, 1947.
Henry Harris:
Found guilty on January 27, 1947, on two charges of conspiracy under the Official Secrets Act and sentenced to five years imprisonment. Appeal allowed by Ontario Court of Appeal on May 27, 1947, and conviction quashed.
Raymond Boyer:
At first trial, jury unable to reach verdict on March 31, 1947. At second trial, found guilty and sentenced to two years imprisonment on January 31, 1948. Appeal dismissed by Ontario Court of Appeal on November 30, 1948. Subsequent petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Court of Canada dismissed on December 17, 1948.
Sam Carr:
Found guilty on April 8, 1949 (after extradition to Canada from the United States) on a charge of conspiring to utter a false document contrary to the provisions of the Criminal Code and sentenced to six years imprisonment. Appeals to Ontario Court of Appeal dismissed on September 27, 1949.
Freda Linton:
Surrendered to RCMP on April 11, 1949. Charges withdrawn by the Crown on May 3, 1949, due to insufficient evidence.
Order Paper Questions
2.	Whereabouts unknown.
Mr. Lapointe (Beauce): Since 1976, were wood harvesting contracts granted to specialized companies and, if so (a) by which department (b) to which company and for what amount in each case (c) were tenders called and, if not, in what way were the contracts granted?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: (a)	Yes, wood harvesting contracts were granted to
specialized companies.
(b)	and (c) The following companies were awarded harvesting contracts.
Year	Company	$	Method of Granting Contracts1976-7	J. McCutcheon R.R. No. 6, Kingston, Ontario	1,250	Tender1976-7	Robert W. Laming Box 105, Portland, Ontario	840	Tender1976-7	Crawford Tree Service, Niagara Falls, Ontario	900	Sole Source1976-7	Moffatt Tree Removal, Preston, Ontario	750	Sole Source1977-8	Chlorox of Canada, Industrial Park, Minto, N.B.	2,000	Tender1977-8	Herb Shaw & Sons Ltd., 31 Sharon Street, Pembroke, Ont.	685,083	Tender1977-8	Zigmund Biloskie, Wilno, Ontario	43,517	Tender1977-8	Ben Lance & Sons Ltd., R.R. 1. Chalk River, Ontario	87,350	Tender1977-8	Thomas J. Scott, St. Marjorique, Compte Gaspe, Quebec	3,750	Tender1977-8	Moffatt Tree Removal, Preston, Ontario	225	Sole Source1977-8	[DOT]Rolling River Indian Band, Brickson, Manitoba	49,000	[DOT]See footnote1977-8	Romeo's Trucking, Woyakquen Trailer Park, Woyakquen, Manitoba	10,000	Tender1978-9	Herb Shaw & Sons Ltd., 31 Sharon Street, Pembroke, Ont.	16,400	Public Auction Sale1978-9	M.W. Miller and Sons Ltd., P.O. Box 371, Eganville, Ont.	7,500	Public Auction Sale1978-9	Zigmund Biloskie, Wilno, Ontario	18,850	Public Auction Sale1978-9	C.V. Risto, 384 Isabella Street Pembroke, Ontario	15,500	Public Auction Sale
October 14, 1981
Order Paper Questions
1978-9	J.B. Morgan Lumber Co., P.O. Box 224, Eganville, Ontario	17,600	Public Auction Sale1978-9	Consolidated Bathurst Ltd., Ottawa Division Woodlands Wood Purchasing Dept., P.O. Box 68, Portage du Fort, Quebec	12,800	Public Auction Sale1978-9	Guy Lemieux, St. Marjorique, Compte Gaspe, Quebec	4,450	Tender1978-9	Wharram Tree Removal, Box 8065, Station A, Ottawa, Ontario	615	Tender1978-9	Seaway Tree Removal, R.R. No. 3, Jasper, Ontario	275	Tender1978-9	Robert W. Laming, Box 105, Portland, Ontario	650	Tender1978-9	Robert W. Laming, Box 105, Portland, Ontario	350	Sole Source1978-9	H. Mirasty, Little Red River Reserve, Sask.	23,974	Tender1978-9	C.V. Risto, 384 Isabella Street, Pembroke, Ontario	6,304	Tender1978-9	Marcel Cronier, R.R. 6-B Line, Pembroke, Ontario	27,000	Tender1978-9	Chlorox of Canada, Industrial Park, Minto, N.B.	1,500	Timber Permits1979-80	Herb Shaw & Son Ltd., 31 Sharon Street, Pembroke, Ontario	4,560	Tender1979-80	Zigmund Biloskie, Wilno, Ontario	187,933.	Tender1979-80	Hector Clouthier & Son, 245 Golf Course Road, Pembroke, Ontario	188.272	Tender1979-80	Marcel Cronier Ltd., R.R. 6-B Line, Pembroke, Ontario	1,000	Tender1979-80	Thomas J. Scott, St. Marjorique, Compte Gaspe, Quebec	4,500	Tender1979-80	Seaway Tree Removal, R.R. No. 3, Jasper, Ontario	565	Sole Source1979-80	Robert W. Laming, Box 105, Portland, Ontario	630	Tender1979-80	H. Mirasty, Little Red River Reserve, Saskatchewan	17,500	Tender1979-80	Chlorox of Canada, Industrial Park, N.B.	2,000	Timber Permits1980-81	Jean Yves Cabot, Gaspe, Compte Gaspe, Quebec	2,650	Tender1980-81	Vince Lepage, Case Postale 36, Pont Aniale, Compte Gaspe, Quebec	36,987	Tender1980-81	Moffatt Tree Removal, Preston, Ontario	700	Sole Source1980-81	John Beck Construction, P.O. Box 1244, Wood Street, Prescott, Ontario	800	Sole Source1980-81	Robert W. Laming, Box 105, Portland, Ontario	515	Tender1980-81	H. Mirasty, Little Red River Reserve, Saskatchewan	9,000	Tender1980-81	Chlorox of Canada, Industrial Park, Minto, N.B.	288	Timber Permits1980-81	Marcel Cronier, R.R. 6-B Line, Pembroke, Ontario	2,275	Tender
* In the case of the Rolling River Indian Band, other suppliers were unable to provide the required quantity of wood so this contract was awarded without tender.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) To the knowledge of the government, what were the names and sources of funds of the organizations involved in the demonstrations on Parliament Hill during the visit of the President of the United States (b) were any foreign powers involved and, if so, which powers (c) was the Communist Party of Canada and the demonstrators and, if so, was there any evidence that their activities were financed from abroad?
2.	Did some of the demonstrators enter Canada from Ogdensburg, New York through the constituency of Leeds-Grenville and, if so (a) what did they state as their point of origin (b) what reason did they give for entering Canada?
3.	Does the government have any information as to how some 2,000 persons could find the time to perform such a highly organized demonstration?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission and the Ministry of the Solicitor General as follows:
1.	(a) The names of organizations known to have been involved in the demonstrations on Parliament Hill during the visit of the President of the United States are as follows:
Canada-El Salvador Solidarity Committee Workers' Communist Party (Marxist/Leninist)
En Lutte
Socialiste des travailleurs
Communist Party of Canada (Marxist/Leninist)
The Greenpeace Foundation
Pollution Probe Canada
Anti-Acid Rain Committee
Amnesty International
October 14, 1981

The government is not aware of the source or sources of the funds used by these organizations for the demonstration.
(b)	No foreign powers were known to be involved in the demonstrations.
(c)	The Communist Party of Canada was not known to be present during the demonstration. This organization is not identical to the other Communist parties which were represented.
2.	It is impossible for the commission to establish the number of people who may have entered Canada from Ogdensburg, New York for the purpose of participating in the demonstrations on Parliament Hill during the visit of the President of the United States.
3.	The government is not aware how the persons demonstrating found the time to do so.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	Did provincial governments make direct capital investments in port facilities operated by the National Harbours Board and, if so, what was the amount in each case?
2.	Did the province of Nova Scotia invest in the Fairview Code container terminal at Halifax and, if so (a) in what amount (b) is the government obligated to or does it intend to pay back to the province the money invested and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Was the Canadian Transport Commission advised of the intention of Canadian National Railways to invest first $7 million and then $42 million in the Cast Group after the inquiry held prior to 1979 and, if not, for what reason in each case?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1.	Yes.
Port of Saint John $25 million.
Port of Halifax $6.5 million.
2.	Yes.
(a)	$6.5 million.
(b)	No, this amount will not be repaid as the amount was a grant by the province of Nova Scotia intended to improve the viability of the over-all project. The major portion of the cost was borne by the National Harbours Board with the terminal operator being responsible for the provision of container crane and equipment.
3.	In July, 1980, CN invested $7 million in non-voting preference shares of Eurocanadian Shipholdings Ltd. In October, 1980, a second investment of $42.6 million was also made in non-voting preference shares of Eurocanadian. The non-voting status of these shares means that there was no change to CN's equity position within the Cast group. Since the requirement on CN to advise the CTC about share purchases relates only to those cases where CN's equity position is being altered, there was no reason to notify the commission of these two purchases of non-voting shares.
Order Paper Questions FEATHERBED FILE


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 23 which states in part that it is not in the public interest to provide additional information on the Featherbed file, what are the (a) names and job designations of all persons who made such a decision (b) criteria used by the government to measure whether or not something is or is not in the public interest?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: (a) and (b) This is clearly a matter of judgment by myself as it is my responsibility, as Solicitor General of Canada, to answer any question or notice of motion for the production of papers concerning my ministry.


Mr. Foster: L (a) What number of Canadian companies operated in South Africa in 1979 and in 1980 and, for each year, what were their names (b) what number are operating in 1981 and what are their names?
2.	What number issued "public reports" in (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 concerning their compliance with the government's code of conduct and, for each year, which companies did so?
3.	What number issued "public reports in sufficient detail to permit assessment of their progress in realizing the objectives of the code of conduct" in (a)
1979	(b) 1980 (c) 1981 and, for each year, which companies did so?
4.	What number met "the objectives of the code of conduct" in (a) 1979 (b)
1980	(c) 1981 and, for each year, which companies did so?
5.	In what number of companies did the minimum wage of black employees exceed "the minimum level required to meet their basic needs... by at least 50 per cent", in (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981 and, for each year, which companies did so?
6.	Did the government take, or does it propose to take, action to ensure that Canadian companies operating in South Africa realize "the objectives of the code of conduct" and, if so, what is such action?
7.	Is the Canadian Embassy in South Africa responsible for following developments closely and for reporting on the extent of compliance of the companies with the Code?
8.	Does the government propose to take action to strengthen the provisions with respect to implementation and publicity in the Code or at least to bring the provisions into line with codes of conduct adopted for other western companies operating in South Africa and, if so, what is such action?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1 and 2. The Department of External Affairs does not maintain regular and comprehensive records of Canadian companies operating in South Africa. The code of conduct was sent to the companies listed below, a number of which may not have had operations in South Africa in 1979, 1980 or 1981 and one company has indicated that it is not a Canadian company.
1.	Albany Canada Ltd.
2.	Alcan Ltd.
3.	Arndt-Palmer Laboratories Ltd.
4.	Barringer Research Ltd.
5.	Bata Ltd.
6.	Bayer Foreign Investments Ltd.
7.	Boyles Ltd. (Dresser Industries Ltd.)
8.	Canada Wire and Cable Ltd.

October 14, 1981
Order Paper Questions
9.	Canadian Longyear Ltd.
10.	Cominco Ltd.
11.	Convexco Ltd.
12.	DelCan Ltd.
13.	Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd.
14.	Ford Motor Co. Ltd.
15.	G.T. Fulford Co. Ltd.
16.	Geoterrex Ltd.
17.	Inco Ltd.
18.	Laurasia Resources Ltd.
19.	Massey-Ferguson Ltd.
20.	MacLean Hunter Ltd.
21.	Moore Corporation Ltd.
22.	Quebec Iron and Titanium Ltd.
23.	Reed Stenhouse Ltd.
24.	Rio Algom Ltd.
25.	Scientrex Ltd.
26.	Tapecrete Ltd.
27.	Texas Gulf Ltd.
28.	Thomson Newspapers Ltd.
29.	George Weston Ltd.
The following companies have indicated that they do not have or no longer have substantive South African subsidiaries or that they have no managerial control over their South African affiliates:
1.	Albany Canada Ltd.
2.	Arndt-Palmer Laboratories Ltd.
3.	Boyles Ltd.
4.	Canada Wire and Cable Ltd.
5.	Canadian Longyear Ltd.
6.	DeLCan Ltd.
7.	Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd.
8.	G.T. Fulford Co. Ltd.
9.	Geoterrex Ltd.
10.	Laurasis Resources Ltd.
11.	MacLean Hunter Ltd.
12.	Quebec Iron and Titanium Ltd.
13.	Rio Algom Ltd.
14.	Scintrex Ltd.
15.	Tapecrete Ltd.
16.	Thomson Newspapers Ltd.
17.	George Weston Ltd.
The following company has indicated that it is not a Canadian company:
1.	Texas Gulf Ltd.
The following companies have issued public reports for 1979 on their implementation of the code of conduct.
1.	Alcan Ltd.
2.	Bayer Foreign Investments Ltd.
3.	Ford Motor Co. Ltd.
4.	Inco Ltd.
5.	Massey-Ferguson Ltd.
6.	Quebec Iron and Titanium Ltd.
The following companies have issued public reports for 1980 on their implementation of the code of conduct.
1.	Alcan Ltd.
2.	Bayer Foreign Investments Ltd.
3.	Ford Motor Co. Ltd.
4.	Inco Ltd.
5.	Massey-Ferguson Ltd.
The following company has issued a public report for 1981 on its implementation of the Code of Conduct.
1.	Alcan Ltd.
The following companies have stated that they have taken note of the standards outlined in the code, but have not issued public reports:
1.	Bata Ltd.
2.	Cominco Ltd.
3.	Laurasia Resources Ltd.
4.	Reed Stenhouse Ltd.
3,	4 and 5. With respect to questions Nos. 3, 4 and 5, the annual public reports which the government believes should be made by companies on their implementation of the code of conduct are intended to provide pertinent information to interested Canadians. The extent of progress in realizing the objectives of the code is a matter for their (interested Canadians) judgment.
6,	7 and 8. In response to questions Nos. 6, 7 and 8, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has each year drawn the existence of the code and its provisions to the attention of Canadian companies which may be operating in South Africa, and has encouraged the issuance of annual public reports. The operation of the code is under review in the light of the experience gained to date.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	Is Cultures Canada a publication of the multiculturalism directorate of the Department of the Secretary of State and, if so (a) how often is it issued (b) what number of man-hours are allotted to the publication (c) what is the total cost per issue and what is the unit cost per issue (d) how many copies are printed per issue and to whom are they distributed?
2.	(a) What is the name of the printer and what is the cost of printing per issue, including paper costs (b) is the publication printed externally and, if so, are public tenders called for design and printing?
October 14, 1981


David P. Smith: I am informed by the multiculturalism directorate and the Department of Supply and Services as follows:
1.	Yes, Cultures Canada is a publication of the multiculturalism directorate of the Department of the Secretary of State.
(a)	Ten issues per year.
(b)	One quarter person-year is allocated to the publication by the multiculturalism directorate. The amount of time involved in printing is not known as suppliers do not include this information in their bids.
(c)	The average total cost per issue is $3,422. This includes the costs for the original rough designs, writing, editing, layout, markups, final artwork, typesetting and the printing charges by the Department of Supply and Services. The unit cost per issue is 57 cents.
(d)	Six thousand copies per issue of Cultures Canada are printed. They are distributed to ethnic organizations, libraries, Members of Parliament, educational institutions related to multiculturalism and private individuals who have requested the newsletter.
Issue No.	Printer	Cost1	See reply to question No. 1,049 answered October 6, 1980	$ 981.002	Canadian Government Printing Office Main Plant	1,163.913	National Printers (Ottawa)	1,153.334	National Printers (Ottawa)	1,128.485	National Printers (Ottawa)	1,145.926	Lowe-Martin (Ottawa)	995.497	Lowe-Martin (Ottawa)	997.757	Lowe-Martin	976.62(Reprint)	(Ottawa)	8	Lowe-Martin (Ottawa)	962.489	Lowe-Martin (Ottawa)	959.9210	Lowe-Martin (Ottawa)	905.72(b)	Issues Nos. 3 to 10 were printed externally and tenders were called in all cases except for Issues Nos. 4 and 5. This requirement was negotiated with the previous printer because of a short lead time of two days requested by the Department of the Secretary of State.
Order Paper Questions
See also question No. 1,049, answered October 6, 1980.
The Department of Supply and Services (CGPO) did not contract for the design of any of these issues, however, the rough designs were acquired by the Department of the Secretary of State by means of a letter of agreement with Communications Consultants Ltd. for a cost of $775.


Mr. McKnight: For the past two years to date, what percentage of the total cost incurred with respect to the filing and processing of the application regarding the fuel tax rebate for farmers was administrative?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: For the two years ending April 10, 1981, the cost of filing and processing the application for refund of excise gasoline tax for farmers in estimated at 0.85 per cent of the total cost for fefund of excise gasoline tax for farmers.


Mr. Cossitt: Since the government instituted a review as to whether or not the Taschereau papers on national security should be released for public view, will it reconsider its refusal to make public the Featherbed File and, if so, will some person or persons be appointed to review the matter and report to Parliament?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The hon. member is referred, inter alia, to question No. 22 answered March 4, 1981; question No. 23 answered April 7, 1981; questions Nos. 24 and 26 answered July 18, 1980; question No. 25 answered January 12, 1981; question No. 100 answered June 26, 1980; and question No. 1,334 answered January 21, 1981.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	With reference to the answer to question No. 2,021 (a) what is the total amount held by the government in trust for treaty Indians and is the trust fund broken down on a band basis (b) is the money spent on behalf of status Indians who may be band members or is it spent on behalf of treaty Indians?
2.	Is the government using treaty money to support the activities of Indians who are only status Indians and, if so, on what basis is the government using the treaty funds?
3.	If treaty trust funds are maintained for individual bands, which members of the bands are entitled to benefit from the funds?
4.	Does the government use treaty trust funds resulting from the sale of treaty lands other than for the benefit exclusively of treaty Indians and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Parts 1, 2, 3 and 4.
As stated in the reply to question No. 2021, answered on April 9, 1981, trust funds are maintained for individual Indian bands rather than on the basis of treaties. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has no record of a treaty trust fund and no accounts known as treaty trust funds.

October 14, 1981
Order Paper Questions URANIUM TRIOXIDE REFINERY


Mr. Blaikie: 1.	Did the Department of National Health and Welfare participate in the Atomic Energy Control Board Review of the proposed uranium trioxide refinery at Blind River and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, did the department confirm AECB's decision to give site approval for the refinery?
2.	Was the proposal reviewed by the Radiation Protection Bureau of the Department and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Is it government policy to grant site approvals in cases such as this without review by the radiation protection bureau?


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1 and 2. The radiation protection bureau of the Department of National Health and Welfare reviewed the original proposal for a uranium hexafluoride refinery at Blind River. The views of the bureau were presented at public hearings. The bureau has reviewed the new proposal for a uranium trioxide refinery at Blind River. This review will be sent to the Atomic Energy Control Board in June 1981.
3.	The Department of National Health and Welfare acts as the principal, though not exclusive, health adviser to the Atomic Energy Board. This is an advisory role to the board.


Mr. Young: 1.	What is the base purchase of manpower seats in ESL (English as a second language) at George Brown College for 1981?
2.	What are the supplementary purchases in ESL at the college?
3.	What are the policies concerning sponsored immigrants and manpower training in ESL seats?
4.	Was there a reduction in the number of seats purchased for 1981 in upgrading at the college?
5.	Is there a change in policy of manpower retraining concerning upgrading and, if so, what is the change?
6.	Is there an indication of the base and/or supplemental purchases in ESL for 1982?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1. 500 for fiscal year 1981-82.
2.	60 as of May 12, 1981.
3.	Second language courses are offered by the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission to immigrants who need this kind of assistance to remove the employment barrier which impedes their job search efforts. Training allowances are paid only to immigrants in the "independent" category and to government-sponsored refugees who are either convention refugees, members of a designated class or holders of a minister's permit.
4.	Yes: 37 less in academic upgrading courses for fiscal year 1981-82.
5.	Since April 1, 1981, lower level upgrading courses (below grade 7) are no longer purchased by the commission. Trainees in educational upgrading courses must now be either 21 years of age or over, or have been away from school for at least two or three years according to the eligibility criteria that have been adopted in each province. More emphasis is now placed
on the usefulness of upgrading in a client's career development plan. The volume of higher level upgrading course purchases must be directly related to the number of planned training places in skill courses with a grade 11 or 12 prerequisite.
6.	No. It is too soon to estimate purchases for fiscal year 1982-83.


Mr. Neil: How many personal staff members are employed by the Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board) and, in each case (a) what is his/her name, office location and salary (b) what are his/her duties?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board) exempt staff on May 12 was as follows:
(a)	and (b)
Albert Chambers, executive assistant, salary up to $35,000
25th floor, Tower "C", Place de Ville
Paul Brettle, special assistant (press relations), salary
up to $30,000
25th floor, Tower "C", Place de Ville.
Bob Lyster, special assistant, salary up to $30,000 suite 205, 222-13th Ave., Regina, Saskatchewan Mrs. Gail Ladouceur, a/private secretary, salary up to $23,000
room 185-S, The Senate
Mrs. Dorothy Donnelly, secretary, salary up to $14,900 suite 205, 2222-13th Ave., Regina, Saskatchewan


Mr. Murphy: 1.	What was the amount of grants that the government committed to the Sydney Steel Corporation (Sysco) for each year 1968 to date?
2.	What was the amount of loans guaranteed or non-guaranteed granted to the corporation since 1968?


Pierre De Bané: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
Amounts of grants committed to Sysco for each year 1968
(1) Amounts paid under the regional industrial incentives
1972-73	$ 2,015,025
1973-74	1,752,706
1974-75	941,933
1975-76	-
1976-77	765,950
1977-78	6,000,000
1978-79	245,999 S 11,721,613
October 14, 1981

Sydney Steel Corporation assistance program
1977-78	$ 4,436,000
1978-79	8,976,000
1979-80	1,717,000
	$ 15,129,000
Planning Sub-Agreement (2 Sysco studies)
1976- 77	$	38,140
1977- 78	74,850
$	112,990
Industrial Development Sub-Agreement (Sysco capital repair)
1979-	80
1980-	81
$	138,000 (Maximum DREE commitment
3,645,000 to Sysco under this
sub-agreement is 56,000,000)


[Stage Direction]
Sysco 11
Federal share committed $77 million
2.	No loans have been guaranteed or non-guaranteed by DREE.
Mr. Murphy: What was the total amount, by year and general totals, expended by the government on the Cape Breton Development Corporation (Devco) in terms of (a) capital funds (b) funds to recover loss (c) total funds for pre-retirement leave and pensions?


Pierre De Bané: I am informed by the Cape Breton Development Corporation that the response is as follows:
Period
(b)	(a)	(c)
Pensions
Coal	Coal	Industrial	Funding.Losses	Capital	Development	P.R.L.
(I)

Nine months ending	17,100	25,000	20,000	886
December 31, 1968				
Year ending Dec. 31/69	21,935	2,762Year ending Dec. 31/70	25,778	4,522Year ending Dec. 31/71	28,830	5,630Year ending Dec. 31 /72	32,625	9,459	6,545Year ending Dec. 31/73	30,434	1,966	7,000	7,005Three months ending Mar.	5,464	4,939	1,79031,1974	Year ending Mar. 31/75	28,927	22,265	8.660	8,324Year ending Mar. 31/76	13,941	27,777	5,096	9,520Year ending Mar. 31/77	25,540	27,100	4,785	11,238Year ending Mar. 31/78	21,976	14,476	7,340	13,364Year ending Mar. 31 /79	10,726	26,105	7,312	14,309Year ending Mar. 31 /80	13,980(2)	34,611	7,835	15,926Year ending Mar. 31/81	5,677	60,442	8,225	17,707$282,933	$254,140	$76,253	$119,528
Order Paper Questions
Total funds provided to corporation 1968 to March 31, 1981:
Coal losses	$282,933,000
Coal capital	254,140,000
Industrial development	76,253,000


[Stage Direction]
(1)	Pension payments, pension funding payments and preretirement leave, are included in the coal loss vote and as such as included in the figures appearing under coal losses above as well as in the separate column for these amounts.
(2)	The net funding requirements to cover the coal loss for the year ending March 31, 1980, were actually voted through supplementary estimates (B) for the year ending March 31, 1981.
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	By province, what is the estimated number of persons or limited family companies that engage in all forms of agriculture and what is the estimated percentage of those who pay income tax?
2.	In the last year for which figures are available, were there more investigations and/or prosecutions for non-payment of income tax in any two particular provinces and, if so, which provinces and what was the number of investigations and/or prosecutions?
Mr. Claude Tessier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of National Revenue): 1. The number of taxfilers who reported any income (or loss) from farming and the percentage who paid taxes for 1979 (latest year available) is as follows:
Persons Engaged in Agriculture
Number Who	Per Cent of
Number	Paid Taxes	TotalNewfoundland	496	313	63.1Prince Edward Island	3,426	2,275	66.4Nova Scotia	5,685	4,159	73.2New Brunswick	4,312	2,891	67.0Quebec	46,412	20,831	44.9Ontario	115,767	71,629	61.9Manitoba	43,357	23,275	53.7Saskatchewan	93.372	63,476	68.0Alberta	89,023	59,306	66.6British Columbia	26,951	20,049	74.4Others*	550	358	65.1Canada	429,351	268,562	62.3
* Others includes Yukon, Northwest Territories and non-residents who reported farming income.
2.	In the fiscal year 1980/81, the two provinces which had more investigations and/or prosecutions for fraudulent nonpayment of income taxes were Quebec and Ontario. The numbers are as follows:
Quebec
Ontario
All Canada
Number of Investigations
116
Number of Prosecutions
69
158

Order Paper Questions DEFENCE INDUSTRY PRODUCTIVITY PROGRAM
October 14, 1981

Question No. 2,487-


Mr. Forrestall:: For each of the past five years under the defence industry productivity program (a) how many companies received funding and how many repaid the funding (b) what was the amount paid to companies and what was the amount repaid by companies?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned:
DIP Funding ($ millions)
No. of	Vote 10	No. of	Vote L-30	Total ContributionsYear	Companies	Contribution	Companies	Loans	and Loans1976/77	63	$44.9	38	$5.5	$50.41977/78	53	43.2	33	4.3	47.51978/79	68	52.2	45	6.0	58.21979/80	87	57.9	61	14.2	71.81980/81	68	94.9	44	21.4	116.3DIP repayments	No. of	No. of	Year	Companies	Contributions	Companies	Loans	Total Repayments1976/77	6	$ 398,558.28	153	$5,860,488.88	$ 6,259,047.161977/78	6	2,930,570.52	128	4,792,362.68	7,722,933.201978/79	4	3,260,052.10	126	5,037,626.50	8,297,678.601979/80	4	605,566.30	158	5,697,811.15	6,303,377.451980/81	4	6,121,897.00	120	5,907,721.89	12,029,618.89
Loans by definition are repayable, these loans are interest free. Contributions up to 50 per cent of project costs are repayable only when profits are deemed to be above fair and reasonable. Any contributions beyond 50 per cent of project costs are repayable on a formula basis. Hence, loan repayments normally exceed contribution repayments.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	Did Graphic Realm Ltd. receive $148,552 from the Department of Justice for the provision of saddle-stitched booklets and, if so, what was the (a) title of the booklet (b) cost per booklet (c) number printed?
2.	To whom were the booklets distributed?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of Justice and Supply and Services as follows: DSS awarded a contract, on behalf of the Department of Justice, to Graphic Realm Ltd., for an amount of $148,552. Due to amendments to the number of pages and the increase in quantity the value of the contract increased to $217,718.80.
(a)
Title of booklets
(b)
Cost per booklet
(c) .
Number printed
The Working Person Small Business
30.4 cents	306,000
40.7 cents	306,000
2.	The booklets are distributed, on request, to individuals, groups, associations, and through Canadian Unity Information Office travelling exhibitions.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	Did McLaren, Morris and Todd Ltd. receive $81,383 from the Department of Justice for folders and, if so, what was the (a) nature of the folder (b) cost per folder?
2.	How were the folders utilized?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of Justice and Supply and Services as follows: On behalf of the Department of Justice, DSS awarded a contract to McLaren, Morris & Todd Ltd. for the amount of $81,383, covering four folders. Due to an increase in quantities, the value of the contract increased to $87,968.99.
1.	(a) Nature of folders
1	Our Country
2	Our Natural Wealth
3	Hidden Treasures
4	Opportunities and Challenges
(b)	Cost per folder 6.84 cents.
2.	The folders are distributed, on request, to individuals, groups, schools, organizations, and through the Canadian Unity Information Office travelling exhibitions.


Mr. Stewart: 1.	Did Imprimerie Canadian Gazette receive $67,103 from the Department of Justice for saddle-stitched booklets and, if so, what was the (a) title of the booklet (b) cost per booklet (c) number printed?
2.	To whom were the booklets distributed?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of Justice and Supply and Services as follows: DSS awarded a contract, on behalf of the Department of Justice, to Imprimerie Canadian Gazette for the amount of $67,103 for saddle-stitched booklets. Due to the result of additional pages and overtime, the value of the contract increased to $85,386.49.
1.	(a) Title of the booklet-The Senior Citizen;
(b)	Cost per booklet-27.9 cents;
(c)	Number printed 305,835.
2.	The booklets are distributed, on request, to individuals, groups, organizations, and through the Canadian Unity Information Office travelling exhibitions.
October 14, 1981


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Were arrangements made to sell the moveable assets of the Trident Aircraft Company of Sidney, British Columbia and, if so, on whose instructions?
2.	(a) What organization was put in charge of the disposal (b) did the firm have experience in winding up aircraft production enterprises and, if not. on what criteria was it chosen?
3.	(a) What value was placed on the machinery, machine tools and material inventory to be liquidated (b) did the assessors have access to the records of purchase to evaluate the stock (c) what amount was realized from the liquidation sale?
4.	Were arrangements made between federal and provincial authorities to divide the proceeds of the liquidation of the company and, if so (a) what were they (b) what amount was returned to the federal treasury and what amount to the provincial treasury?
5.	What amount was paid to the auction company that conducted the sale?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. Yes, with the exception of the aircraft, tooling and documents necessary to manufacture the Trigull aircraft (the "production package"), and two large pieces of production equipment. Agreement was obtained between Trident, British Columbia Development Corporation and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The production package is held at Sidney, B.C., while efforts continue to locate a company capable of putting the Trigull into production on a sound commercial basis.
2.	(a) Maynards Industrial Auctioneers.
(b) The firm was not commissioned with the winding-up of Trident Aircraft Limited. Maynards is experienced in the disposing of machine tools and materials with which it was contracted to do.
3.	(a) The estimated value of equipment to be disposed of
(i.e. excluding the production package) was $200,000 to $300,000.
(b)	Yes.
(c)	All items have not been sold as yet.
4: (a) The federal government has first call on proceeds subject to B.C. law.
(b) The federal government has received $75,000 to date. The provincial government has received nothing.
5.	No payment has yet been made to Maynards. The company's standard charges will apply, 12 per cent.


Mr. Oberle: 1.	What residual functions do the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation provincial directors for British Columbia/Yukon and Alberta/Northwest Territories have in the housing activity of the two territories?
2.	How many housing units were produced or rehabilitated in 1979 and 1980 in the (a) Yukon Territory (b) Northwest Territories under (i) section 15.1, private and non-profit (ii) section 40, rural and native housing (iii) section 34.1,
Order Paper Questions
urban rehabilitation (iv) section 34.1, rural rehabilitation, of the National Housing Act?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am advised by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. None.
2. The NHA activities in the two territories are as follows:
		(a) Yukon Territory Units	(b) Northwest Territories Units
		1979 1979	1979 1980
(0 (H) (iii) (iv)	Section 15.1 Section 40 Section 34.1 (urban) Section 34.1 (rural)	mi INI	2 4 34 -


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	(a) What is the distribution of customs postal stations throughout Canada (b) what are the criteria for establishing the stations?
2.	How does the distribution in Mississauga, Ontario compare to the national average in terms of (a) number of persons served per station (b) distance of the station from the persons served for communities with a population of 25,000 or more?


Bill Rompkey: 1.	(a) There are 231 customs postal stations throughout
Canada. The distribution of these stations by province is as follows: Newfoundland, 15; P.E.I., 3; Nova Scotia, 20; New Brunswick, 20; Quebec, 55; Ontario, 77; Manitoba, 3; Saskatchewan, 9; Alberta, 5; B.C., 21; Yukon, 2; N.W.T., 1.
(b) Customs postal stations are established when there is sufficient public demand to warrant separate facilities, keeping in view the need to provide for the maximum utilization of limited staff resources. In this regard, Customs postal stations are normally provided from offices which serve other modes of transport as well as postal.
2.	(a) There is an average of approximately 100,000
people served per customs postal station. The west Toronto customs postal station serves those communities in west Toronto as well as Mississauga which comprises approximately 750,000 people.
(b) As per the Canada Gazetteer Atlas, 1980, there are 124 communities in Canada having a population of 25,000 or greater. There are 68 of these communities served by customs postal stations located within the "core" area. It is estimated that the majority of the people in these communities live within 10 kilometres of the customs postal station. The remaining 56 communities are served by customs postal stations located outside their "core" areas. The majority of the people in these communities, on the average, live approximately 15 kilometres from

October 14, 1981
Order Paper Questions
a customs postal station. The majority of the people in Mississauga live approximately 13 kilometres from the customs postal station at 330 Keele St.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past five years, did the government or any of its corporations or agencies make a contribution to the Centaur Theatre in Montreal and, if so, for what amount?
2.	For the same period, to the knowledge of the government, what amount was contributed by the government of Quebec?


Francis Fox: 1. Financial assistance from the Secretary of State Department to the Centaur Theatre in Montreal:
1975:	$500,000 capital assistance
1.	I am informed by the Canada Council as follows: Grants to the Centaur Theatre in Montreal:
1975-76	$140,000
1976-77	167,500
1977-78	175,000
1978-79	190,000
1979-80	210,000
1.	I am informed by the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, the Public Archives, the National Library, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, the National Film Board, the National Arts Centre, Teleglobe Canada, the National Museums and the Canadian Film Development Corporation, as follows: No.
2.	This information should be sought from the government of Quebec.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the lieutenant governor of each province, what amount was contributed by the government in each of the past three years and what amount is projected for this year for his/her salary, allowance or anything else?
2.	Are some provinces awarded considerably larger sums than others and, if so, for what reason?
3.	Does the lieutenant governor of Quebec receive the highest figure and, if so, for what reason?


Francis Fox: 1.	(a) The annual salary of the lieutenant governors is $35,000 as laid down in 1975 by chapter 56 of the Statutes of Canada, 1975.
(b)	(i) Allowances for expenses incurred in the provincial capitals:
1978-79	1979-80	1980-81	1981-82Nfid.	$12,000	$12,000	$12,000	$13,000P.E.l.	10,000	10,000	10,000	11,000N.S.	12,000	12,000	12,000	13,000N.B.	12,000	12.000	12,000	13,000Que.	18,000	18,000	18,000	20,000Ont.	18,000	18,000	18,000	20,000Man.	15.000	15,000	15,000	17,000Sask.	15,000	15,000	15,000	17,000Alta.	15,000	15,000	15.000	17,000B.C.	18,000	18,000	18,000	20,000
(ii) Allowances for travel expenses and the cost of receptions outside the provincial capitals (the sum of $120,000 is provided in the budget and this is divided according to estimates submitted by the lieutenant governors):
1978-79	1979-80	1980-81	1981-82paid	paid	paid	paidNfld.	$22,077	$22,077	$ 9,109	$15,000P.E.l.	8,599	2,142	5,920	5,000N.S.	5,295	6,650	5,934	8,000N.B.	16.808	5.396	5,602	7.000Que.	14,281	6,245	14,559	15.000Ont.	26,757	18.211	16,465	20,000Man.	9,590	8.188	10,945	10,000Sask.	18,862	12,731	13,436	15,000Alta.	8,030	3.358	3,857	8,000B.C.	16,449	13,265	11,845	15,0002.	The above tables show the amounts received from federal government. The provinces make contributions for their lieutenant governors, notably for staff, office, official residence and car. These contributions vary from province to province.3.	See paragraph 2.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	When the Department of National Revenue sends out a notice of reassessment to a taxpayer showing an additional amount owing above what was paid, is interest charged from the date of the notice of reassessment and, if so, for what reason?
2.	Does the department take into account the time it takes for the notice to reach a taxpayer by mail and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Does the department take into account the time it takes for the payment to reach the department from the taxpayer by mail even if it is returned immediately and, if not (a) for what reason (b) is extra interest being charged as a result of circumstances beyond the control of the taxpayer and will the government take steps to change the situation?


Bill Rompkey: 1.
Yes. In addition, interest is charged from the expiration of the time for filing the return of income to the date of reassessment as prescribed under section 161 of the Income Tax Act.
2.	Yes.
3.	When a notice of assessment or reassessment is issued, interest is calculated to the date of the notice. Provided payment in full is received within 30 days of the date of the notice no further interest is charged.
October 14, 1981


Mr. McKinnon: 
Bill Rompkey: 
Mr. McKinnon: Will the RCMP "E" Division headquarters be moved from Victoria to Vancouver and, if so (a) how many persons now working in Victoria will have their positions moved to Vancouver (b) for those employees who decide to move, who will absorb the additional expenses including (i) the differential in housing prices between the Vancouver and Victoria areas (ii) increased interest costs resulting from those obliged to accept new mortgages for Vancouver homes (iii) removal expenses (c) was a poll taken among those persons employed in Victoria to determine how many would not move to Vancouver even though their positions were transferred (d) did the RCMP and the Solicitor General authorize the move with no idea of the costs involved?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Yes.
(a)	195.
(b)	Government funding will be provided in accordance with Treasury Board relocation directive.
(i) and (ii) Treasury Board relocation directive does not make provision for government funding of such expenses.
(iii) Government funding will be provided for removal expenses in accordance with Treasury Board relocation directive.
Order Paper Questions
(c)	Yes.
(d)	No.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): 1.	Did the government renew or attempt to renew discussions with the government of the United Kingdom with a view to convincing that government to reconsider its policy of refusing to index the pensions of British pensioners after they take up residence in Canada?
2.	Is it the present policy of the government to pay to Canadians born in other countries only one-fortieth of the old age security pension for every year of residence in Canada, with a ten-year minimum qualification period, and, if so, has the government considered an alternative to the policy?
3.	Does the government consider Canadians of British origin are left without an adequate pension from either the United Kingdom or Canada?


Royce Herbert Frith: 1. The minister has
approached the government of the United Kingdom about this issue on more than one occasion. On January 9, 1978, following the exchange of a number of notes, the minister met in London with the Hon. David Ennals, then British secretary of state for social services. No tangible results were effected. (Prior to this meeting, the Hon. Marc Lalonde had discussed the subject with Mr. Ennals in April, 1977, and on two separate occasions in June, 1977, and December, 1978, the Prime Minister drew the attention of his British colleague to this issue). On October 22, 1980, the minister met with the Hon. Patrick Jenkin, secretary of state for social services, in London. The first subject raised was the possibility of there being a reciprocal social security agreement of the standard type between Canada and the United Kingdom, which would ensure the indexing of pensions paid by the United Kingdom to beneficiaries residing in Canada. Mr. Jenkin indicated ways by which he has had to cut social expenditures in the United Kingdom. He then stated categorically that it would not be possible for the United Kingdom to contemplate any new agreements, and that there was no possibility at all for an agreement between the two countries in the foreseeable future. Since then, there has been no change in the attitude of the British authorities.
2.	The Old Age Security Act stipulates that a person who was under 25 years of age on July 1, 1977, or who was over 25 on that date but had no prior residence in Canada after his or her 18th birthday, would earn the right to an old age security pension at the rate of 1 /40th for each complete year of residence in Canada after age 18, subject to a minimum of 10 years for payment in Canada and 20 years for payment abroad.
3.	All benefits paid under Canadian legislation are paid in accordance with that legislation and are not based on citizenship. In the case of the Old Age Security Act, benefits are paid on the basis of residence in Canada and are the same for all beneficiaries. In the case of the Canada Pension Plan, benefits are paid in accordance with contributions made. The government regrets that the government of the United Kingdom does not index its benefits paid to U.K. citizens living in Canada.

October 14, 1981
Order Paper Questions
However, this is the prerogative of the government of the United Kingdom.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Were consultants provided by the Bureau of Management Consulting to the Canadian International Development Agency from April 1, 1978 to date and, if so, by Fiscal year (a) how many (b) what amount was paid for their services?
2.	Does the use of the bureau circumvent the normal consultant approval procedures within CIDA or the government consultant approval procedures set out by the Treasury Board?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. From April 1, 1978, to date the Bureau of Management Consulting, in accordance with the mandate of the Department of Supply and Services to provide management consulting services on the request of departments, provided consultants to CIDA to work on fifteen different projects in five different branches of the agency. The number of individual consultants who worked for varying lengths of time on these projects, and the amount paid for their services, are expressed below:
Fiscal Year
1978-79	1979-80	1980-81	(April & May) 1981-82(a) No. of consultants	66	55	89	59(b) Amount paid	$2,552,000	$1,971,000	$3,056,000	$471,0002.	The use of consultants from or through the Bureau of Management Consulting does not require approval from the Treasury Board. The use of consultants from or through the Bureau of Management Consulting is subject to the consultant approval procedures within CIDA.


Mr. Howie: How many full-time employees were on the staff of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as of April 1 (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981?


Pierre De Bané: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
(a)	1,933;
(b)	1,879;
(c)	1,945.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Is the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, under the defence industry productivity program, contributing to CAE Electronics Ltd. 50 per cent of the non-recurring unrecovered development costs associated with the production of a Boeing B757 simulator, a Boeing B767 simulator, an Airbus A310 simulator, and an Airbus A300 simulator to a total of $4,607,666 and, if so, to
the knowledge of the government, did the company identify a potential or existing market for the simulators?
2.	Does the company expect a certain future sales value for the products and, if so, what is that value?
3.	Does the company have any firm contracts for the simulators and, if so, with whom?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1. As stated in reply to question No. 2,508 on June 4, 1981, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is contributing to the development of simulators. Contributions are being made to CAE Electronics Ltd., Montreal, Quebec and total $4,607,666. Identification of potential export markets is a requirement for DIPP contributions.
2.	The company expects a certain future sales value of $118.5 million for these simulators. Additionally, a potential market exists for these products of up to $820 million.
3.	The company has firm contracts totalling $53.4 million for these simulators with the following airlines:
United Airlines, U.S.A.
TOA Domestic Airlines, Japan Singapore International Airlines Lufthansa German Airlines, FRG Eastern Airlines, U.S.A.
British Airlines, U.K.
Air Canada


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Prime Minister recently obtain a new desk for his office at a cost of approximately $2,500 to be paid for by the government?
2.	Was the desk constructed of limestone and, if so, did the limestone come from the area of Cambridge, Ontario?
3.	Were other areas where limestone could be obtained given consideration?
4.	Was consideration given to the large quantities of limestone available in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville and, if so, was it not selected on the grounds that (a) it possibly would be "bugged" (b) it possibly would be treated with a harmful substance or in any other way dangerous to the welfare of prime ministers?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1. The
desk has not been received as yet. However, the approximate price of the limestone ordered and cut, is $2,500. The labour to finish it and the installation is extra to the basic cost.
2.	Yes, the desk is Amable Limestone from the area of Cambridge, Ontario.
3.	Yes, a province wide search was made for the most suitable limestone.
4.	Successive editions of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms make it clear that "A question, oral or written must not be ironical, rhetorical, offensive, or contain epithet, innuendo, satire or ridicule ... be trivial, vague or meaningless ... be hypothetical... contain inferences . . . contain imputations ..." and even if the authorities of the House
October 14, 1981

permit such questions to be put down, the government will not answer them.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Will a new virus laboratory be constructed by the Department of Public Works in Ottawa and, if so (a) what will be the exact location (b) on what date will construction begin (c) what will be the nearest residential communities and the distance between each community and the laboratory (d) are there public health considerations and, if so, how will they be met?


Paul James Cosgrove: The
Department of Agriculture has identified a requirement for an animal virus laboratory, and has been discussing its provision with the Department of Public Works. However, no final decision has been taken yet on the location of this facility: Ottawa or some other city.
"LAND/TERRE" NEWSLETTERS


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of the Environment pay $48,000 to J. Phillip Nicholson, Ottawa, for four Lands Directorate newsletters and, if so (a) what is the newsletter (b) what was the number distributed (c) to whom was it distributed (d) what services did Mr. Nicholson perform?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of the Environment and Supply and Services as follows: Yes. A contract was awarded to J. Phillip Nicholson, policy management consultant, Ottawa, Ontario, on May 7, 1981, for $48,000 for four Lands Directorate newsletters entitled "Land/Terre" in English and French.
(a)	The Land/Terre newsletter was planned as a principal source of contact between and among all professionals, academics and interest groups concerned with Canada's land resources. It has been designed to provide a national view and accounting of events, issues and discoveries at all levels across the country.
(b)	To date, there have been three issues of Land/Terre. The numbers distributed for each issue are as follows: Volume 1, No. 1: 7,000 English and 1,100 French; Volume 1, No. 2: 10,500 English and 1,800 French; and Volume 2, No. 1: 10,500 English and 2,000 French. The fourth issue was distributed in August, 1981.
(c)	The newsletter has been distributed to the following: professional planners, land managers and researchers; government officers and senior managers; municipal, provincial and federal elected representatives; non-government special interest groups; educational institutes and professionals; publishers; reporters; and private individuals.
(d)	Production of four separate 12-page English and French issues of Land/Terre (Lands Directorate Newsletter) and delivery of 10,500 English and 2,000 French copies each of the four newsletters. Included in the work is the planning of contents and stories, research-
Order Paper Questions
ing and drafting stories and articles, editing the English copy, supervising the layout design, graphic design, illustration, and production of the text; as well as execution of graphic design, illustration and layout to produce camera-ready copies.


Mr. Flis: 1.	By province, what is the number of farmers who applied to the Farm Credit Corporation for assistance and what number (a) received (b) did not receive assistance?
2.	For what reasons was the assistance refused?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Farm Credit Corporation advises: 1.
Province	Requests for loan	(a) Received loan	Process of being reviewed	Voluntarily decided not to proceed	(b) Declined by FCCB.C.	319	75	23	104	117Alta.	1441	376	157	233	675Sask.	2398	718	415	428	837Man.	821	253	115	103	350Ont.	2240	458	429	379	974Que.	1319	302	254	302	461Alt.	235	105	24	17	89
2. Principal occupation would not be farming after loan, does not qualify for phase-in loan; purpose for which loan funds were requested does not fall within FCC lending policy; loan request refused as applicant already had a viable unit or had sufficient resources to obtain financing elsewhere.


Mr. Benjamin: 1.	Did the Department of Transport or the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority investigate or prepare a report on the accident in the Cote Ste. Catherine lock at 1700, November 28, 1980 involving the Ungava Transport and the Canari and, if so, what were the findings of the investigation or report?
2.	Were there any damages and was any liability assessed?
3.	Did the department or the authority bill the owner or operator of either vessel and, if so, for what amount and what was the name of the owner or operator?
4.	To the knowledge of the government, what is the safety record of Halco and the record of its involvement in marine incidents and accidents?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. The Coast Guard and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority investigated this casualty, which occurred at 16:54 November 29 (not 28 as noted in the question), 1980. The findings of the inquiry were that the casualty was caused by an incorrect engine movement, to which the ship's staff was not alerted, due to a malfunction in the alarm equipment. The Ungava Transport could not be held by the mooring wires and continued ahead, being stopped when the bow struck the lock breast wall. The yacht Canari ahead of the tanker in the lock, was struck in the stern and then was swept aside in the forward movement.

October 14, 1981
Order Paper Questions
2.	The stem of the Ungava Transport at the 12' draught mark was punched in for some two feet and the vessel holed. The yacht suffered considerable hull damage. The authority sent a formal notice to Halco, Incorporated, owners of the Ungava Transport, holding them responsible for the damages sustained by the authority, as well as the expenses incurred in helping the owner of the Canari. Neither the Coast Guard nor the Seaway authority assess liability between vessels in such cases, this being the function of the courts or insurance adjusters. Settlement is still in the course of negotiation between Halco and the owner of the yacht, Mr. John P. Harney of Picton, Ontario.
3.	The Authority will invoice Halco, Incorporated, an amount of approximately $14,000.
All Casualties Involving Hall Corporation Shipping Ltd. (Halco) Vessels Reported to Transport Canada since 1975 (inclusive)
Fire	Collision & Contact	Groundings Strikings	Other	Casualty Number Number Total Deaths Injuries	Tankers	1	3	4	2	3	13	0	0Cargo	2	4	14	5	4	29	7	4Total	3	7	18	7	7	42	7	4
The seven deaths were all involved in the Cartiercliffe Hall fire which was the subject of a public inquiry.
Many of the reported casualities are of a minor nature.
Only the more serious injuries are normally reported.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is the present limit of insurance provided by the government on bank accounts and term deposits with bank and trust companies now limited to 520,000?
2.	Is the government aware that the amount of the limit of this insurance in the United States is now $100,000?
3.	Will the government, in view of inflation and the consequent erosion of the value of the dollar, give immediate consideration to increasing such insurance coverage in Canada to the same amount as in the United States?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: In so
far as the Minister of Finance is concerned, I have been advised by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	Yes.
3.	The government is giving attention to the possibility of amendments to the CDIC Act and its policy will be announced in due course.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is a complete list and a description of all private railway cars in the custody or under the direction of the Department of Transport for use by cabinet ministers or other persons?
2.	What is a list, by categories of persons, of those entitled to use the cars?
3.	On what date did the Department of Transport acquire the cars and, in each case, on what date was the car manufactured?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. There are presently two units of private railway cars under the custody of the Department of Transport and are described as follows:
cars Nos. 1 and 2, a government-owned two-car unit primarily for the use of the Royal family and Governor General but also available for other authorized users with the Governor General's agreement, car No. 5, a single car unit with facilities to accommodate up to seven persons.
2.	Authorized users of the private railway cars are the Governor General, the Prime Minister, cabinet ministers, and commissioners of the Canadian Transport Commission.
3.	Railway cars Nos. 1 and 2 were manufactured in 1966 for acquisition by the Department of Transport in the same year. Railway car No. 5 was manufactured in 1929 and was assigned to the Department of Transport in 1967.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was railway car number 53 returned to the Canadian National Railways in Montreal from Ottawa on May 21, 1981, by direction of the Minister of Transport?
2.	Was this car used on many occasions by various cabinet ministers in the past?
3.	For what reason was the railway car returned to the CNR?
4.	Did the Department of Transport decide that it no longer wanted custody and, if so (a) for what reason (b) was the decision in any way due to the asking of questions involving the use of the railway car by cabinet ministers and was it considered to be embarrassing by the government?
5.	Will the car be replaced and, if so, by what?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. Yes.
2.	This car was used on several occasions by various cabinet ministers in the past.
3.	Surplus to anticipated future requirements.
4.	(a) See answer to part 3.
(6) No.
5.	No.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Did the Canada Mortgage and Flousing Corporation sell 577 condominium units at an average price of $20,500 on November 10, 1980, in buildings bearing municipal addresses 7170 Darcel Avenue, 7230 Darcel Avenue and 7280 Darcel Avenue, Mississauga, Ontario?
2.	(a) Was the sale made to 1641-9459 Quebec Incorporated (b) was there a loss by the corporation or by the mortgage insurance fund from the sale and, if so, in what amount?
3.	What is all the information with respect to public tenders concerning the offering of the buildings to the public?
October 14, 1981

4.	Did the same company purchase, on the open market, condominium units in the same building for between $44,000 and $47,000?
5.	What are the names of the principals behind the company that purchased the units?
6.	Was an effort made to turn over the units at the exceptionally low prices offered to the Ontario Housing Corporation or to make the units available for public housing?


Paul James Cosgrove: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: 1. CMHC sold 572 units in a project consisting of 602 units located at 7170, 7230 and 7280 Darcel Avenue, Mississauga. The project is now known as River Royal 1, 2 and 3. The basic selling price was $20,500 per unit, however, the agreement for sale provides for certain ongoing sales considerations, obligations and restrictions:
(a)	The purchaser must refund to CMHC the cost of renovating those units used for rental purposes, up to $2,000 per unit. This cost is over and above the $20,500 per unit and applies to all units leased by CMHC between the signing of the offer and the closing of the transaction.
(b)	The purchaser has agreed not to resell units for condominium ownership for a period of five years, without prior agreement from CMHC with respect to conditions and price.
(c)	The purchaser has agreed to pay CMHC 30 per cent of the difference between the approved resale price of each condominium unit and the $20,500 purchase price.
2. (a) The units were sold to three separate companies as follows:
Name of	Purchaser
7170 Darcel Avenue	1641-9459	Que.	Inc.7230 Darcel Avenue	1641-9467	Que.	Inc.7280 Darcel Avenue	1641-9475	Que.	Inc.
These companies are designated by "Le Groupe Carrefour Limitee", the company that originally submitted the proposal.
(b) The estimated loss on final transaction could be approximately $11 million of which $5.1 million comprises interest, legal and foreclosure costs incurred in the claim settlement process. The remainder of the loss is attributable to conversion from condominium use to rental.
3.	Multiple unit projects are offered for sale to the private sector through the request for proposals (REP) technique rather than by public tender. CMHC advertises that it is placing a number of units on the market. Proposals are invited from proponents with demonstrated financial and management capability and satisfactory credit standings.
4.	The purchasers of the Darcel buildings bought 15 condominium units in the same project from in situ home owners as a condition of sale imposed by CMHC. The prices paid for
Order Paper Questions
these units reflect the investment of the unit owners rather than the current market value.
5.	The names of the principals in the three companies who purchased the project are:
(a)	Amenagements Les Boises St-Jerome Inc. (represented by Gilles Leroux)
(b)	100597 Canado Inc. (represented by P. Thompson, Jr., Maurice Mayer and James Lawdon)
(c)	Birer Realty Inc. (represented by Herman Bistricer)
(d)	Mike Carbuz
(e)	107088 Investments Ltd. (subsidiary of 3 Way Development Corporation and represented by Henri Cynamon)
6.	No. While CMHC encourages the sale of suitable market projects to private or public non-profit and co-operative organizations, it is seldom that large projects such as this one can be transferred to the social housing sector.


Mr. Herbert: Does the Department of Transport monitor the provision of services in both official languages at airports that are not administered by the Department and, if so, in what manner?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The Canadian air transportation administration's official languages program was developed and implemented at airports owned and operated by Transport Canada. Accordingly the department monitors the provision of services in both official languages at only these airports. The department does not monitor the provision of these services at airports not administered by it.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What number of air traffic controllers at the Sherbrooke airport are bilingual?
2.	Is full bilingual service to be provided at the airport and, if so, by what year is it expected all air traffic controllers will be able to operate in both official languages?
3.	Is the airport administered by the Department of Transport and, if not, who is responsible for the staffing of air traffic controller positions?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. Since air traffic control service is not provided at the airport there are no air traffic controllers stationed at Sherbrooke.
2. There are no immediate plans to construct a control tower or provide air traffic control service at the Sherbrooke airport. However, essential flight services are available at Sherbrooke from a Transport Canada flight service station staffed by fully bilingual flight service specialists.

October 14, 1981
Order Paper Questions
3.	Sherbrooke airport is owned by Transport Canada and operated by the municipality of Sherbrooke. Staffing of the flight service station is the responsibility of Transport Canada.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What number of air traffic controllers at the Ottawa airport are bilingual?
2.	Is full bilingual service to be provided at the airport and, if so, by what year is it expected all air traffic controllers will be able to operate in both official languages?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. There are five bilingual air traffic controllers at the Ottawa airport.
2. Transport Canada has no immediate plans to provide bilingual air traffic control service at the Ottawa airport.


Mr. Flis: 1.	How many individuals from Poland made application through the Vienna post of the Department of Employment and Immigration since the strike situation arose in Poland?
2.	How many of the applications were independent and how many were made under the self-exiled designate class?
3.	Was there a significant increase in the number of applications since the uprising in Poland?


Lloyd Axworthy: 1. In the 10-month period of August 1, 1980, to May 31, 1981, 590 persons listing Poland as their country of last permanent residence made application in Vienna to come to Canada.
2.	Seven of these applications were for the independent class and 583 were for the self-exiled persons designated class.
3.	Yes. In the 10-month period before August 1, 1980, there were a total of 244 applications made in Vienna.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	To the knowledge of the government, did a Mr. Richard Lidinsky give testimony before the merchant marine subcommittee of the United States House of Representatives about a "James Bond-type" company and is the company known as Canadian Air-Sea Transport North America Ltd?
2.	Is Canadian Air-Sea Transport North America Ltd. the company in which the Canadian National Railways invested more than $50 million and, if not, is it related to the Cast shipping group?
3.	Did the Cast shipping group cause container and other marine traffic to be diverted from United States ports to Canadian ports and, if so, to which ports and did the diversion result in the loss of 5,000 jobs in the United States ports, as alleged by Mr. Lidinsky?
4.	Did the Canadian ambassador to the United States or any Canadian officer send a diplomatic note to a representative of the government of the United States respecting proposed legislation to regulate maritime trade between Canada and the United States?
5.	Did the Cast shipping group sign a 15-year "sweetheart lease" in respect of facilities in the port of Montreal, as alleged by Mr. Lidinsky?
6.	Are any cabinet ministers involved in the Cast shipping group, as mentioned by Mr. Lidinsky, and, if so, what are their names?


David P. Smith: I am informed by Transport Canada, the
Department of External Affairs and the Privy Council Office as follows:
1.	Yes, it has been reported that he did refer to Cast as a "James Bond-type" company, however, that statement was not part of the written submission of Mr. Lidinsky. It was also reported that other witnesses made favourable comments about Cast.
No, the company is not known as Canadian Air-Sea Transport North America Ltd. but its correct name is Cast North America Limited.
2.	The Canadian National Railways has invested more than $50 million into the parent companies of the Cast shipping group.
3.	Cast is one of the companies that carries containers of United States origin or destination between North America and Europe. To the knowledge of the government there is no evidence to support such a statement that the Cast shipping group is the cause of cargo diversion through Canadian ports. In 1980, 101,481 containers of Canadian origin or destination moved through United States ports and 106,857 containers of United States origin or destination moved through Canadian ports. The government has no evidence to support the allegation by Mr. Lidinsky that 5,000 jobs were lost in the United States as a result of these container movements. The ports in which this loss was alleged to occur were not specified by Mr. Lidinsky's written submission.
4.	While the Canadian government recently sent a diplomatic note to the U.S. department of state on proposed legislation being considered by the U.S. Congress, the legislation did not concern the regulation of maritime trade between Canada and the United States but the extraterritorial extension of the authority of the U.S. federal maritime commission to regulate shipping between Canada and third countries if United States origin or destination cargoes were carried. The Canadian government opposed this legislation both because of its extraterritorial dimension and because of its inconsistency with established principles and practices of maritime trade.
5.	Mr. Lidinsky's allegation that the Cast shipping group signed a 15-year "sweetheart lease" for use of facilities in the port of Montreal is false.
The Cast group has signed with the National Harbours Board a lease for a 15-year period commencing January 1, 1980, for use of the port of Montreal facilities. This agreement is considered to be one of the most stringent and lucrative ones signed in favour of the port of Montreal facilities.
6.	The conflict of interest guidelines for ministers of the Crown tabled in the House on May 1, 1980 require that cabinet ministers with holdings in business ventures divest themselves of such interests either through selling or by placing them in a blind trust.
Cabinet ministers have no known financial involvement in the Cast shipping group.
October 14, 1981


[Stage Direction]
Order Paper Questions
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Does the Department of National Defence or any other department or agency subsidize the magazine "The Canadian Military Journal"?
2.	Was Department of National Defence and Department of Veterans Affairs advertising carried by the magazine and, if so, what amount was spent (a) in 1979 (b) in 1980(c) as of July 1, 1981?
3.	(a) Was a 12-page fulsome article on the Minister of Justice carried by the magazine in the winter 1981 issue and, if so, was it paid for by the Liberal Party (b) were 8 photographs of the minister included in the article and were they provided by a department and, if so, which department?
4.	What is the circulation of the magazine?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of Justice, National Defence and Veterans Affairs as follows:
1.	No.
2.	Yes
National Defence
(a)	$2,200
(b)	$2,800
(c)	$1,650
Veterans Affairs
(a)	Nil
(b)	Nil
(c)	$1,300
3. (a) (i) An article on the Minister of Justice did appear in the winter 1981 issue of "The Canadian Military Journal".
(ii) This matter does not fall within the administrative responsibility of the Government of Canada.
(b) At the request of the Canadian Military Journal, the Minister of Justice supplied photographs from his personal dossiers.
4.	See Part 3(a)(ii) above.


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	How many copies of the booklet "The Canadian Air Transportation Administration" were printed and which company was awarded the printing contract?
2.	Was the contract awarded through public tender and, if not, in what manner?
3.	What was the total (a) cost of publication (b) circulation?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. 258,525 copies; Baslaw, McCarney & Mann Ltd., Ottawa, Ontario.
2.	Yes.
3.	(a) $65,029 (incl. $6,750 federal sales tax).
(b) An initial distribution was included in the above contract price; subsequently, approximately another $1,200 was spent on distribution.


Mr. Riis: 1.	Do the provinces have to pay back the money loaned to them from the Canada Pension Plan fund?
2.	Since the inception of the Canada Pension Plan, what was the total amount of collected funds received from pension contributions?
3.	What amount of the contributions was paid out in benefits?
4.	In 1980, what was the administrative cost for the Canada Pension Plan?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of Finance and National Health and Welfare as follows:
1.	Yes, the provinces do have to repay funds borrowed from the Canada Pension Plan. Sections 112 and 113 of the Canada Pension Plan provide that excess moneys in the plan may be invested in provincial securities, securities of provincial Crown agencies and securities of the Government of Canada having a term to maturity of 20 years, or such lesser term as is fixed by the Minister of Finance. By the terms and conditions of the securities there is a contractual obligation in which the provincial borrower "promises to pay to the Minister of Finance and the Receiver General for Canada to the credit of the Canada Pension Plan Investment Fund" . . . the principal sum that was borrowed. Interest is payable semi-annually.
2.	The total amount of contributions collected under the Canada Pension Plan as of March 31, 1981 was $19,759.7 million.
3.	Since the inception of the Canada Pension Plan, $8,637,406,000 have been paid out in benefits. The following is a breakdown of the benefit payments by fiscal year.
1966-	1967
1967-	1968
1968-	1969
1969-	1970
1970-	1971
1971-	1972
1972-	1973
1973-	1974
1974-	1975
1975-	1976
1976-	1977
1977-	1978
1978-	1979
1979-	1980
1980-	1981
(
50.8
1,268.5
15,567.0
47,346.4
89,235.8
144.379.2
206.275.3
278.157.3
398.965.6
587.833.7 833,251.2
1.059.068.3
1.328.410.2
1.635.072.4
2.012.524.3
4.	The administrative cost of the Canada Pension Plan during the fiscal year 1980-81 was $66,732,910. This amount includes the costs incurred by the departments and agencies involved in the administration of the Canada Pension Plan (Department of Health and Welfare, Department of National Revenue, Department of Insurance, Department of Supply and Services, Canada Employment and Immigration Commission, Public Works).

October 14, 1981
Order Paper Questions AERONAUTICS ACT TASK FORCE


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Is there an Aeronautics Act task force and, if so (a) on what date, under what authority and for what period of time was it established (b) what are its terms of reference?
2.	Since its inception, who has been employed on the task force and what are their (a) qualifications (b) terms and conditions of employment?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. The Aeronautics Act task force was created in the early summer of 1978 by the Canadian air transportation administration and announced by the then minister of transport, the Hon. Otto Lang, on July 26, 1978. The task force is mandated to review and make recommendations on amendments to the Aeronautics Act and the subordinate legislation made pursuant thereto as well as the applicable enforcement procedures. It was anticipated that the project would be completed within approximately two years. As a result of the complexity of the subject matter, delays occasioned by the Dubin inquiry and operational requirements, it is now expected that the task force will complete its work in the fall of 1981.
2. A variety of persons have been employed on the task force, both from within government and from the private sector. Some have been lawyers, in most cases with aeronautical background, but most have been technical specialists. Task force members have been recruited from outside the public service by contract or by term appointments, or by secondment from other organizations within the public service.


Mr. Beatty: Is the government considering plans that would in any way centralize data banks now under the control of more than one department or agency and, if so, what are they?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: No.


Mr. Beatty: What is the national debt for 1981 and what will be the total amount paid in 1981 for carrying charges on the national debt?


Pierre Bussières: The
gross public debt of the federal government at the end of the fiscal year 1981-82 is estimated at $133,680 million. The total amount estimated in the budget for carrying charges on the national debt in 1981-82 is $12,350 million. In a speech to the Vancouver Board of Trade delivered on July 6, 1981, the minister indicated that public debt charges would be some $1 Vi billion higher than estimated in the budget.


Mr. Beatty: 1.	For each year since weapons detection equipment was installed, by airport, how many persons were (a) refused permission to board aircraft (b) forced to surrender concealed weapons before boarding?
2.	In how many instances were charges laid against individuals carrying concealed weapons and, in each case (a) what was the charge (b) was a conviction ultimately registered?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The list below contains the information reported to Transport Canada by the major Canadian air carriers and the RCMP. For the years 1972 to 1975, see reply to question No. 3861, Thirtieth Parliament, first session, answered February 19, 1976. It should be noted that the criteria for statistical collection relating to airport security and weapons detection equipment was changed in 1976. This would account for the higher figures for years 1974 and 1975 in respect of question 1(b). Air carriers no longer tabulate and report on all the potentially dangerous type articles and offensive weapons removed from passengers for safe keeping during the flight. Emphasis is now placed on the detection of real firearms and explosive devices during pre-board screening.
L (a)
Year	Airport	Number1976	Montreal (Dorval)	I1977	Edmonton Municipal	11978	Wabush	11979	Edmonton Municipal	2Whitehorse	1Timmins	1Calgary	1Fort McMurray	11980	Montreal (Dorval)	2Saint John	11981	Montreal (Dorval)	2
(b) Statistics as to the number of persons forced to surrender concealed weapons before boarding have not been maintained by the air carriers. The number of weapons detected during pre-board screening are reported as follows:
Airport	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980	1981Dorval	8	1	2	0	4	IMirabel	3	1	0	0	1	0Toronto	3	0	2	0	0	0Winnipeg	1	1	0	0	0	0Vancouver	18	8	0	7	18	3Ottawa	0	0	0	6	0	0Halifax	I	0	I	0	0	0Edmonton	0	0	2	0	0	0Calgary	0	0	2	7	0	0Gander	0	0	0	0	0	0St. John's	4	0	0	0	0	0Moncton	0	0	2	0	0	0Quebec	0	0	0	0	0	0London	0	0	0	0	0	0Windsor	7	0	0	1	1	0Regina	0	1	1	2	6	0Saskatoon	0	1	0	0	0	0
October 14, 1981


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was there a recent financial settlement between the Canadian and Cuban governments for moneys owing to Canadians by the government of Cuba and, if so (a) what was it, in terms of cents against dollars (b) what is the total amount that will be received?
2.	What are the names and job designations of all persons acting on behalf of Canada, directly or indirectly, who negotiated the settlement?
3.	(a) At any time did the Prime Minister or anyone representing him, directly or indirectly, have anything to do with the settlement and, if so, what were the dates and details (b) did the Prime Minister discuss the matter with Premier Fidel Castro?
4.	For what reason was a larger settlement not insisted upon, in view of Canada's continuing to trade with Cuba and diplomatically recognizing Cuba when many countries in North and South America do not?
5.	Was it government policy to make a low settlement and was it in any way occasioned by the Prime Minister's visit to Cuba a few years ago and by his statement "Viva Fidel Castro"?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. Yes.
(a)	This is impossible to determine until after the Foreign Claims Commission has reported to ministers on the eligibility and quantum of individual claims.
(b)	$850,000.
2. The agreement was negotiated by officials of the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Finance, acting under the instructions of and reporting to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of Finance.
3 (a) No.
(b) No.
4.	The settlement is expected to provide reasonable compensation to eligible Canadian claimants.
5.	Government policy in repect of the settlement was in no way occasioned by the visit of the Prime Minister to Cuba.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was solar heat installed in the Brockville federal building in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville and, if so (a) what are all the details (b) who made the decision and on what date (c) what was the total cost?
2.	Were tenders called for the installations and, if so (a) what were the names of the bidders and the amount of the bid in each case (b) were the tenders invited or publicly advertised (c) were any firms contacted privately and, if so, which firms?
3.	(a) Was the purpose of the installations to heat the building (b) is the government aware that the heating panels specified are estimated to be capable of providing only enough heat to heat a hot water tank for washroom purposes and, if so, for what reason are they being used?
4.	Are such installations planned for the future and, if so (a) what are all the details (b) who made the decision and on what date (c) what is the total estimated cost (d) will public tenders be called?


Paul James Cosgrove: 1. No.
2.	N/A.
3.	N/A.
4.	A packaged solar domestic hot water heater is planned for the Brockville federal building in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville.
(a)	Over 5,000 systems are planned for future installations over the next four years in every region of Canada for 14 federal government departments and 15 Crown corporations as part of the purchase and use of solar heating (PUSH) program.
(b)	This program is designed to foster the development of an indigenous regional Canadian solar industry and was announced by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in July, 1978.
(c)	Total cost of the program will be $125 million over five years.
(d)	Public tenders will be called.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did Parks Canada publish a pamphlet in both official languages under the authority of the Minister of the Environment entitled "An Invitation", on the subject of the St. Lawrence Islands National Park?
2.	Were 12 pictures used as illustrations in the pamphlet and were ten of the pictures included either under French-language headings or in the middle of French-language promotion material and, if so, for what reason was there not an equal number under English-language headings or promotion material?
3.	What were the names and job designations of all persons responsible for drawing up the pamphlet, including those who wrote the pamphlet and those who decided where to place the photographs?
4.	How many copies of the pamphlet were printed and (a) who printed them (6) what was the total cost?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: 1. Yes, a pamphlet entitled "An Invitation" was published for St. Lawrence Islands National Park. The publication has a limited life-span designed solely for the 1981 summer park interpretive program.

October 14, 1981
Order Paper Questions
2.	Seven photographs appear on the schedule of events section of the pamphlet. The section is bilingual and the photographs are not related to any particular language designation. To accommodate the placement of the front cover little panels, space was not available to include any of the photographs which were to appear in the English section. Therefore, a decision was made to include the panels on the English side and place the photographs on the French side of the pamphlet.
3.	Dave Warner, acting superintendent, St. Lawrence Islands National Park, Don Ross, park naturalist, St. Lawrence Islands National Park and Mary-Jane Lamb, interpreta-tive/media specialist, St. Lawrence Islands National Park
4.	20,000.
(a)	Hesson and White Printers Ltd., Kingston, Ontario.
(b)	$3,264.55.


Mr. Mazankowski: To date, what was the total cost of the (a) Report of the Mississauga Railway Accident Inquiry (b) Commission of Inquiry into Bilingual Air Traffic Services in Quebec?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: (a)	$1,126,468.
(b)	$2,364,613.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the professional and special services recorded by the Privy Council Office for the Commissioner of Official Languages at page 32.26, volume II of the 1979-80 public accounts of Canada, with particular reference to hospitality services (a) what was the name of each type of service (b) what was the amount paid for each service and, for contracts of a value more than $2,000, to whom was it paid (c) are guidelines used to determine when the commissioner will pay for hospitality and, if so, what are they (d) of the $7,845 paid for hospitality, what percentage was principally used to entertain (i) foreign visitors (ii) Canadian businessmen (iii) provincial public servants (iv) federal public servants (v) ministerial exempt staff (vi) Members of Parliament (vii) members of provincial parliaments, legislative assemblies and the national assembly (viii) Canadian dignitaries, such as the Governor General and Lieutenant-Governors General (ix) federal Crown corporation executives (x) provincial Crown corporation executives (xi) members of federal commissions, boards and councils (xii) any other categories?


David P. Smith: The Commissioner of Official Languages reports directly to Parliament and not through a minister. Questions can be made directly to him.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 1,196,
2,006, 2,138, 2,318 and 2,495 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Cossitt: In the past two years up to the date the answer to this question is prepared, how many trips did Admiral Robert Falls make to and from Canada to other places, particularly Europe and, in each case, what (a) was the means and class of transportation (b) was the destination (c) were the dates (d) was the purpose (e) was the cost to the taxpayer (f) were the names and job designations of all those accompanying him and attached in any way to Armed Forces staff rendering services of any kind whatsoever to him?
Return tabled.


Mr. Wilson: What is the expected impact on Petro-Canada of the National Energy Program for the fiscal years 1978 and 1979 using actual figures, and for the years 1980 to 1984 using estimated figures, before NEP on company forecasts as prepared in using tax assumptions in place prior to the October 28, 1980 announcement of the NEP, and stating such assumptions, and after NEP on company forecasts, revised to reflect the impact of the NEP using the following standards of measurement (a) cash flow from operations (defined to mean the gross proceeds from the sale of all hydrocarbon substances including royalty income therefrom; less all Crown, freehold or other royalties, operating costs, administrative expenses, interest expense and income or other taxes currently payable; and making no deduction for depletion, depreciation or amortization or deferred taxes) (i) conventional areas before and after NEP (ii) Canada lands before and after NEP (b) capital spending on oil and gas exploration and development in Canada (i) conventional areas before and after NEP (ii) Canada lands before and after NEP (c) source and application of funds before and after NEP?
Return tabled.


Mr. Lawrence: 1.	How many fires have occurred on National Capital Commission properties within the city of Ottawa in each of the past 15 years and, in each case, what was the (a) total dollar value of the resulting damage (b) assessed total value of the property?
2.	Does the NCC carry fire insurance on its properties?
Return tabled.


Mr. Elzinga: 1.	To date, which projects were approved for funding by the Canadian Organizing Committee for the International Year of the Disabled?
2.	For each group receiving funds, what was the name, address and amount granted?
Return tabled.
October 14, 1981


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	In each year 1978 to date, how many pleasure boats of (a) power (b) sail
(c)	other types were imported and, in each case (i) from which country (ii) what was the length of the craft (iii) what was the province of destination?
2.	(a) For the same period, how many boat building manufacturers of (i) power (ii) sail (iii) other craft were registered in each province (b) how many of the companies exported (i) power (ii) sail (iii) other craft and to which countries were they exported?
3.	For the same period, how many (a) power (b) sail (c) other boats were sold in (i) Canada (ii) British Columbia?
Return tabled.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 2,584?


Mr. Cullen: Was Canadian citizenship awarded to any persons under subsection 5(4) of the Citizenship Act and, if so, what number were (a) "in order to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship" (b) "to reward services of an exceptional value to Canada"?


Mr. Jean Lapierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: In reply to Question No. 2584, I should like to say that since the current Citizenship Act came into effect on February 15, 1977, 47 persons have been granted Canadian citizenship under Section 5(4), to wit: (a) "to alleviate cases of special and unusual hardship", 46; (b) "to reward services of an exceptional value to Canada", 1.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Cossitt:: Madam Speaker, in rising to make a brief point of order, may 1 preface it by congratulating the hon. member for Don Valley East on being appointed the latest "Dr. No". 1 hope that he will not suffer the fate of his predecessor who is now sitting across the way in outer Siberia.
In any event, I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary something which I have raised for five and a half years. I felt that perhaps it was inappropriate to raise the matter on the first day-but, on the other hand, when it has been five and a half years perhaps it is appropriate-as to why question No. 30 has not been answered. As his predecessors will tell him, I have raised this question and each time I received the
Canada Oil and Gas Act
answer that it will be answered soon. It is now about five and a half years, give or take a day or two, which seems to me to be a long time. I have simply asked for the members of the Canadian Transport Commission who have passes on Air Canada, their wives who have passes on Air Canada, and certain other interrelated questions. It is very simple, but in five and a half years the government has not been able to tell us.
Therefore, I think I should give the parliamentary secretary notice that if he cannot tell me today-and I know it is premature, since I believe he was appointed about fifteen minutes ago, to expect that he would be good enough to be quite that fast-I intend to raise this matter as often as the Chair will permit me to do so in order that it will not take perhaps ten and a half years.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I take note of this suggestion. I should point out, if the question has been on the Order Paper for five and a half years, that the party to which the hon. member belongs could have answered it when it was in government.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall all notices of motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, July 15, consideration of Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and Motion No. 3 (Mr. McGrath).
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise reluctantly today because I feel that it would be much more appropriate for the House to be considering both of the motions under Standing Order 26 since they are of far greater importance to the country at this time than Bill C-48.
We debated Bill C-48 for three days prior to the recess in July. We have been considering proposed legislation of this sort for approximately eleven years. The Minister of Energy,

October 14, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) said during his short remarks on this piece of legislation that he was very sorry that legislation had not been in place for that period of time prior to this. We have been waiting for governments, of which he has been a member, to bring in that legislation for eleven years.
We could easily put this off for another few days to listen to the comments of hon. members on the very serious problems affecting the country in the areas of interest rates, high unemployment and transportation policy, as the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) proposed. But having said that, we must continue with the consideration of Bill C-48.
Before I continue, I should like to say on behalf of hon members on this side of the House who sat on the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works that we recognize the very strong contributions made by the witnesses on Bill C-48 during the early part of this year. On behalf of my party I should like to thank the officials from the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the representatives from the industry, native peoples and governments of the north, fisheries representatives, people interested in the environment, as well as government officials who came all the way from Norway, for their very strong contributions in developing an understanding of what is a very complex bill. I am only sorry that the government has not seen fit to listen to their representations. Many of their very worth-while suggestions and proposals have not found their way into the amendments before us.
If you recall, Mr. Speaker, this bill was rushed in on very short notice just before the summer recess. That was contrary to the understanding that I had with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. As a result, some very important amendments were missed. I want to say at this point that I hope the government and the New Democratic Party will allow these amendments to be introduced following discussions with my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), who will be responsible for this bill and who will be negotiating with his colleagues.
This bill is one of a series of pieces of legislation which arise out of the energy program which was first announced last October. It displays ineptness and a lack of understanding of an energy policy on the part of this government.
Since the summer adjournment, two energy agreements have been concluded, one with the province of Alberta and one with the province of British Columbia. The government is very proud of these agreements and has been quick to congratulate itself from one end of the country to the other. But these agreements have just resulted in a larger revenue grab than ever by two levels of government, and a tax increase which over the next five years, including the energy agreement and the energy program, will result in over $50 billion falling due to the federal government.
Consumers who trusted the government in the 1980 election, who accepted what the government said when it was in opposition-to vote Liberal to keep energy prices down-have now been hammered further by energy price increases that were inconceivable when they cast their ballots in February, 1980. On top of the record inflation we have today, the record interest rates and unemployment of 8.2 per cent, these new energy prices will have a greater impact than if they had been introduced in the early part of last year. The government's flip-flop, its lack of negotiation last year and these Liberal failures, take a tremendous human toll when added to high interest rates and high unemployment.
The problem has not been solved yet, Mr. Speaker. Drill rigs are still leaving the country. There is still a job loss in the energy services organizations in Alberta and the major energy projects at Cold Lake and Alsands are still on hold.
All this makes it more important than ever that we ensure that Bill C-48 is good legislation. The government has seriously damaged the development in provincial lands so we must do everything we possibly can to ensure there is orderly and progressive development of the Canada lands. We must not add another failure to the government's long list of failures in its first 18 months of office.
Let me review the Conservative Party's position on motion No. 3 which is now before us, Mr. Speaker. This is essentially a jurisdictional issue. We feel that rather than grab the jurisdiction of the various parts set out in Bill C-48 unilaterally, it is essential that the government negotiate. The government should not grab these lands as the result of the simple, innocuous amendment that is before us in motion No. 3.
The rate of development and the impact of this development on the communities involved is of great importance to people in Canada. We on this side of the House are very concerned that all the people directly affected should have the opportunity to participate in the formulation of policies leading to that development. This is a jurisdictional dispute, Mr. Speaker, a dispute which we feel must not be acted upon in a unilateral way. The Government of Canada must respect the regions and work with them in the development of these lands. That would not be the case as Bill C-48 stands.
The position of the Conservative Party was set out in a letter from the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to the Premier of Newfoundland in September, 1979, which stated quite clearly that Newfoundland should own the mineral resources of the continental margin in so far as Canada should own them; that ownership and legislative jurisdiction would be consistent with and subject to the division of legislative competence between the federal government and the provinces; and finally, that the Government of Canada would continue to have legislative jurisdiction in certain areas such as environment, shipping and so on. The position that we have taken, therefore, is to give the coastal provinces the same jurisdictional position on natural resources as is the case with the landlocked provinces of this country.
There is a very good reason for this, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is very clear to anyone who has travelled, particularly to the east coast, to the provinces of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, as I did in the summer of 1980 with my family. The
October 14, 1981

island of Newfoundland is mainly rock with the resources in and under the sea. The livelihood of the people is related primarily to the sea, as has been the case for many years. We in this party recognize that and have put our policy position around that recognition.
Throughout this entire debate, Mr. Speaker, I have been struck by the lack of participation on the government side by members from the Atlantic provinces. I have asked myself where the members from Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have been during this debate. We have not heard from the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey). He is listening now and I hope-


Bill Rompkey: Check Hansard for last year.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We did not hear from him on Bill C-48. I hope we will hear from the Minister of National Revenue on this particular amendment regarding jurisdiction as it relates to the province of Newfoundland.


Bill Rompkey: I am on record publicly and in this House.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let us hear from the minister in this debate and on this amendment. Where is the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen)? Where is the Secretary of State (Mr. Regan)? Where is the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc)? We have not heard from any of them. Who from the provinces is defending the government's position? I think we heard from the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons), but I do not see him in the House today. All members would recognize that his contribution to the debate was but a frivolous interlude and nothing more. It was a little bit of humour one evening, which is all we normally get from him. That is all we have had from him in this debate. We need to hear from the heavyweights so I hope the Minister of National Revenue will make a contribution later today.
As a Member of Parliament from Ontario my position is very clear. I am concerned about future supplies for this country. I am concerned that we will be able to settle this jurisdictional dispute so that we can get on with development and reduce the imports that we are so dependent upon now. I also see this as an opportunity for development that will involve the manufacturing industries of Ontario and Quebec to a very great extent.
Ontario and Quebec are very major resource provinces today. They have vast wealth. I am prepared to share this, as I am sure the residents of the Atlantic provinces would wish to share; but we need to get a balanced development of these resources to ensure the development that we need in the future. The potential is great but we must get on with it. I want to see all the Atlantic provinces share in the development of this country, but not through the transfer of payments and equalization. I want to see them share in the development of their resources, the resources of their own economies. The goal is to make them the "have" provinces. The federal government and the rest of Canada will share, in an extensive way, in the
Canada Oil and Gas Act
development of these resources through the new energy taxes as well as through income taxes. Therefore, let us have less transfer of payments needed to be paid to those provinces by such development.
Another reason for sharing is the very major impact of this development on the local economy and local society. Let me just recount to the House a story which was told to me when I was in Newfoundland. It was about the early part of the seventies, 1972 or 1973. About a dozen businessmen, competitors but all concerned about the development of the oil industry in the province of Newfoundland, got together and asked, "What is likely to happen to our province if this development goes ahead?" They felt that the best thing they could do was to go over to Scotland and Norway to talk to people who had been directly affected by the developments which had taken place over there. They completed a two-week trip, made a report, and sent the report to Ottawa.
The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, having seen the report, summoned them to Ottawa for some discussion. What they got when they arrived here was a very condescending, patronizing approach by the department. The province of Newfoundland had just hired the first geologist ever to advise the government. The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources berated the representatives of Newfoundland for having hired this geologist. The department said, "You do not need a geologist. You can rely on us, on the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. We will look after you; leave it to us."
But what happened? This is the key. What happened was that over the next two years of development, the only moneys which came through the local economy of the province of Newfoundland were customs fees-not customs revenues, just fees-to pass goods, duty free, through the port of St. John's and back out to the offshore rigs. No equipment, food, or otherwise, was purchased from the local economy.
That is what has made the people in Newfoundland so upset. It was after watching two years of this and having been told by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources "We will look after you", that they have taken action and such a strong position in ensuring that the development of their resources will be controlled by themselves and will have the optimum effect on their local economy and their local society.
The impact on their society will be great. Projects of the magnitude of Hibernia will cost about $6 billion to $8 billion. There will be an economic impact as a result of this development, as well as a social impact through urban development, through crime and social problems. We have heard from the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) about the problems which have occurred in Fort McMurray as a result of the major developments there. The people of Newfoundland are concerned about these developments and their effects on the local economy and local society. They are also concerned that local individuals are trained to participate in local industry. Finally, they are concerned about the impact on the environment. That is why it is very important that the jurisdictional

October 14, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
issue here be very carefully studied and handled by the government.
My colleague, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), has discussed at some length the jurisdictional issue as it relates to the province of Nova Scotia. The premier of the province, Mr. Buchanan, has sent a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicating the long history of jurisdiction by the province of Nova Scotia over Sable Island. If hon. members recall, it was the inclusion of Sable Island which gave rise to the initial debate on this particular issue. Bill C-48 is attempting to include Sable Island and to change the jurisdictional boundaries of Nova Scotia in a very provocative manner by slipping in this two-word amendment without having the proper jurisdictional discussions with the province. The province of Nova Scotia is seeking to retain jurisdiction over the land which it has held for 350 years. Regardless of the outcome of the jurisdictional dispute on the offshore, Sable Island is a separate matter, and ownership of that particular property must be established on the same basis as it has been over the past 350 years.
In conclusion, let me say that in this motion we are seeing a difference in the view or concept of Canada as between the governing party, the Liberal Party, and the Progressive Conservative Party. We want to see balanced growth of this country. The government would prefer to see that this growth be centralized and controlled closely from Ottawa. We want to see that the provinces have the freedom to grow and to fulfil their own aspirations, because we see that the growth of one part of the country will be helpful to the whole country. It will be a tragedy if the Liberal Party rejects this philosophy and forces a tightly controlled development of the resources of the provinces, and particularly the Atlantic provinces which have not fared too well in confederation. If the Liberals are not able to come to terms with the development of areas which are distant from Ottawa, such as the Atlantic provinces, or, as is now so evident, the western provinces, it would be a real tragedy for this country.
The reason so many members of our caucus, over 20, have participated in this debate on this one particular motion is that we feel so strongly we should have balanced growth within this country, growth which is within the control of those people who are most affected. The Liberals, I am afraid, are concerned that if one part of the country grows too quickly, it will cause them problems. We see that if growth comes in various parts of the country, all the country will benefit by it. That is why we recognize that there is real strength in freeing those parts of the country, as they have the ability and the means through resource development, to build their own societies. They should have the freedom to grow and the freedom to expand within their own country.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise somewhat reluctantly to address Bill C-48 because it is the second time I do so. I must admit that I find the stalling tactics of the opposition on this very important legislation quite reprehensible.
Perhaps it is now a good time to review Bill C-48, its origins, how it came about, and what has happened to it in the process. The purpose of this bill is to regulate companies exploring and producing oil on the Canada lands; that is, in the northern territories, in the high Arctic and, of course, the offshore. That is agreed.
The inadequacy of the legislation which Bill C-48 will replace was first recognized over ten years ago. After much study and a careful analysis of all aspects of this country's energy industry, the federal government issued a policy statement which contained the essential elements of an energy strategy for Canadians. Bill C-20 was first introduced to incorporate this strategy. Bill C-20 was a predecessor of the present Bill C-48, but it died on the Order Paper.
It was a year ago approximately to the day that the National Energy Program was introduced in Parliament, in October, 1980, and Bill C-48 came into being. At that time the opposition vehemently criticized the government for delaying the implementation of such important and much needed legislation.
I am somewhat amused to hear the comments of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). Last December 11 with reference to this bill he said:
The broad objectives of this legislation are worth while and certainly acceptable. One might go so far as to say that they are motherhood; they are intended to increase production and Canadian ownership, as well as to provide a very stable tax environment. 1 agree with the minister when he says that it is important to have this legislation. We have been waiting for it for about ten years now.
Yet we hear the same member saying today that he does not think there is any particular rush. He agrees with the minister on the need for legislation, but surely he must agree that if there was need for speed a year ago, there is an even greater need for speed now. The hon. member is pressing us to take action.
What has happened since then? In January, the bill was referred to the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. Committee members deliberated for some 135 hours. The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre is quite right when he pays tribute to all of those people who participated right through from January to June of this past year. There were 140 witnesses and related experts who appeared before the committee. Well over 100 amendments from all three parties were considered during these hearings which resulted in 3,200 pages of testimony and, as a result, a number of amendments have taken place.
In July 1981 the committee reported back to this House on the bill. Then, as is their right and as is becoming their practice, the opposition proceeded to reintroduce most of their amendments, amendments which were considered and disposed of in the committee during its previous deliberations. So in July the House once again began debate on Bill C-48, or rather on opposition motions to amend Bill C-48. Already 30 Members of Parliament have spoken on this amendment.
October 14, 1981

Here we are back in the fray again today, finding that we must once more waste the scarce and valuable time of the House to debate Bill C-48. We have tolerated a deliberate, concerted effort by the opposition parties to obstruct progress on this bill-


Mr. Waddell:: That is democracy.


Judith A. Erola: Democracy is appearing before the committee. We have 3,200 pages of testimony to prove that. Hon. members opposite can discuss but they cannot decide. It is obvious to me that members of the opposition are trying to impose the indecision which characterizes their internal party bickering on this House of Commons. It goes on and on and on.
I find this delay quite shocking, Mr. Speaker. It is impossible to expect companies to operate in an environment when they have no idea what the ground rules will be. This delay, going back to 1970, has cost Canada valuable years in reaching oil self-sufficiency. You agree. Therefore, it is important that we get on with the job right now.
The government has been trying to move this legislation forward. How much has Conservative obstruction cost this country in terms of our stated shared goal of reaching energy self-sufficiency? How many Canadian oil and gas companies have been denied an opportunity to participate in promising Canada lands exploration due to this opposition?


Mr. Siddon:: There is no money left for home owners.


Judith A. Erola: I think it is now evident that the National Energy Program and the Canadianization policy that is an inherent part of it over the summer has received the support of the provinces of Alberta and British Columbia through the new oil and gas agreements. The hon. member has said that the government is grabbing the lion's share of the revenues.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You are.


Judith A. Erola: Let us have a look at those revenues. Prior to the National Energy Program, the percentage shares were as follows: Canada 11 per cent; Alberta 42 per cent; and industry 47 per cent.


Thomas Edward Siddon: At the gas pump?


Judith A. Erola: We are talking about revenue sharing.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Whose oil is it?


Judith A. Erola: In the period 1980 to 1986, the breakdown of revenue sharing will be; for Canada $54.3 billion, which is a 25 per cent share; for Alberta $64.3 billion, which is a 30 per cent share; and for the industry $94.2 billion, which is 45 per cent of the share. Members of the opposition call this a federal revenue grab.


An hon. Member:: It is a rip-off.


Judith A. Erola: I think the people of Canada will make that decision. Speaking of the people of Canada, a recent poll by
Canada Oil and Gas Act
the Canadian Petroleum Association indicates that some 84 per cent of Canadians supported the government's Canadianization objectives.
I think it is very significant that the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre, who speaks, as he indicated, for the province of Ontario, chose to ignore the fact that just yesterday the province of Ontario announced that it too was participating in the Canadianization drive by acquiring a 25 per cent interest in Suncor. It is interesting that the National Energy Program not only has the support of the producing provinces but also the support of the major consuming province of Canada, namely, the province of Ontario. We are looking for and getting support for this program from Canadians from every region of this country.
Again, I find it very amusing that the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre chose to ignore the fact that his province, the province which he says he represents, is now participating in the Canadianization program.
While we are considering Bill C-48, opposition members have urged us to seek an agreement with Alberta. That has been achieved. I want them to examine that agreement, as I did just a moment ago, in terms of what it does for the province of Alberta and for the people of Canada.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Fourteen-cent gas, is it?


Judith A. Erola: In 1986, Canadians can expect to pay 79.4 cents per litre for gasoline and 56 cents per litre for heating oil. The levels are currently 37 cents and 25 cents respectively.
Let us have a look at what is happening in other countries. In 1986, Canada's gasoline prices will be lower than those currently being charged in most industrial countries. In Italy the price charged for gasoline is 92.6 cents per litre; in West Germany the charge is 76.3 cents per litre; in the United Kingdom the charge is 89 cents per litre; in France the charge is 86.1 cents per litre; and in the United States the charge is 42.9 cents per litre.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You broke your promise.


Judith A. Erola: Yet in Canada we will not be paying those prices even by 1986.
However, getting back to Bill C-48, I would like to remind hon. members that the primary objectives of Bill C-48 are to promote Canadian ownership and participation in the very promising oil and gas activities on Canada lands-


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Haven't you been doing that all along?


Judith A. Erola: -to accelerate the search for oil and gas and to hasten the arrival of oil self-sufficiency. I find the comments made by the hon. member from Etobicoke quite interesting and amusing; interesting in terms of Newfoundland. It is well known that the Canadian government has said to Newfoundland that it will receive 100 per cent of those revenues until that province reaches the "have" stage, and then the revenues

October 14, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
will be shared, as is the custom, with all Canadians, with one another.
Let us be honest. Without a specific legislative framework such as Bill C-48, oil companies would be able to exploit our offshore resources answerable to no authority, with no inducement to protect the environment, pay royalties or ensure Canadian participation. I do not think any Canadian would accept that. We, the national government, are negotiating a comprehensive settlement with the coastal provinces. We must exercise our responsibilities to manage and husband those precious resources. We must have the means to do so until such time as that settlement is finally achieved.
I urge all hon. members opposite to reflect quietly on their past behaviour. This House will soon have very important budgetary proposals before it. The constitutional question will require final determination by this House of Commons. So, let us get on with the job; let us get Bill C-48 on the road, and let us get on to energy self-sufficiency.
I should like to close by saying that I came back to this House with a certain amount of enthusiasm. I thought we were going to sit here, deliberate seriously and get on with the business of making Canada grow. I have been, in the last three hours, more than disappointed and amused. I must say that perhaps the addition of a few extra women would serve this House well because the behaviour of this House has been something 1 have been very, very familiar with in the north, and 1 would liken it to moose in rutting season.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate on Bill C-48 at the report stage. It is a bill which seeks to regulate the oil and gas interests in Canada Lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act.
I listened with great interest to the comments of the hon. lady, the Minister of State for Mines, the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mrs. Erola). I found some of her comments were interesting. Speaking as a Nova Scotian, it is obvious to me that she has not been in Nova Scotia lately or she would not have spoken to this House as she did.
The hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) mentioned that members from Atlantic Canada should address this particular issue. I had an opportunity to speak to this bill at second reading and I welcome this opportunity to place my arguments again before this House. In the time allotted to me I shall attempt to relate my remarks to my native province of Nova Scotia and to the economic impact which this bill, if passed in its present form, would have on our people.
I know the House will understand if I digress for a moment to mention that Nova Scotians who support the Conservative Party are today walking tall as a result of the outcome of the provincial election in my province on October 6. This election showed my party returned to power with 37 seats, while the
Liberals hold only 13, and the NDP, since it elected only one, has lost its status as a party in my province.


An hon. Member:: An interim setback.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: One of the NDP members says it is "an interim setback". If you call going backwards almost to anonymity going forward, I guess it all depends on how you read the signs. We are rather pleased with this.
During the campaign our premier asked for a strong mandate so he could take a message to Ottawa indicating that Nova Scotians do not like present federal policies. This, of course, is an understatement. I learned while campaigning with the premier and my provincial colleagues that Nova Scotians at all levels of society are demanding that the federal Liberal government do something about high interest rates, about high mortgage rates, about high rentals, which are now higher than they have ever been in the history of this country; do something about the debased purchasing power of the Canadian dollar and take some action generally to fight the economic problems facing all Canadians.
This bill is related to one of the planks of our premier's program, which is to develop self-reliance in energy for Nova Scotians through resource development. To make this possible we must, of course, have a stronger say in the over-all development of our offshore resources. While of late we could not help but note the more amicable attitude taken by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in finally reaching an agreement between Alberta and Ottawa-which gives us some cause for hope that similar agreements may be reached in Atlantic Canada-there is, however, considerable doubt as to how this will be achieved.
The return to the House of Bill C-48 at this time, when we are faced with so many other problems in this nation, only serves to reinforce these doubts about the government's intentions. In my opinion this bill is obviously improperly worded and should be withdrawn completely from this House.
When the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources introduced this bill to the House on December 11, 1980, he called it the key element in the successful fullfilment of the government's national energy program. He waxed eloquent as he stated that our offshore regions cover an area of some 2.5 million square miles. The territories alone, he said comprise another 1.5 million square miles. Together this is what the Liberal Party calls the Canada lands, an area which is almost twice the size of the ten provinces combines.
The minister claimed that oil and gas rights have already been issued for 350 million acres in the Canada lands and that the bill will convert existing rights to the land management regime establishing it in a meaningful way. This same minister, when speaking at the report stage of Bill C-48, added insult to injury so far as we in Atlantic Canada are concerned when, as reported at page 11472 of Hansard of July 13, he stated;
October 14, 1981

When the resources belong to the people of Canada, would it be responsible to have a situation where the premiers or heads of various governments could veto development?
In the next paragraph he stated:
The notion that a particular region of this country could prevent the people of Canada from getting the benefit of resources which belong to them is one which we as a government cannot accept.
These words are fighting words thrown in the face of Atlantic Canada's premiers. I ask this house: by what authority does this government and the federal Liberal Party say that the resources off Atlantic Canada's coast belong to all the people of Canada? Maybe the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) can answer that question. I would like to hear him expound on this particular thesis.
As Nova Scotians we have based our claim to these resources as far back as 1621 when King James I granted the Royal Charter of Nova Scotia to Sir William Alexander. At that time, in recognition of the utter dependence of the colonies on the sea as a means of transport, he granted as well the water adjacent to our shores to the provinces. In recognition of this dependence, the king included as part of our territory a band of sea stretching about 100 miles seaward from our coast. This particular band easily encompasses Sable Island and covers a large section of the grey area, the controversial Georges Bank, and it also covers a large section of what we call the Scotian shelf.
These boundaries were observed for many years despite numerous conquests and treaty settlements. In fact, Canada's Constitution, the British North America Act of 1867, provided that Nova Scotia's limits would be exactly the same after confederation as they were before.
This claim is further supported by a parliamentary document entitled "Offshore Mineral Resources, Legal Aspects", which says at page 2:
At Confederation, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and Ontario retained ownership of the "lands, mines, minerals and royalties", and all public property then belonging to them.
This was embodied respectively in Sections 109 and 117 of the British North America Act. This proviso was also made applicable to Prince Edward Island and British Columbia when they joined Canada. In the western provinces the situation differed initially, as the natural resources were reserved to the federal government when Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba were carved out of what was then called Rupert's Land.
However, the British North America Act of 1930 subsequently transferred the same rights to those provinces, and when Newfoundland became part of Canada in 1949 it was put in a similar position by term 37 of the Terms of Union. Thus, I point out to the House, there is historical and legal justification for provincial resource ownership. This is why I suggest Bill C-48 should be withdrawn. It should be reconsidered and its wording should be changed so its enactment in its present form will not rape, rob, pillage and plunder an area which has too long been classified as a have-not area.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
We have worked hard in Atlantic Canada, especially in Nova Scotia, to literally pull ourselves up by our bootstraps. Now that we have clearly established and reaffirmed the provincial right to control land-based resources, as is clearly written into the British North America Act, the claim of the Atlantic provinces to rights covering undersea oil and gas resources off our shores can surely no longer be denied us Nova Scotians, in my view. Now more than ever before there is legitimacy in the argument long held by Nova Scotians that the undersea resources should be deeded to those of us who live in Atlantic Canada in compensation for the mineral-rich lands which other provinces have received early in this century. The Atlantic region has far too long been ignored in its request to be given the same consideration which the federal government gave other provinces through the provision of land where great treasure has been found. Land which, incidentally, all provinces originally held in joint ownership. I feel very strongly about this issue or I would not have taken the time and the effort to speak twice on this same measure.
We do not want the federal government to give us anything to which we are not entitled. We are not beggars and we are not begging, but neither do we want the federal government to take away from us those lands and resources which we feel, we know, and we believe we legitimately own in law under the terms of Bill C-48.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Those are our lands. In the pirit of justice, fairness and equality, Sir, and in compensation for having surrendered our claims to the northern lands given other provinces, the day has surely arrived when our federal government should no longer hold us in bondage, making us come like a beggar hat in hand here to Ottawa looking for crumbs. It should make up for the oversights of the past and enlarge our territories by recognizing that the land under the sea, to the limits of exploitability, belong to us. We would thereby find our place in the sun.
I can assure you, Sir, that we will be like other provinces. We will be willing to share, but we feel we must have the opportunity throughout the eighties and the nineties to make Nova Scotia self-reliant. In simple language, we must be able to pay our own way. That is all we are asking.
The oil and gas finds off the east coast are promising, exciting and, I believe, they are substantial. Their development can provide us with revenues, lower cost fuels and a competitive source of power for homes and industry. We as Nova Scotians must be assured that supportive industries that foster oil development under the North Atlantic, that support and maintain drilling and the eventual production of raw fuels, are based in Nova Scotia or in Newfoudland, as much as possible. There will be plenty for both our provinces and we want to have a say.
We have been looking for the light at the end of the tunnel for years, Mr. Speaker. Now light is slowly dawning. New

October 14, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
opportunities are being thrust upon us. We feel we have to be ready to meet the challenge and to provide trained, willing and eager Nova Scotians to profit from the job opportunities opening up.
1 urge the House again to withdraw this bill at this time because the timing is wrong. If it passes in its present form, what does it do? It places not just a little club but a very big club in the hands of the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It makes a mockery of the proposals put forth by that hon. gentleman to the Premier of Nova Scotia on July 21. In that letter, the Prime Minister stated that he shared Premier Buchanan's view about the desirability of beginning to devise co-operative administrative arrangements and a system of revenue-sharing which will prove acceptable to the two levels of government.
Said the Prime Minister in the second paragraph:
This issue cannot remain unresolved much longer. It is therefore the intention of the federal government to see the matter resolved through the legal process while federal-provincial discussions concentrate on the more germane aspects of administrative mechanisms and revenue-sharing.
In the third paragraph, the Prime Minister states:
In this context, 1 would like to propose that we undertake an intensive round of negotiations this fall with a view to resolving all outstanding matters by February, 1982. If by then we have not reached an agreement, we should await the outcome of the legal process, which would of course mean that any future negotiations would start from a different base.
Mr. Speaker, that is the big club we would be giving the right hon. gentleman if we passed this bill now. If we used the right hon. gentleman's own reasoning, there should be no further debate on this bill, in fairness to Premier Buchanan and in fairness to Premier Peckford of Newfoundland, until February of 1982. This could mean that, pending the outcome of the negotiations and the legal process, the discussions could then start from an entirely new base. Those were the Prime Minister's own words.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the stakes are very high for Atlantic Canada. They are too high for us and for the federal government to rush in at this moment to try to settle this matter in a hurry.
I am pleased to see the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) in the House since I wish to quote briefly from his own document. The hon. gentleman, in Volume No. 1 of his magazine Evolution, states, on page 11, that the onshore impact of offshore activity could produce 20,000 to, 30,000 direct jobs, some 150,000 indirect jobs, and investment could reach $8 billion. The article goes on to list the fields in which this activity would take place, such as temporary and permanent service bases, repair, maintenance and steel platform fabrication yards, pipeline installation and pipeline coating yards, partial processing facilities, gas processing and treatment plants and marine terminals. I am only listing a few of the possible golden opportunities that await those of us who live in Atlantic Canada. All these are quoted in the booklet put out by the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that Nova Scotians and citizens of Atlantic Canada are going to fight. We are going to
fight hard for our rightful place when administrative arrangements and revenue-sharing decisions are made by government authorities. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, that this government did not give more time to resolving the difficulties we face owing to the breakdown of the Law of the Sea Conference instead of concentrating its efforts on Bill C-48. When the 150-nation UN conference adjourned this summer in Geneva, the Times of London summarized its results as follows:
The old regime has not been cast aside and cannot yet be, although its days are numbered. The new order is almost ready, and is waiting to take its place, but it cannot yet occupy the centre of the stage.
The bombshell was dropped at that conference by United States Ambassador James Malone when he said:
The political and economic interests of the United States need to be better protected in the decision-making system of the proposed international seabed authority.
This causes me to ask, where does the breakdown of this conference leave Canada and Canadians? Most of what we have obtained so far in maritime terms beyond the old three-mile limit has been obtained only by unilateral declaration. They include the economic zone. While the 200-mile fishing zone may be safe, I submit to this House that the 200-mile mining and drilling zone is definitely in jeopardy. We claim- only by unilateral declaration-sovereignty over the Arctic archipelago, the waters in between, and the Arctic islands. We claim-only by unilateral declaration-national jurisdiction over the continental shelf and its resources, principally petroleum. None of these declared assertions of jurisdiction will be recognized internationally if the Law of the Sea convention is not concluded and ratified.
Since we are unable to defend our claims with armed force, there may well be invasions of our proclaimed sovereign areas by those who want to drill for oil within the 200-mile limit or drag for minerals on our continental shelf, unless the convention becomes accepted international law.
What we do have under the 1958 international convention on the continental shelf is jurisdiction on the seabed and in the subsoil out to the limits of exploitability, which today means about 1000 feet. On the east coast, this barely covers Hibernia. In other words, the Law of the Sea convention was an attempt to provide the sanction of international respectability and legality to what we and other states have done unilaterally.
In light of its importance, I cannot help but wonder why the Right Hon. Prime Minister failed to convince President Reagan, for example, that the Law of the Sea was an important item both for Ottawa and the North-South Summit at which, I understand, it was not discussed. By failing in this regard, we stand to lose important economic jurisdiction and potential energy resources, especially in Atlantic Canada.
Since the Law of the Sea will determine whether the potential oil and gas resources off our east coast belong to Canada or to the world and since the conference will take place again in Venezuela only in the fall of 1982,1 say, for the final time, that Bill C-48 should be withdrawn until this
October 14, 1981

government gets its priorities straight and until this government is certain that its unilateral actions are backed by international law. For all these reasons, I am opposed to this legislation in its present form and wording.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member who last spoke would permit a question since, 1 think, he has some time left.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: No. I am sorry to inform the hon. member that the time allotted to the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) has expired. However, with the unanimous consent of the House I can permit a question to be put to him. Is there unanimous consent?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I was wanting to intervene on a point of order to ask if 1 might have some minutes to speak. However, I understand we have until six o'clock this evening. In view of that perhaps we could agree to that.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I have just a short question for the hon. member. I followed the Nova Scotia election. The hon. member made reference to Nova Scotia and to the position of the government. As I understand it, the Premier of Nova Scotia has now said that he has a deal with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and that he agrees to what the Prime Minister offered him in a letter which was sent this summer. 1 have read the letter, and it appears to me that the Prime Minister has offered revenue sharing and 100 per cent of revenue for a period, but in fact he has retained federal control.
I wonder if the hon. member, who made reference to the position of the government in Nova Scotia, could explain to me why the Government of Nova Scotia has given up its claim to offshore control and why its policy differs with the policy of the Conservative Party here in the House. Perhaps he could clear that up for me because I think there is plainly a conflict.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, this explains why the NDP now has only one member in Nova Scotia.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: A smart answer, but it does not answer the question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: The simple fact is that we have not given up our claim to offshore resources. What we want to have is a stronger voice in administrative arrangements and in the revenue sharing which will accrue to our province when the offshore oil and gas developments take place. We want to have a say as to where the drilling equipment will be built, where the oil pumping platforms will be constructed, and who will man them. There is a host of ancillary industries which are allied with this enormous type of development. When we look at the figures I have put on the record as taken from the minister responsible for DREE and see the potential, we want to know precisely the areas in which our province will share. That is why I raise these issues and place them on the record today.
Canada Oil and Gas Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Before I recognize the next hon. member to speak, I want to make my apologies to the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), who earlier approached the Chair and indicated that one of the members of his party would like to speak. Subsequent to that I see that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) is rising to be recognized, and I have to remind hon. members to my left that the Chair is obligated to move from left to right in that order. So I will recognize next the Minister of National Revenue and thereafter, if he rises, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller).


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to speak this afternoon, but both the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) and the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) have referred to me, and I feel, moreover, that it is important to put the facts on the record, in view of the allegations and positions put forward by the opposition.
The main case the opposition is putting forward is ownership. Ownership is completely irrelevant in this issue. Hon. members opposite are arguing on the grounds put forward by the Premier of Newfoundland. When the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was head of the administration, he wrote a letter to the Premier of Newfoundland. If the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre had gone on to quote the letter at greater length than he did, I think he would have shown that that letter was so full of holes as to be meaningless. The then prime minister granted ownership on certain conditions, and those conditions certainly depended on federal jurisdiction. In my opinion, that letter from the then prime minister was really not worth the paper on which it was written and, indeed, did not address in a legitimate way the question of ownership because that issue cannot be addressed.
Ownership is not the relevant issue, and I think we should put t'hat to rest. Let me give an example. The province of Newfoundland owns the forests of Newfoundland, it owns every tree in Newfoundland, yet we have signed three DREE agreements with that province to improve the forest industry there and to build up the provincial forest service. There is no way it could have been done without federal participation. That resource is completely and utterly owned by the province, but I submit it would have been impossible to develop the forests of Newfoundland without federal participation. The question of ownership in that case is completely and utterly irrelevant.
Let me give a second example. A mine in my riding is being closed down. It is not a question of ownership. The province owns that mine, it owns all the minerals under the earth, yet where is the province coming for help? It is coming to the federal government.
I submit again that ownership is not the relevant issue. Just because you own something that does not mean you have jurisdiction over it or you control it because the important concept here is not ownership at all but, indeed, jurisdiction and control, and that is what we have been trying to point out to the Government of Newfoundland for the last two years.

Canada Oil and Gas Act
Now it seems that the Government of Newfoundland is starting to see the light. We have not changed our position at all, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had to go to Newfoundland to clarify that position on television in order to get the provincial government to start to negotiate, hopefully in good faith. The principle we have been stating ever since the 1979 election-and that position has not changed at all-is that we want to negotiate with the province of Newfoundland and, indeed, with the other maritime provinces on the basis of revenue sharing and jurisdiction. We have said consistently that 100 per cent of the provincial-type revenues would go to the provinces as if the resources were onshore. The Prime Minister has quite clearly said that whatever revenues the provinces would normally get would go to them as if the resources were onshore. I do not think it can be made much clearer than that. That, it seems to me, is very clear. Revenues would be treated as if the resources were onshore and as if the provinces indeed were controlling those resources onshore.
[DOT] (WOO)
The second thing we have offered is joint jurisdiction. We have said that it should not be the provincial government alone or the federal government alone, but indeed the federal jurisdiction applying concurrently its jurisdiction to that problem.
The people of every province in this country, particularly Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, are very fortunate because they do not have only one government working for them, they have two. Some people in my province have been asking me for the past two years to choose between being a Newfoundlander and being a Canadian. I refuse to make that choice. I am proud to be a resident of that province and at the same time proud to be a Canadian.
1 reject those who ask me to make a choice. I will not make that choice. That is the essence of Canadianism. The people of Newfoundland are fortunate, and they know they are fortunate to have not one but two governments acting on their behalf. That is what we are saying.
Surely the federal jurisdiction and the provincial jurisdiction together are more important, powerful and effective in the long run than both governments working separately or indeed, even worse, both working at loggerheads. That is what we are proposing. Hopefully, if we can get the provinces to focus on the issues and negotiate in good faith, we can have an agreement, one that is good for Newfoundland.
I agree with my colleague from South Shore that we need those revenues, not handouts or dependence. We want real jobs and real money coming from those jobs for resource development. I agree with that. All Newfoundlanders want to see that.
The only way to do that is to get a deal that will be good for Newfoundland and good for Canada. Here is the importance of Bill C-48. While Newfoundland has a very real need that we can and must address to the resolution of these negotiations, Canada has a need as well. Those resources off the east coast of Canada are just as important as the resources in the Beaufort Sea and the resources in Alberta.
Until we can have a package, program and policy that encompasses, uses and plans the development of all those resources jointly, we will not be able to solve the energy problem in this country and have a great impact on the more serious problem of inflation.
We are fortunate, we can achieve self-sufficiency in Canada. However, there is a Canadian need now and we must address it. We in Newfoundland have to see not only to our own need, which is very real and urgent. We can solve that and it must be solved. We can have money going into Newfoundland. If the province of Newfoundland had started negotiating two years ago as it is doing today, we could have had a deal. Those revenues, which are sorely needed, would be going into that province.
The other consideration is the Canadian need. That must be addressed. The question of ownership is not the relevant issue. Who owns what is immaterial. It can be put aside. Who gets the money, who has the jurisdiction and control are the relevant issues. Those are the matters we should be talking about, not spurious, irrelevant issues that really do not matter in the long run.
Now that the negotiations are going on, now that the Government of Newfoundland and indeed the Government of Nova Scotia have come around to seeing that we must negotiate along those lines, I hope we can have an agreement and will create those jobs which are very necessary in eastern Canada.


Donald W. Munro: On a point of order.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the minister?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I have the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich on a point of order. Perhaps I should recognize him first.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) has just gone to great lengths to disown the notion that we are talking about ownership. As he was speaking, I was reading in the interpretations of definitions in the second part of this bill, referring specifically to Canada lands, the term "belongs to" or that belongs to Her Majesty in right of Canada. That carries some aspect of ownership to my understanding of English, or "in respect of which Her Majesty in right of Canada has the right to dispose of or exploit-"


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. If the hon. member had indicated he wanted to ask a question, which is where he is going, I would have recognized him for that purpose. However, if the hon. member is on a point of order, will he draw the attention of the Chair to that point of order?


Donald W. Munro: It is that the minister seemed to have been deliberately obfuscating the issue by disowning the notion of ownership, whereas the ownership seems to me to be in the definition.
October 14, 1981


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order. The hon. member is making a point of debate. I can understand that he may feel it to be an appropriate definition. I recognized him on a point of order. 1 would have recognized him equally with no difficulty on a question. Perhaps the hon. member would like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey), and if the minister is agreeable he can answer it.


Donald W. Munro: Can the minister reconcile his disowning the notion of ownership with the terminology used in clause 2 that Canada lands means "lands that belong to Her Majesty in right of Canada?" Does that not mean ownership? Further, does it not mean ownership when it goes on to say "or in respect of which Her Majesty in right of Canada has the right to dispose of or exploit the natural resources?" There is less ownership in the second instance than in the first. Perhaps he can explain what I find difficult to understand.


Bill Rompkey: I would hate to go through my whole presentation again. Obviously the hon. member has completely misunderstood the point I was making. The point I was making is that the question of ownership as I see it is not a relevant issue. It is what the opposition have been talking about this afternoon, but that is the obfuscation.
In my opinion, the question of ownership is not the relevant issue. The relevant issues are revenues, control and jurisdiction. Those are the relevant concepts. I submit that whatever is read in the bill or is not read, the point I was making is the relevance of various aspects of this question over others.
I say that the opposition have been emphasizing what are minor aspects of it. What I am trying to put on record is what I see to be the important aspects of this issue.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I have one brief question for the minister. I listened with great interest to his address. When any revenue-sharing agreement expires, does not the owner of the land remain in the dominant position, the supreme position, the only desirable position?


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my answer will have to be the same. I would have to go through my whole presentation again. I seem to have difficulty in making my point to the opposition. Either they do not understand what I am saying or they refuse to accept what I am saying. Let me state it again for the record.
In my opinion the issue on the east coast of who owns the resource is not at this point in time the relevant issue. The relevant issues to our people are who gets the money and the benefits and do we have adequate control and jurisdiction. Those are the relative concepts, not the concepts of ownership.


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I was beginning to wonder whether I would be recognized today. Now that we have settled most of the jurisdictional disputes between the official opposition and the government party. I would like to make some points on behalf of the New Demo-
Canada Oil and Gas Act
cratic Party. First, in reply to the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mrs. Erola) who is temporarily out of the House-


Mr. Blais:: The Minister of Mines.


Edward Allan Miller: Thank you very much. The minister made reference to the behaviour of members in the first three hours. I think there is justification for the kind of energy being demonstrated on this side of the House, if not on the other side. We have all been in our constituencies. Many members have been across the country, talking to people in extreme difficulty attempting to meet mortgage payments, inventories and bank payments, whether they be farmers, small-business men, fishermen and, in particular, the hard-hit home owners looking at interest rates of 19 and 20 per cent. The behaviour in the House that we should be critical of, I think, Mr. Speaker, is the behaviour of the government that comes back after three months without any answers to the economic problems that the Canadian public is facing right now.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Edward Allan Miller: The hon. minister was also critical about the time delay in passing Bill C-48. Mr. Speaker, the members on this side of the House were aware that when the bill was first introduced, it was a poor one. Having gone through many committee meetings, it is still a poor bill. At this stage of the bill, it is still a poor bill. We will still be debating a poor bill, I suspect, after the government imposes closure on us and passes Bill C-48, despite the kind of economic and resource grab and interference that Bill C-48 is going to have in the Northwest Territories, Yukon and in our offshore resources.
Mr. Speaker, the motion of the official opposition before us, is basically a very clumsy way of giving resource ownership, and probably an unconstitutional way of giving resource ownership to the provinces. The motion is not going to receive the support of the New Democratic Party. It is not because we do not support the concept of provincial control and ownership of resources; because we do support that concept. The recent party convention endorsed that policy; we are committed to the policy of ownership of offshore resources to the provinces. We worked very hard in the constitutional debate to assure that onshore resources were, indeed, under provincial jurisdiction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward Allan Miller: The motion does not go far enough. If we are going to eliminate from Canada lands all that area in the offshore Arctic, offshore east and west coast, surely we should make a further amendment to delete all reference in Bill C-48 to the Yukon and Northwest Territories. We would then be effectively able to get rid of this bill and would send it to where it should be relegated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward Allan Miller: Mr. Speaker, there are many concerns about Bill C-48. Again, the Minister of Mines was critical because of
11792

October 14, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
the amount of input that this bill supposedly has received. Most of that input has come from the industry. The committee was refused permission, although the all-party committee originally granted approval to travel to the north to talk to the Dene people. That approval was withdrawn when the Liberal government recognized the kind of opposition that it was going to receive in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories.
The input from those people in the north has not been received and will not be received at this stage of the bill. We are dealing with a bill that gives almost complete control over the Northwest Territories, the people in the north, development of the north, to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). It has taken complete control of northern and Indian development from the hands of the minister responsible to those areas. The bill has not had any input and does not give any jurisdiction to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts). The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) has been particularly silent on Bill C-48.
Regardless of the kind of motion we are discussing today, and regardless of the NDP support for the concept of provincial ownership, we find ourselves in the position of not being able to support this motion. We are not able to support the bill as it stands. We feel it is morally wrong to impose upon the northern people a bill of this nature without adequate input from that sector of our public, from that community in the north that is so dependent on orderly development of resources in the north.
At the moment, the northern people have little to say on the pace of development, and have no say where that development should proceed in regard to land claims. It is totally immoral in terms of the approach the government has taken toward our northern brothers and sisters.
The future environmental problems are also going to be affected by this bill. We should consider offshore resources as being not only oil and gas. In our rush for spoils in oil and gas off the east and west coasts in the Arctic, we have tended to neglect in this debate the resources that have been very important and should continue to be very important, particularly to the members from Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. Those fishery resources seem to have very little protection in this bill. I am very disappointed that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has not taken the opportunity to draft a bill that recognizes the economic impact of oil pollution and of disasters that are inevitable in the kind of exploration we are expecting to take place off the east coast. I am very disappointed the minister has not taken the opportunity to put down in a concrete manner and to impose in this bill some of his own interests in the interest of the Atlantic Fishery. The bill reflects the industry's input, the Liberal Canadianization plan. That is getting a great deal of play in the papers. The public, by and large, thinks they are getting something; that finally we are going to wrest away from the control of the Americans, British and Germans our interests in oil and natural gas. We are now going to have Canadian ownership; but that Canadian ownership is going to come largely at the expense of the Canadian taxpayers who are going to pay up to 93 cents on every dollar in oil exploration in northern waters and offshore. Rather than looking at private Canadianization, we should be looking at giving the federal government a greater role in public ownership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edward Allan Miller: I suggest that is the way to go, rather than fiddling around with incentives and grants that only give Canadian ownership to private interests for private profits.
I am somewhat bewildered by the Tory position. As my colleague says, I suppose, it is not unusual; but I think it is becoming more obvious. It is possible I will never understand the Tory position.


An hon. Member:: No intelligent person would understand it.


An hon. Member:: It is incomprehensible.


Edward Allan Miller: The Tories believe in private enterprise, free enterprise and the privatization of Petro-Canada.


An hon. Member:: And then they change their minds.


An hon. Member:: Suncor socialism.


Edward Allan Miller: Fortunately, there are some enlightened Tory premiers that have recognized, for the public good and their own survival, economic and political, that they will have to enter into public ownership of energy resources. I would like to congratulate Premier Davis on his purchase of Suncor. I am also pleased that Premier Peckford is not going to allow the energy resources of his province to be left completely in the hands of private industry. He is proposing a 40 per cent back-in for PetroPeckford in Newfoundland.
I am hoping within the next few days we will hear Premier Lougheed announce he has now bought Imperial Oil and we would have Petroberta.
When I read the Tory motion, originally I thought they were really talking about private ownership of offshore resources rather than provincial ownership, so that the major oil companies could develop them without being hindered by the National Energy Program or a provincial jurisdiction. Certainly 1 am encouraged that the Premier of Ontario wants a window into the oil industry and he sees it through public ownership. The same policy was being advocated by the NDP in the 1960s. We advocated the purchase of Imperial Oil which could probably have been obtained at that time for something like $2 billion, but unfortunately it was not accepted by the Liberal government at that time.
However, in looking at Bill C-48 and this particular motion, I re-emphasize that we sympathize with Tory attempts to get provincial ownership of resources, because if those resources are owned by the provinces, they can be developed at the pace and the rate which provincial governments see as being benefi-
October 14, 1981

cial to the public. It is one of the key reasons for ownership of those resources by the provinces. They know better the type of development they need. They know better just how fast, how rapidly and in what way those resources should be developed.
We in this party would like to see co-operation in the development of offshore resources between the provinces and the federal government so that all Canadians can benefit from those resources. We cannot see how the provinces and the federal government can separate jurisdiction and ownership of those resources and still protect the kinds of things over which the federal government still has control, such as the fishing industry. There must be some co-ordination between the provinces and the federal government in oil, in fishing, in navigation, in the area of pollution and in who will pay for it.
When we listen to the premiers making demands for offshore resources and revenues, we would like the premiers and the federal government to consider that along with that ownership goes some of the responsibility to deal with economic issues, such as the fishing industry, pollution and the types of things which accompany the responsibility of ownership. This is the position of my party. We will be speaking on several other motions which we have moved, hopefully in an attempt to see some improvement in this bill. If we do not, hopefully we will see major improvements in the environment and in the way the north is handled. Hopefully the people of the north will have some say. It would be very, very difficult for any member of my party to support Bill C-48 as it stands at present.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on motion No. 3. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
Canada Oil and Gas Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Pursuant to Standing Order 75(11), the recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
I have a series of motions which have been grouped for debate. Those are motions Nos. 4, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56 and 57. They will be voted on in a manner which I can perhaps detail later. In the meantime I will go through the motions to which I have referred seriatim, and I will be looking for a mover and seconder in each case.


James Ross Fulton: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 2 by adding immediately after line 17 at page 4 the following:
"'spill' means an amount of 100 litres or more of oil and any other substance deemed foreign to the environment."
Motion No. 51
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 80 by striking out line 10 at page 62 and substituting the following therefor:
"oil or gas including one that is authorized".


Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq) moved:: Motion No. 52
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 80 by adding immediately after line 33 at page 62 the following:
"(4) Where a person allows the discharge, emission or escape of oil or gas in accordance with regulations made pursuant to subsection (3), that person shall, in the manner prescribed by regulation, report such discharge, emission or escape of oil or gas to the Chief Conservation Officer.
(5) Where a Chief Conservation Officer receives a report pursuant to section 19(4) or 19.1(2), he shall give notice forthwith to the aboriginal peoples of Canada who may be affected in a manner prescribed by regulation."
Motion No. 53
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 80 by striking out lines 39 to 44 at page 64 and substituting the following therefor:
"(ii) any economic loss or damage resulting from a spill or a discharge, emission or escape of oil or gas that is authorized under subsection 19(3) including, among other things, loss of use of real or personal property or natural resources; loss of profits or impairment of earning capacity due to injury or destruction of property or natural resources, including both individual and collective loss of hunting, fishing, and gathering opportunities of aboriginal peoples; and loss of tax revenue due to injury to real or personal property; and".


Marc Lalonde: Motion No. 55
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 80 by striking out line 1 at page 65 and substituting the following therefor:
"(b) all persons to whose fault or".


James Ross Fulton: Motion No. 56
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 80 by striking out line 16 at page 66 and substituting the following therefor:

October 14, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
"damage, costs or expenses occurred or became evident to the claimant but
in".
Motion No. 57
That Bill C-48, an act to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, be amended in Clause 80 by striking out line 23 at page 67 and substituting the following therefor:
"shall direct a public inquiry to be made and may".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question on motion No. 51 will be put to the House, and a vote on this motion will dispose of motion No. 4. The second part of the ruling is that the question on motions Nos. 52, 53, 55, 56 and 57 will be put to the House separately. 1 take it that the debate may be sufficiently wide-ranging to cover all the motions I have indicated, but perhaps it might be appropriate to suggest that motions Nos. 51 and 4 might be the focus of attention of those hon. members who wish to speak now, because that seems to be the order in which they have been grouped. Therefore I recognize the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton).


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, in addressing myself to motions Nos. 4 and 51,1 think I will take some liberty in dealing with the other five motions as well because we may not have another opportunity to speak to them.
The environmental resolutions which have been grouped for debate by Madam Speaker show how inadequate this legislation is when it comes to the protection of the environment. The lack of concern for the environment is demonstrated by the government very clearly. The environmental provisions of this bill are equal only to the contempt the government has shown to people north of 60 when introducing the new regime for oil and gas exploration.
Members will remember that the committee which was studying this legislation supported a unanimous motion to travel north of 60 and how the Liberals came to the next meeting, packed it with members who were not present when the first motion to travel was passed, and rescinded it. That kind of activity became the trademark of the behaviour of Liberal committee members. What is the fear on the government's side about travelling north of 60? Are they afraid to find out the truth, that Bill C-48 is in fact a blueprint for the interests of Canadians south of 60 and has not achieved the bare minimum to protect culture and environment in the north?
The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) has a hyped-up sales pitch that Bill C-48 will play a vital role in Canadianizing the oil and gas industry. The environment is disturbed just as much regardless of who owns the machinery. The important issue is the regulatory regime. Ducks disturbed by aircraft and polar bears slicked with oil have little concern about whose pockets are Filling fastest from the exploitation.
What is important to the biological environment is a system of checks and balances that demands of industry the most benign form of interaction possible. The sneaky reversal of the committee's plan to travel was equalled at a later date when the Liberals and my Tory friends on the right made a sweetheart deal to close off debate on the bill while it was still in
committee. Anyone familiar with parliamentary procedure knows that the reason we are debating this bill now is that the Liberals and Tories are in the same sticky swamp and that report stage debate was taking place because the Conservatives went into the deal with the Liberals with a few parliamentary screws loose.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-48 is designed to speed up the exploration for oil and gas on what have been called Canada lands. That in itself may be laudable from a narrow supply point of view, but with the lack of environmental provisions in the legislation I am afraid we are looking at an environmental disaster in the making.
How can proper baseline data be collected when the permit structure is of such an accelerated design? Important biological studies will never be done for several reasons. First, the legislation is designed to speed up oil and gas exploration without any balancing mechanism to protect plants or animals, and second, the legislation is purposely drafted to avoid dealing with environmental impact costs.
It is therefore inevitable that many species will be unduly disrupted, damaged and in some instances completely destroyed. Bill C-48 is written with such a singular vision and preoccupation-to extract oil and gas-that even the proposed role for the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) has been sidelined.
Bill C-48 is much like a court composed of a prosecutor only. The minister has opted for all the powers of decision despite the obvious conflict of interest.
Let me first deal with what I think is the major fault of this legislation regarding the environment. Some of my colleagues have talked about the other silent partners in this legislation- the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc)-however, the minister who sits most idly while his department is bypassed by the monolithic energy department is the Minister of the Environment.
At the March 12, 1981, meeting of the Fisheries and Forestry Committee, I asked the minister about some of the environmental concerns passed on to us by groups such as CARC, the West Coast Environmental Law Association, the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union and many other groups. Besides referring a question about staff requirements to his departmental officials, the minister said that he was "happy to have this kind of question because, as minister, I never feel that my colleagues give me quite as much in the way of resources as I need to undertake the important work of the north".
That statement, Mr. Speaker, is shocking. It shows just how little the Minister of the Environment knows about Bill C-48. If the minister does not do anything about his participation in Bill C-48, he will be standing with one toe in a lake killed by acid rain but up to his neck in oil slicks and tales of the demise of Canada's wildlife resources.
October 14, 1981

Why are we concerned about the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and particularly this minister, when it comes to the environment? Let us look at the record of the Department of .Energy, Mines and Resources and its track record with the environment.
The Minister of the Environment should read some of the reports produced by his own department. A report prepared in April of last year documents the concerns senior departmental officials have about offshore exploration and the problems they have in relation to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Perhaps the most condemning comment is found on page 13 of the report which reads: "The lack of environmental consciousness exhibited by EMR is a concern." I regard this as a tough statement for public servants to make. This is a comment from a government official, not a member of the opposition. It is clear that EMR is a proponent department. A proponent department like EMR is by mandate and definition primarily, if not totally, concerned with getting oil and gas out of the ground and from under the water. Mr. Speaker, that is expected of them. But there is a need for adequate checks and balances, and these are not present in Bill C-48. I say and the NDP says that the proper check on EMR's mad dash for oil and gas should rest with the Department of the Environment.
No moves have been made to give formal protective status to the 150 or more identified and internationally recognized ecological sites north of 60. There are still only six federal wildlife biologists north of 60. There have been no settlements of claim with Canada's first Canadians north of 60-to protect and enhance their culture and traditional interaction with wildlife and the environment.
Bill C-48 is, I am sure, epic poetry-music to the cash register ears for which it is written, but Bill C-48 is an obituary to many cultures and species.
The report I referred to earlier goes on as follows: "The Department of the Environment should act as spokesman in respect of environment, identifying to and for the government, environmental concerns." We know Mr. Speaker, that the proposed national resources management administration which I understand will be announced next week by the government, will include representatives from the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the Department of the Environment and others, but we also know who pushes whom around in this government and in other governments. I predict, Mr. Speaker, that the Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans will gather a lot of dust in this arrangement. 1 challenge the government to publish the minutes of the meetings of this council. That way, we will see whose interests are being protected and whose interests are being raised.
In fact, on June 18, 1981 in committee, the minister said he would release the terms of reference of the council. Because of the Liberal-Tory deal to close debate in committee, however, we do not have those guidelines. I would ask the minister to table those terms of reference in the House during this debate.
Canada Oil and Gas Act
Mr. Speaker, the minister's proposed council is not laid out in the legislation and I would like to raise a few points about why it should be if it is relevant to the amendments before us.
One of the criticisms of the federal government's environmental assessment procedure is that it is not enshrined in legislation. I have expressed my concerns about this matter, and 1 would certainly want improvements in the assessment process before it is legislated. 1 should like to refer to a number of reports that show why the lack of a legislative mandate to protect the environment in Bill C-48 is such a bad move by the government.
A report done in December 1978 by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources says that there has been "slow acceptance at senior levels of the long-term need to make environmental evaluation a basic element in both the economic analysis and planning processes." In layman's language that means that senior people in the department are not particularly concerned about the environment. The report refers to the environmental assessment and review process as it relates to the department.
The report also says there are problems in EMR in implementing the necessary processes. This point was pursued by the Canadian Arctic Resources Committee. In a letter to members of the committee studying Bill C-48, it expressed serious concerns about the lack of staff in EMR to carry out minimal environmental research.
The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development-the silent partner-is no better. Despite the fact that EARP was established by cabinet in December, 1973, by December 1980 the department had still not established procedures on environmental screening-after over eight years. A recent article in the Ottawa Citizen makes reference to pressure being exerted on the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to grant exploratory rights before legislation recognizing native rights is passed by Parliament. The government's hypocrisy is shown by its intention to proceed with the Norman Wells pipeline despite the completely unchallenged work of Mr. Justice Thomas Berger.


Mr. Kelly:: What does he say?


James Ross Fulton: What is the government afraid of? I hear a member opposite yapping, so we will see if he has something to say.


Norman Kelly: What is his reaction?


James Ross Fulton: They have been running around the country saying that Bill C-48 is "neutral" on land claims, but when pressed to come up with a legal opinion we see what a charade the government parades as the truth.
At this point I want to remind the noisy member opposite that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development agreed on June 1 to provide a legal opinion on whether Bill C-48 affects land claims negotiations. He promised that when native people were present at committee. To date we have not seen that opinion. In fact, the minister has written to me

October 14, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
indicating that he does not intend to provide any legal opinion. One could well assume that Bill C-48 has much worse implications for the resolution of aboriginal title and rights than was previously thought. Again, it is the Liberal gain-promise everything when the TV lights are on but in the cool mushroom atmosphere of cabinet privacy, sing a different tune.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the environment will take the back seat on this legislation and our party will continue to argue for recognition of the need to protect the environment from Liberal abuse, and Canadians from Liberal deception.
Mr. Speaker, the amendments proposed by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar) and myself recognize the importance of the environment and would give the government and all Canadians a mandate to protect the delicate ecology of the north and the offshore, both in British Columbia and in Atlantic Canada.
Having documented the concerns our party has over the feeble position of the Minister of the Environment on this bill, I would like to make some points on the specific amendments presently before the House.
Our motion to define a spill as "an amount of 100 litres or more of oil and any other substance deemed foreign to the environment" will give the government a legislative mandate to control chronic oil pollution, which, as my colleague the hon. member for Nanaimo-Alberni (Mr. Miller) has pointed out, could present us with more long-term environmental problems than even major oil spills that rigs like Ixtoc in the Gulf of Mexico last year caused.
On June 6, 1981, the minister had this to say about my definition for quantifying a spill:
We would rather leave it open, and then if we want to act on a one-litre spill, we can act on a one-litre spill.
I do not know if the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources thinks that statement fools anyone. If 100 litres is too big, then 1 will stand aside-and I am confident my colleague, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq will also do so-for a further amendment taking it from 100 litres down to one litre. I will support the minister's own proposal of one litre; but let us see a quantifiable legal definition.
I just want to quote from a report written by Environment Canada in June, 1978, that says:
-the cumulative effects of small leaks and spills over long periods of time are capable of devastating salt marshes, fish spawning areas, shellfish areas, etc.
Let us look at the experience elsewhere. In Wales, the harbour authority has defined a spill as anything over a few barrels. What this has done is to give a mandate to the local authorities to watch the chronic oil pollution problem closely, but it has also meant that the companies involved have taken the time to train their employees properly and have recognized the importance of controlling these kinds of spills. Incidentally, when a quantified level was set, the spill rate in Wales dropped to one spill in 100 from previous levels.
In committee, the minister would not release the proposed regulations that he says would govern a spill. In fact, when he was asked by another of my colleagues if he might define a spill as 10,000 gallons, he said he might make exceptions such as in the regulations. That is just not good enough. If the minister thinks 100 litres is too big and one litre is about right, but that 10,000 gallons is okay, I think it is clear, in the interests of clarifying this for the minister himself, that we should have a quantifiable level spelled out in this legislation.
Our next motion, No. 51, seeks to amend Bill C-48 by including "authorized" spills under the environmental sections of the bill. Undoubtedly there will be authorized spills, such as the Baffin Island oil spill project, which we have already seen, where studies are being done to assess whether chemical dispersants will be effective in dealing with oil spilled in the Arctic, and also to determine the impact of oil in the Arctic environment. However, to exclude these spills from the environmental sections of Bill C-48 or other bills is wrong.
For example, we all remember the disastrous oil spill test of last year. We assume it was authorized last year when polar bears were used in a test and two of them died as a result of being covered in oil. That is perhaps an acceptable experiment from a biological point of view, but the damage to the ecology even from authorized spills may be serious enough that the liability and other provisions of this legislation must cover them, as well.
Once again, the minister will say it is in the regulations. This is a minor change that will show that the government is, in fact, concerned about the environment. I urge the government members to include authorized spills under the general environmental aspects of Bill C-48.
Motion 52, which we are presently considering, seeks to broaden the provisions of this section by giving advance notice to people who are affected. That is important in light of my earlier comments regarding the need for the public to know about this government's intentions regarding environmental pollution by companies.
Motion 53, which is presented by my colleague from Nunatsiaq broadens the provisions for liability. It is clear that should oil and gas exploration proceed as outlined under Bill C-48, and with the inevitability of a spill, there must be adequate protection of those people whose livelihood will be destroyed or drastically altered. To the fishermen on both coasts and to the aboriginal people in the north who will be affected most dramatically by a speed-up in exploration, this amendment will offer some minimal amount of protection.
There will be massive exploration carried out under this new regime. There is no doubt about that. The people who will bear the brunt must have assurances that their livelihood will be protected. The government's proposals do not go far enough and must be changed.
I hope to deal with Madam Speaker's ruling on Motion 54 at another time; however, let me say that Beauchesne's Section 7 of Citation 773 does not apply because Motion No. 54 does not place any charge upon the public treasury. Motion 56 is
October 14, 1981

closely related to Motion No. 53. We are proposing this particular amendment because of the need to recognize problems associated with identifying the time when a compensation period can start.
In order to illustrate this I would like to cite a few examples. We are faced here with the possibility of damage to a person's livelihood as the result of an oil spill. For example, an oil spill may occur, go unreported and disappear from view, as did much of the oil in the Gulf of Mexico with the Ixtoc spill where it mixed with the water column. It will then resurface at some time later to foul the fishermen's nets, a boat, a shore, a bird-nesting area, or whatever. Under the present legislation, fishermen or other individuals would have a severely limited opportunity to pursue compensation.
I also want to mention briefly a parallel case. The Canadian Environmental Law Association has presented the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with proposed changes to the Nuclear Liability Act. Their purpose is to see changes to the legislation that would enable victims of radiation exposure to claim at a later date. As members know, people who work in the nuclear field may develop cancer which only becomes apparent long after exposure. The limitation period in the Nuclear Liability Act should be changed to allow for compensation claims at a later date. It is under the same principle that I feel Bill C-48 should be changed.
Motion 57, which we have also moved, calls on the government to conduct an inquiry when there has been a spill or an accident caused by an operator who is acting under this legislation. It is clear that in the case of a spill, the minister should order an inquiry. How better to learn and avoid repetition? To be honest, I do not trust any government nor should it be left to a minister's discretion, such as is proposed in Bill C-48. An inquiry must take place.
I sat in committee during almost all the meetings at which Bill C-48 was considered. We heard evidence from a number of environmental groups, and all of them pointed out the serious deficiencies of this bill when it comes to consideration of the environment. The NDP fought in committee to present amendments, and we will continue to fight for the amendments which we have proposed.
Let me conclude by saying that no witnesses appeared before the committee to propose that there be no environmental regime, which is what Bill C-48 contains at present under the existing regime put forward by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, under normal circumstances, one might express pleasure at participating in this debate during the report stage of Bill C-48. It is a most important piece of legislation which will set the rules for all future gas and oil exploration and development on Crown lands. But there can be little pleasure-certainly little pleasure for me as one member-in being associated with what is actually a sham. Sir, I say "sham" with some care and advisedly because the government is only pretending to consid-
Canada Oil and Gas Act
er the views of Members of Parliament and the public in connection with Bill C-48. Although true of the bill as a whole, that is especially true of the environmental dimensions, including the seven motions coupled for debate today.
Bill C-48 was devised to accomplish a number of things. Its stated and ostensible purpose-its purpose for public consumption-is to introduce a new oil and gas exploration and development regime for federal lands in the north and offshore areas. The legislation is central certainly to the government's National Energy Program and therefore to its grand design to Canadianize the petroleum industry. The government's hidden agenda, however, is to proclaim the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) as the energy czar for all of Canada, with powers that not only undermine the private sector but also usurp the responsibilities of other cabinet ministers.
Motions Nos. 4, 51, 52, 53, 55, 56 and 57 inaugurate Parliament s consideration of the environmental provisions of Bill C-48 at the report stage. In addition to the seven motions we are debating now, many other motions on the environment will be debated, including ones that I and my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative Party are sponsoring. But probably few of these motions, maybe not even one, stand a ghost of a chance of passing, for the government has steadfastly refused from the beginning to depart from the narrow course it has set for itself. Doubtless the minister will ensure that the trained seals in the Liberal caucus will vote to impose this set of far-reaching rules and regulations for energy development on a land mass greater than all the ten provinces combined. Judging from their supine performance and track record in the standing committee, the same yes-men will neither understand nor care about the profoundly harmful consequences the bill will have for the country as a whole.
A measure of how determined the minister is to get his own way is the fact that not one of the dozens of recommendations made by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans for changes in the bill has been accepted. Concerns expressed by the Department of the Environment have also been ignored, as have those of the government's own independent advisory bodies, for example, the Environmental Advisory Council. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) himself was not, to my knowledge, invited to appear as a witness before the Commons Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works which dealt with the bill, nor have non-government environmental organizations fared any better.
It is bad enough that the Minister of the Environment has been ignored, but so have reputable organizations which made excellent representations at the committee stage. Their views were dismissed out of hand by the government. Is it any wonder then that we in the opposition have had little success in having Bill C-48 changed to reflect sound environmental principles?
Some of the specific environmental concerns expressed about the bill are embodied in the seven motions currently

October 14, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
being debated as a group in the House today, tomorrow and, we hope, Friday and beyond. Other motions not yet before the House, including some of my own, are more fundamental. One in particular, strikes at the heart of what is wrong with the bill from an environmental point of view. I am referring to the amendment proposed by me in committee and now put forward as Motion No. 36 in the name of the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson). The motion would delegate to the Minister of the Environment responsibility for administering the major environmental provisions of the bill. As the legislation stands, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and, to a lesser extent, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro), are delegated that responsibility.
I realize that we are not debating Motion No. 36 today but I want to discuss the seven that we are debating in the context of other motions. Without such an approach I do not think a full understanding would be possible. As the legislation stands, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and, to a lesser extent, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have delegated to them the main environmental responsibility under Bill C-48. As my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) has pointed out, that fact makes a mockery of environmental principles because those two ministers have the strongest vested interest in energy development. They should thus be the last ones asked to protect the environment from the very activities they themselves have a mandate to promote. The problem was recognized in the 1970 throne speech of a government preceding the existing one. In part, that throne speech reads:
There is an inherent conflict of interest... between those who are seeking exploitation of non-renewable resources and those who are charged with the responsibility of protecting the environment.
Bill C-48 violates the principle that proponent departments in the energy field should not be the custodians of the environment in the face of activities in which they have a direct interest. Otherwise, it would be like hiring the town arsonist to be fire chief.
My comments apply especially to Clause 49, which we are seeking to amend this session. It would establish a multimil-lion-dollar environmental studies fund to be controlled not by the Minister of the Environment but, rather, by the Minister of Energy, for south of 60 and by the Minister of Northern Development for north of 60. The fund is supposed to finance studies of a broad, baseline nature so as to ensure that resource activities on Crown lands respect both the environment and the lifestyle of the native peoples and other residents
in the areas affected. But because ministers of proponent departments, namely the two I have mentioned, will administer the fund rather than the Minister of the Environment- who is by definition a disinterested party, somebody without a vested interest in the developments which may well threaten the environment-fishermen, native peoples and coastal residents, will have to go begging, cap in hand, to the minister of energy and to the minister of northern affairs for environmental studies, to be carried out. How can anyone be confident that either minister will respond objectively to requests for environmental studies when the resultant findings might document the wisdom of halting pet projects of those two ministers?
In my view it is essential that the minister responsible for the protection of the environment have an arm's length relationship to projects that might threaten the environment. Bill C-48 violates that principle in spades.
During the committee stage of Bill C-48, the minister of energy, his officials, and his parliamentary secretary, whom 1 see on the other side of the chamber today, stressed that co-ordinating mechanisms would be established to ensure that the Department of the Environment would be consulted on all environmental matters related to resource development on Crown lands. But I ask again, why has the Minister of the Environment been given the secondary role in what is essentially an environmental area? The government has the cart before the horse. In this context, it is the minister of energy who should be consulted by the Minister of the Environment, not the other way around.
We are taking enormous risks with the future of Canada if we do not build proper environmental safeguards into any regime for resource development in the frontier areas of our great dominion. When I say that, I am referring to the Arctic and the maritime offshore. The Arctic alone covers some 40 per cent of the territory of our entire country. Although vast, it is the most environmentally vulnerable of all regions. Because of the frigid climate, a major oil spill or well-site blow-out in the Arctic could spell disaster for the delicate ecosystem and for the traditional lifestyle of the native peoples who depend on it for survival. We cannot afford the luxury of waiting until after the damage is done to take action because, according to experts, the damage may well be irreversible.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: It being six o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1) I do now leave the chair until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 6 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
October 14, 1981


APPENDIX &quot;A&quot;
[Stage Direction]
(See p. 11745)

[Stage Direction]
Certified to be a true copy of a Minute of a Meeting of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on the 25 September, 1981
The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation
of the Prime Minister, advise:
1.	that in the absence from Ottawa of the Prime Minister or in the event of his being unable to perform the functions of his office, the next senior minister who is in Ottawa and is able to perform the functions of the Office of Prime Minister, be authorized to act for the Prime Minister;
2.	that in the absence from Ottawa of a minister whose name is set out in Column II of an item of the Schedule to this Minute, or in the event of that minister being unable to perform the functions of his office, the minister whose name is set out in Column III of the item be authorized to act for the minister named in Column II in respect of the office set out in Column I of the item;
3.	that in the absence from Ottawa of the ministers named in Columns II and III of an item of the Schedule to this Minute, or in the event of both of those ministers being unable to perform the functions of their office, the minister whose name is set out in Column IV of the item be authorized to act for the minister named in
Column II in respect of the office set out in Column 1 of the item;
4.	that in the absence from Ottawa of the ministers named in Columns II, III and IV of an item of the Schedule to this Minute, or in the event of all those ministers being unable to perform the functions of their office, the Prime Minister or, if the Prime Minister is absent from Ottawa or unable to perform the functions of his office, the next senior minister who is in Ottawa be authorized to act for the minister named in Column II in respect of the office set out in Column I of the item;
5.	that where an office set in Column I of an item of the Schedule to this Minute is vacant, the minister whose name is set out in Column III of that item be authorized to act in the office of the minister whose office is set out in Column I of that item; and
6.	that where an office set out in Column I of an item of the Schedule to this Minute is vacant, in the absence from Ottawa of the minister whose name is set out in Column III of that item, or in the event of that minister being unable to perform the functions of the office set out in Column I of that item, the minister whose name is set out in Column IV of that item be authorized to act in the office of the minister whose office is set out in Column I of that item.

[Stage Direction]
COLUMN I	COLUMN II	COLUMN 111	COLUMN IV
				SECOND ACTING
OFFICE	NAME	ACTING MINISTER	MINISTER1.	Agriculture	Mr. E. Whelan	Mr. J.-L. Pepin	Mr. L. Axworthy2.	Communications	Mr. F. Fox	Mr. J. Roberts	Mr. H. Gray3a.	Consumer and Corporate Affairs	Mr. A. Ouellet	Mr. C. Lapointe	Mr. D. Johnston3b.	Post Office	Mr. A. Ouellet	Mr. C. Lapointe	Mr. D. Johnston4.	Economic Development	Mr. H. A. Olson	Mr. M. Lalonde	Mr. H. Gray5.	Employment and Immigration	Mr. L. Axworthy	Mr. P. De Bane	Mr. C. Caccia6.	Energy, Mines and Resources	Mr. M. Lalonde	Mrs. J. Erola	Mr. J.-L. Pepin7.	External Affairs	Mr. M. MacGuigan	Mr. G. Lamontagne	Mr. L. Axworthy8.	Finance	Mr. A. MacEachen	Mr. P. Bussieres	Mr. D. Johnston9.	Fisheries and Oceans	Mr. R. LeBlanc	Mr. J. Roberts	Mr. W. Rompkey
October 14, 1981

[Stage Direction]
COLUMN I	COLUMN II	COLUMN III	COLUMN IV
				SECOND ACTING
OFFICE	NAME	ACTING MINISTER	MINISTER10.	Indian Affairs and Northern Development	Mr. J. Munro	Miss M. Begin	Mr. M. Lalonde11.	Industry, Trade and Commerce	Mr. H. Gray	Mr. C. Lapointe	Mr. E. Lumley12a.	Justice and Attorney General	Mr. J. Chretien	Mr. R. Kaplan	Mr. A. Ouellet12b.	Social Development	Mr. J. Chretien	Mr. J. S. Fleming	Miss M. Begin13.	Labour	Mr. C. Caccia	Mr. L. Axworthy	Mr. F. Fox14.	National Defence	Mr. G. Lamontagne	Mr. M. MacGuigan	Mr. W. B. Campbell15.	National Health and Welfare	Miss M. Begin	Mr. J. Chretien	Mr. W. B. Campbell16.	National Revenue	Mr. W. Rompkey	Mr. J.-J. Blais	Mr. A. MacEachen17.	Privy Council	Mr. Y. Pinard	Mr. W. Rompkey	Mr. R. Kaplan18.	Public Works	Mr. P. Cosgrove	Mr. Y. Pinard	Mr. J.-J. Blais19.	Regional Economic Expansion	Mr. P. De Bane	Mr. F. Fox	Mr. P. Cosgrove20a.	Science and Technology	Mr. J. Roberts	Mr. R. LeBlanc	Mr. J. Munro20b.	Environment	Mr. J. Roberts	Mr. R. LeBlanc	Mr. J. Munro21.	Secretary of State	Mr. G. Regan	Mr. J. S. Fleming	Mr. F. Fox22.	Solicitor General	Mr. R. Kaplan	Mr. J. Chretien	Mr. Y. Pinard23.	Supply and Services	Mr. J.-J. Blais	Mr. P. Cosgrove	Mr. P. De Bane24.	Transport	Mr. J.-L. Pepin	Mr. L. Axworthy	Mr. E. Whelan25.	Treasury Board	Mr. D. Johnston	Mr. A. MacEachen	Mr. A. Ouellet26.	Veterans Affairs	Mr. W. B. Campbell	Mr. G. Lamontagne	Miss M. Begin
P.C. 1981-2679 24 September, 1981
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, pursuant to the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, is pleased hereby to appoint effective October 1, 1981 for a period terminating effective February 28, 1982, each of the following Members of the House of Commons to be Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister set out opposite his or her name:
Name of Member of the
House of Commons	Minister
John Evans	to Deputy Prime Minister
and Minister of Finance
Robert Bockstael	to Minister of Transport
Gerald Laniel	to	Minister of Industry, Trade and CommerceMarcel Ostiguy	to	Minister of AgricultureRoy MacLaren	to	Minister of Energy, Mines and ResourcesRoger Simmons	to	Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the EnvironmentUrsula Appolloni	to	Minister of National DefenceRussell MacLellan	to	Minister of Regional Economic ExpansionCeline Hervieux-Payette	to	Solicitor General
October 14, 1981
[Stage Direction]
Pierre Deniger	to	Minister of State (Multiculturalism)	October 7, 1981 le 7 octobre 1981Ralph Ferguson	to	Minister of State (Small Businesses)	CABINET COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIPRaymond Savard	to	Minister of Public Works	John Campbell	to	Minister of Veterans Affairs	COMMUNICATIONS
HIS EXCELLENCY THE GOVERNOR GENERAL IN COUNCIL, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, pursuant to the Parliamentary Secretaries Act, is further pleased hereby to appoint effective October I, 1981 for a period terminating effective September 30, 1982, each of the following Members of the House of Commons to be Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister set out opposite his or her name:
Jim Peterson	to	Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada and Minister of State for Social DevelopmentRay Chenier [DOT]	to	Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern DevelopmentGary McCauley	to	Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster GeneralBrian Tobin	to	Minister of Fisheries and OceansDoug Frith	to	Minister of National Health and WelfareJack Masters	to	Minister of CommunicationsJean Lapierre	to	Secretary of State of CanadaRon Irwin	to	Secretary of State for External AffairsClaude Tessier	to	Minister of National RevenueDavid Smith	to	President of the Queen's Privy Council for CanadaNorm Kelly	to	President of the Treasury BoardR6mi Bujold	to	Minister of Employment and ImmigrationTherdse Killens	to	Minister of State (Mines)Antonio Yanakis	to	Minister of Labour
Chairman
Vice-Chairman
Members
Mr. G. Regan Mr. S. Joyal
Mr. A. J. MacEachen Mr. J. Chretien Sen. H. A. Olson Mr. A. Ouellet Sen. R. J. Perrault Mr. R. LeBlanc Mr. J.-J. Blais Mr. J. S. Fleming Mr. Y. Pinard Mrs. J. Erola Sen. J. Austin

[Stage Direction]
Chairman	Sen. H. A. Olson
Vice-Chairman	Mr. M. Lalonde
Members	Mr. A. J. MacEachen
	Mr. J.-L. Pepin Mr. J. C. Munro
	Mr. H. E. Gray Mr. E. F. Whelan
	Mr. A. Ouellet Mr. R. LeBlanc Mr. J. Roberts Mr. F. Fox Mr. P. De Ban6
	Sen. H. R. Argue Mr. W. Rompkey Mr. C. Lapointe Mr. D. Johnston
	Mr. L. Axworthy Mrs. J. Erola
	Sen. J. Austin Mr. C. Caccia
[Stage Direction]
October 14, 1981

[Stage Direction]
Chairman
Chairman	Mr. M. MacGuigan	Vice-ChairmanVice-Chairman	Mr. G. Lamontagne	MembersMembers	Mr. A. J. MacEachen Mr. J.-L. Pepin Mr. E. F. Whelan Mr. M. Lalonde Sen. R. J. Perrault Mr. R. LeBlanc Mr. J. Roberts Mr. J.-J. Blais Mr. F. Fox Mr. P. De Ban6	PRMr. J. S. Fleming	Mr. E. Lumley	ChairmanMr. D. Johnston	Mr. L. Axworthy	Vice-Chairman MembersGOVERNMENT OPERATIONS	Chairman	Mr. Y. Pinard	Vice-Chairman	Mr. F. Fox	Members	Mr. A. J. MacEachen Mr. J.-L. Pepin Mr. A. Ouellet Mr. J.-J. Blais Sen. H. R. Argue Mr. G. Regan Mr. W. Rompkey Mr. D. Johnston Mr. P. Cosgrove	Mr. B. Campbell	Chairman Vice-ChairmanLABOUR RELATIONS	MembersChairman	Mr. Y. Pinard	Vice-Chairman	Mr. A. Ouellet	Members	Mr. J.-L. Pepin	SECMr. J. Chretien Mr. J. C. Munro	Mr. H. Gray	ChairmanMr. R. LeBlanc Mr. J.-J. Blais	Vice-ChairmanSen. H. R. Argue Mr. G. Regan Mr. P. Bussieres Mr. C. Lapointe Mr. D. Johnston Mr. P. Cosgrove Mr. C. Caccia	Members
Mr. Y. Pinard Mr. J. Chretien
Sen. H. A. Olson Mr. E. F. Whelan Sen. R. J. Perrault Mme M. Begin Mr. G. Lamontagne Mr. R. P. Kaplan Mr. P. Bussieres Mrs. J. Erola Mr. S. Joyal

[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. E. Trudeau Mr. A. J. MacEachen
Mr. J. Chretien Sen. H. A. Olson Mr. H. E. Gray Mr. M. Lalonde Mr. R. LeBlanc Mr. G. Regan Mr. M. MacGuigan Mr. J. S. Fleming Mr. Y. Pinard Mr. D. Johnston Mr. L. Axworthy

[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. E. Trudeau Mr. A. J. MacEachen
Mr. J.-L. Pepin Mr. G. Regan Mr. Y. Pinard Mr. D. Johnston

[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. E. Trudeau Mr. A. J. MacEachen
Mr. J. Chretien Mr. M. Lalonde Mr. G. Lamontagne Mr. M. MacGuigan Mr. R. P. Kaplan Mr. Y. Pinard Mr. L. Axworthy
October 14, 1981	COMMONS	DEBATES	
	SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT		TREASURY BOARD
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Chretien
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. D. Johnston
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. C. Munro
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. Fleming
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. Ouellet
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. A. J. MacEachen
[Stage Direction]
Sen. H. R. Argue
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. Rompkey
[Stage Direction]
Mmc M. Begin
[Stage Direction]
Mr. E. Lumley
[Stage Direction]
Mr. F. Fox Mr. G. Regan Mr. R. P. Kaplan Mr. D. Johnston Mr. L. Axworthy Mr. P. Cosgrove Mrs. J. Erola
[Stage Direction]
Alternates
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-J. Blais 1st Alternate Mr. P. Cosgrove Mr. C. Lapointe Mr. P. De Bane Sen. J. Austin
[Stage Direction]
Sen. J. Austin Mr. C. Caccia
[Stage Direction]
Mr. B. Campbell
[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. Joyal Mr. B. Campbell
[Stage Direction]
WESTERN AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. L. Axworthy
[Stage Direction]
SPECIAL COMMITTEE OF COUNCIL
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J.-L. Pepin
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. C. Munro
[Stage Direction]
Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Y. Pinard
[Stage Direction]
Sen. H. A. Olson
[Stage Direction]
Vice-Chairman
[Stage Direction]
Sen. R. J. Perrault
[Stage Direction]
Mr. H. E. Gray Mr. E. F. Whelan
[Stage Direction]
Members
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. P. Kaplan
[Stage Direction]
Mr. M. Lalonde
[Stage Direction]
Mr. W. Rompkey
[Stage Direction]
Sen. R. J. Perrault
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. Bussieres
[Stage Direction]
Mr. R. LeBlanc
[Stage Direction]
Mr. C. Lapointe
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. Roberts
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. Cosgrove
[Stage Direction]
Mr. P. De Bane
[Stage Direction]
Mrs. J. Erola
[Stage Direction]
Sen. H. R. Argue
[Stage Direction]
Mr. S. Joyal
[Stage Direction]
Mr. J. S. Fleming
[Stage Direction]
Mr. B. Campbell
[Stage Direction]
Sen. J. Austin
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, October 15, 1981