1981-04-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43, the nature of which is such as I would think commends itself for unanimous acceptance by all members of the House.
In view of the successful landing only a few minutes ago of the space shuttle Columbia and the historic importance of this event, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That this House convey to the President and the people of the United States its congratulations on today's outstanding achievement in man's continuing adventure in space, and further, that this House commends the daring and skill displayed by Captain Robert L. Crippen and John W. Young in carrying out this historic mission.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the terms of the motion moved by Mr. Nielsen, seconded by Mr. Neil. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Carried.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, whereas it is widely recognized that mistakes in filling out income tax returns can be made honestly and without any criminal intent whatsoever, and whereas reassessment may result in unexpected demands for immediate repayment of
substantial sums of money, thereby putting families under great financial and psychological pressure, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That where honest mistakes have been made in the filing of income tax returns, and where reassessment results in demands for repayment of substantial sums of money, the Department of National Revenue impose its time requirements for repayment in a more humane manner and waive all interest charges imposed on such moneys for a reasonable period.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA OIL AND GAS ACT
Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent importance. To my knowledge no political philosophy or party in this House advocates confiscation of private property ownership or rights without appropriate compensation and/or access to due process of law. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House categorically reject any legislative initiative such as Bill C-48, or policy direction by government which advocates or incorporates into the laws of Parliament retroactive expropriation by government, or Crown corporations of government, of property deemed to be private property without due compensation and/or access to due process of law.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, I have a motion under Standing Order 43 which pertains to lower altitudes than the Columbia accomplished today. I hope the House will support and give unanimous consent to it.
In view of the fact that the government is short 300 air traffic controllers from the normal level, and since the serious

April 14, 1981
shortage of air traffic controllers may play havoc with airline schedules this summer, particularly at Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That the government restore the number of control positions at Toronto and develop a plan to have an adequate supply of controllers by expanding training programs and improving work conditions.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion concerning the incredible remarks made last night by the Premier of Nova Scotia who praised Premier Rene Levesque as a "very astute man" whose victory represented a victory for the constitutional stand of the eight dissident premiers. Therefore, in view of Premier Buchanan's obvious endorsement of separation in the context of the views of the eight premiers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne):
That this House condemns the premier and ail others who see in Mr. Levesque's election a victory in the process of undermining legitimate constitutional change in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


MEAT IMPORT ACT
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact lamb producers are faced with seriously depressed prices for their product because air shipments of fresh lamb are being allowed into Canada from New Zealand, and that if we are to diversify agriculture in Canada some protection must be afforded to infant industries such as lamb, mutton and wool producers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis):
That the Minister of Agriculture table amendments to Bill C-46, the Meat Import Act, to provide for quotas on imports of lamb and mutton, and immediately enter into negotiations with New Zealand to determine fair and equitable quotas.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Transport undertake a review of the service currently being offered by Nordair between Ottawa and Hamilton to determine whether a more adequate service could be provided by any other carrier and, further, that the proposed airport expansion be quickly proceeded with in an effort to make provision of this service more attractive.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA OIL AND GAS ACT
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, whereas all northern Canadians are united in opposing Bill C-48, the greatest grab of resources by a Liberal government in the history of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle):
That Bill C-48 be immediately withdrawn and replaced by legislation which respects the trust nature of the ownership of territorial resources.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

April 14, 1981


THE PRIME MINISTER
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 the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Gordon Edward Taylor: -charged the Progressive Conservative Party with an element of fascism, which is totally wrong; whereas fascism is defined by Webster as "a political regime that exalts nation and race above the individual and that stands for centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation and forcible suppression"; whereas the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has in the past invoked the War Measures Act authorizing arrests without warrant, invoked closure in the House of Commons suppressing free speech, and is now imposing metric on the food stores in Canada, even though 80 per cent of the stores and the people do not want it, etc., etc., I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That this House deplores these communistic tactics of this Marxist-Socialist and says "Heal thyself Mr. Prime Minister".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of last week's comments by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), while in Prince Edward Island during the Cardigan byelection campaign, that "If they win here, they would take that as a mandate and claim that as a victory for Pierre Elliott Trudeau", and in view of the two smashing Liberal byelection victories yesterday, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent):
That this House endorses the quotation of the Leader of Opposition by reaffirming our commitment to the constitutional resolution and that this House urges the Progressive Conservative Party to permit greater public exposure of its leader throughout Canada in order to reinforce Liberal Party policies.


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


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DEVELOPMENT OF NEW BRUNSWICK OIL SHALES
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, the government of New Brunswick has made representation to the federal government for assistance in establishing a research and development program for development of the oil shales of that province, which very likely contain a minimum of 15 billion barrels of oil. Obviously the minister's supposed interest shown in the project has been nothing more than lip service. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby):
That the House instruct the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to enter into meaningful discussion with his provincial counterpart in New Brunswick with a view to concluding a positive agreement.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, for the second day in a row, after his well-touted meetings in Washington concerning the ailing auto industry, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who assured us that he would be in his seat yesterday and today, is still not here. I find that highly irresponsible on his part.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: Therefore, in the minister's absence, since the acting minister did not know what was going on yesterday, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister tell this House his views on the $4.5 billion auto pact deficit which has been experienced by the Canadian auto industry and the 94 per cent increase in imported Japanese automobiles coming in to this country? What decisions were reached in Washington in the numerous meetings that the minister has had, on which, in his irresponsibility, he has

April 14, 1981
Oral Questions
not come to the House, nor has he given us even one of his famous press releases as to the outcome of these meetings? What decisions were made as a result of the meetings in Washington last week?
[ Translation]


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, instead of all this rhetoric, the hon. member could try to make some constructive suggestions concerning the problems now facing the Canadian auto industry.
As I pointed out to him yesterday, the hon. member is aware that the government has spared no effort to solve the problems of the Chrysler Corporation. He also knows that the newspapers announced yesterday and today that Ford has started to rehire employees and that the first V-6 engines made in Canada came out of the production line yesterday. As my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, is now in the House, he can also report on his meeting in Washington.


INCREASE IN IMPORTS FROM JAPAN
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to see that the great Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce has made a courageous entry into the House of Commons-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: -to tell us about his conquests in Washington last week, since none of the other cabinet ministers knew what was going on.
My supplementary question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the 94 per cent increase in Japanese auto imports into Canada over last year and the continuing failure of the minister to negotiate a consensus among Japanese manufacturers which would guarantee voluntary restrictions of exports of automobiles to Canada, can the minister tell us, notwithstanding his reluctance to impose temporary import quotas, what considerations, if any, have been given to using Japanese dependency on our natural resources as a lever to urge Japan's auto manufacturers to include at least some Canadian, or a higher Canadian, content in parts made in their production of automobiles, and for that matter a higher degree of investment in the Canadian auto parts and manufacturing sector? Has this position been taken with the Japanese? If not, why not? What is the minister waiting for?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, in my discussions with the Japanese, which began last year, I pointed out to them that our exports to that country were composed of a relatively small, in fact a too small, proportion of manufactured goods. I expressed the view that it would be in the interests of the healthy continuation of our trade with Japan that a better and larger portion of it would be in the form of manufactured goods.
I would be very interested to have my hon. friend confirm that it is the policy of his party, including the Conservative members from western Canada, to put the exports of resources from that part of our country to Japan on the block in the way that he suggested.


TIMING OF GOVERNMENT DECISIONS
Otto John Jelinek: Not only did the minister not answer that question, he has still not told us what decisions were made in Washington in his talks last week. It is very obvious that the minister is not taking this matter seriously, but I can assure him that we are, and that hundreds of thousands of Canadians who depend on a healthy auto industry in Canada are, as well.


An hon. Member:: Quit skating!


Otto John Jelinek: My last supplementary question is this: last week the minister said, and I quote very quickly, "We're not talking about joint decisions", with the United States. "We're talking about making our own decisions." That is what we have been asking as well. The minister has a number of specific recommendations and a number of specific options. Can he tell us now why he has not taken action on these specific recommendations and options, and when can the industry and when can Canadians expect some of these specific decisions to be made?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We have taken a number of specific decisions aimed at strengthening the position of the auto industry, its workers, and the firms in it in our country. My hon. friend was giving these details as I came into the House-the agreement with respect to Chrysler which protects thousands of jobs in this country, both in Chrysler itself and in hundreds of supplying firms; our agreement with Ford with respect to the future of the Oakville plant; the discussions we completed which led to the reopening of the Ford foundry in Windsor; the assistance with respect to the aluminum engine, at the Essex (Engine) plant.
With respect to the situation in Japan, we have already been talking to the Japanese and have said to them that we expect they will give us the same type of administrative guidance with respect to exports to Canada that they are giving with respect to exports to the United States.
We have a team in Japan right now to make sure that the Japanese understand that if they take action with respect to exports of cars to the United States, there must be equivalent action with respect to exports to Canada. If that is not done, and there is a diversionary situation with respect to exports of Japanese cars to our country, we will have to take action
April 14, 1981

within our own legal framework, in the light of our own market situation, in order to assure the position of the Canadian industry and the Canadian workers. So we have been taking concrete action, and we are prepared to take further concrete action in the interests of the industry, its workers, and the entire Canadian economy.


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


Mr. Bockstael:: The government is prepared to maintain the standards in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EFFECT OF RELAXATION OF UNITED STATES POLLUTION AND SAFETY REGULATIONS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In his absence I will address it to the acting minister of transport. Last week the Reagan administration announced plans to relax 34 auto pollution and safety regulations in the hope of reviving the North American auto industry. Some 16 of these plans to rescind the regulations involve safety measures. Will the acting minister of transport say what effect these deregulations will have on North American manufactured cars sold in Canada?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Madam Speaker-


Erik Nielsen: The acting minister!


Robert Theodore Bockstael: -the relaxing of auto pollution devices in the U.S. is not to be granted in Canada. In Canada we will hold to the safety measures for which the specifications call. I will ask the minister to prepare a further report on the effect of the cars which are imported from the U.S. and whether the equipment will have to be maintained on those which are brought into Canada.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I do not want to hear from the parliamentary secretary on this question.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Under the system of ministerial responsibility there is a minister, there is an acting minister, and in his absence there is another acting minister. I will ask the question of the one remaining colleague from Manitoba, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who I believe is the acting minister of transport.


Erik Nielsen: The acting minister.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: I will try it again. If, as, and when these proposed eased regulations come into effect in the United States, is the transport department prepared to impose stronger standards here in Canada so as not to sacrifice the safety concerns of the Canadian consumer?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The answer is yes.


Erik Nielsen: So much for acting ministers.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which concerns the economic crisis that Canada is currently going through. We now have more than one million people unemployed and the numbers are growing; the cost of living has increased some 12 per cent year over year and the situation is worsening. The government's budget forecasts have turned out to be completely wrong.
My question to the Prime Minister, who is responsible for the government as a whole, is as follows: now that the constitutional debate is almost completed, will he show that he is concerned about unemployment and about the cost of living by announcing the government's intention to bring in a new budget when the House resumes on May 12?


Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Finance has indicated that he intends to bring forward a budget in the fall. I might add that a great deal of work has been done and a lot has been accomplished by this government in the areas of economic policy and finance, since we came back for the fall session.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I am not asking a technical question that requires an answer from the Minister of Finance or his parliamentary secretary. I am asking a question of the Prime Minister who is responsible for other things than the Constitution in this country. Will he answer the question by telling the House whether we are going to get a new budget that will deal with increasing unemployment and increasing inflation, or is the Government of Canada just going to sit back while the people of Canada suffer?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Write him a letter, Ed.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I will be happy to raise the matter with the Minister of Finance. I believe he will want to bring in a budget in the course of the next year.


REQUEST FOR ACTION ON GASOLINE PRICES AND HIGH INTEREST RATES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it will certainly be encouraging to the more than one million people who are unemployed now, all the young people who cannot buy houses and the pensioners who cannot buy food, to hear

April 14, 1981
Oral Questions
the Prime Minister say that within a year we might get some action.
Since there are two specific areas that do not require a new budget and that have already been brought to the attention of the government, will he, as Prime Minister, undertake to the House that the government will get in touch with the oil companies that have been shown to have ripped off the Canadian consumer by billions of dollars in recent years, and request that they roll back their price of a gallon of gasoline by at least six cents? Second, will the government take some direct action to bring down the price of mortgages so that young people will be able to afford to buy a home again?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, both these subjects were dealt with by the Minister of Finance in answer to similar questions in the past week.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the minister well knows, the falling off in demand for cars and trucks in Canada has resulted in lay-offs in the industry, with perhaps a greater degree of lay-off in the auto parts manufacturing industry. In view of the recent announcement that Japanese car imports have increased by 94 per cent over last year and with the minister's own comment that he will not act against those imports, what assurance will he give that we in Canada will continue to have a parts supply industry? What alternative plan of action will he initiate for those persons who are subject to the present lay-offs and those that they can expect in years to come?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we have not ruled out any options. We are continuing to keep all options under active review. We are monitoring the situation very closely.
With respect to the auto parts sector, the efforts we are making are linked with assisting them to increase their sales in foreign markets, including countries like Japan, through trading missions, through assistance to trade fairs and activities of that sort. We are working with the auto parts sector through the Enterprise Development Program to help them get the capital they require in order to re-tool and re-equip.
Our efforts to facilitate the restructuring of the major vehicle manufacturers in this country are aimed also at not only facilitating their ongoing activity but at increasing the opportunities for the independent parts sector to have growing outlets for their manufacturers with the major manufacturers, so as to maintain and strengthen employment opportunities in the parts sector. The concerns and opportunities of that sector are very much part of our strategy and our efforts.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Since the minister has clearly made a statement with respect to imports, will he not now answer clearly and distinctly whether he will initiate a requirement for Canadian content in imported cars sold in Canada?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, this is one of the aspects we have under review. It was one of the ideas presented to us at the major meeting with the industry we had last week. We do have Canadian value added requirements on the part of the motor vehicle manufacturers now as part of the arrangements under the auto pact. We are interested not only in maintaining but increasing the use of Canadian components in automobiles assembled here and sold in world markets. This is a very important part of our strategy and objective for the industry.


QUERY RESPECTING RENEGOTIATION OF CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT
Hon. John Wise (Elgin):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It is with reference to the Canada-U.S. trade agreement. Since Canada's deficit on auto parts in 1980 remains at an incredible $4.2 billion, the same as for 1979, what action has the minister taken to renegotiate the auto pact with the United States to improve the Canadian parts manufacturing sector? Has he anything definite to report? Does he have any progress or achievement to report?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I think my hon. friend is mistaken. The most recent figures indicate that the deficit has gone down considerably. I still think it is higher than it should be, but it has gone down considerably.


An hon. Member:: What is it?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: We obtained a commitment from the new Reagan administration that it would continue the formal consultations we began with the previous Carter administration with respect to the operations of the auto pact. This was a subject of my discussions in Washington on Friday, and one of the purposes was to renew the consultations which will be continued at the senior official level. The objective is to obtain a better working of the auto pact from a Canadian point of view. We want to see improvement in the whole area of the deficit on auto parts. This is an important aspect of our discussions with the United States under the auto pact consultations.


John Wise: Madam Speaker, from the minister's comment I take it that there is really nothing definite to report as of today. But if Canada is expected to bear its fair share with reference to the Chrysler problem, we should also expect this government to insist on Canada's fair share with respect to the auto parts market. If the U.S. government refuses to renegotiate the auto pact, which is a very good possibility, what other concrete options or alternatives does the minister have to help the Canadian parts manufacturers?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, I think my hon. friend's question is quite premature because the new Reagan administration has agreed to continue the formal consultations that we asked for under Article IV of the auto pact. This administration has been in office formally only three months. We have again begun discussions under the auspices of these formal consultations. The tone of the discussions was very positive. While it is too soon to say exactly how it will come out, I think that we are in a position to work together to help restore the health of the North American auto industry in a way which is fair and equitable to both countries, which means important improvements in the operations of that industry from the Canadian point of view.


HEALTH AND SAFETY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Hopefully she is not pouting as badly as the Prime Minister is about yesterday's events and she will be able to answer my question.
In view of the fact that since 1971 some 127,000 Daikon shield interuterine devices have been sold in Canada, and in view of the fact that the manufacturer of this particular brand of interuterine device, A.H. Robins, has stopped making them, presumably because numerous studies have shown conclusively that the Daikon shield threatens the health of women by causing interuterine infections, resulting in hysterectomies, sterility and in some cases death, is the minister now prepared to initiate a campaign alerting women and their doctors to the risk involved in continued use of these devices and encouraging Canadian women to have them removed?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, this is the kind of question on which I would have appreciated receiving notice so that I could prepare a specific answer. I will now do it and report later.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Madam Speaker, the fact that this is the kind of question, particularly this topic, on which the minister needs some notice, is part of the problem. This is a matter of concern which has been going on for some time, and I am surprised that the minister has nothing to tell us about this particular issue.
Madam Speaker, let me ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare another question about which she can take notice, unfortunately. In view of the fact that this device was allowed on the Canadian market, like so many other products without any pre-market testing by the government, or in this case by anyone else, will the minister finally take some steps to improve the protection of Canadian women offered by the health protection branch, and will the minister consider and talk to her officials about going after the company
Oral Questions
involved for recovery of costs incurred through our health care system as the result of this company's inferior product?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I will just repeat what I have said previously. In the case of a specific product which the opposition critic suggests is dangerous to the health of women, and because of the accusations he makes, it would be far more practical and constructive for everyone if he gave me advance notice, because then I could give the answer in the House. I might tell the hon. member that Health and Welfare is a complex and huge department, which the hon. member does not seem to realize because he does not know the intricacies of it.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. As the minister is aware, units of Canada's armed forces last summer played a very important part in the forest fire problems which developed in northwestern Ontario. Given the small amount of snow during the winter which will result in very little runoff, and the expectation that fires could be worse this year, will the minister outline the plans of his department to support and give help wherever it is necessary?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I have already had contact with some of the western people-


An hon. Member:: The western people?


Mr. Lamontagne:: -who are responsible for actually looking after the security of citizens of their own provinces where forest fires are concerned. I can assure the hon. member that plans will not be changed. There will be some manoeuvres this summer. I can assure hon. members that authority will be given to these emergencies above any manoeuvres of the armed forces.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Has the Prime Minister approved a new method of fund raising for the Liberal Party which apparently consists of his cabinet ministers agreeing to go to cocktail parties held by the Liberal Party? For example, if you pay $150, you get a $130 tax receipt and the chance to meet Liberal ministers to try to persuade them to do something, just to meet them, or whatever the purpose is. Obviously it should be anybody's right to meet a minister if they have legitimate business with the government. But this is the method now in use.

April 14, 1981
Oral Questions
If the Prime Minister has not approved this most peculiar method of fund raising, will he forbid this kind of humiliating sale of political favours, or what the Criminal Code calls solicitation?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Will the Prime Minister put a stop to this kind of practice by his government, which lowers the whole government in the eyes of the people of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I understand and accept the position of the hon. member that ministers should be available to meet any Canadian who wants to put a matter of business before them. But I fail to see that a minister has a duty to meet people at cocktail parties. If the Liberal Party wants to use the fact that ministers are very popular and that they are prepared to drink cocktails with other people, I do not see anything wrong with that. Just because the hon. member is not that popular, it does not mean that there is anything wrong with it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I can see that the Prime Minister feels very "Pee-Queliar" today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Perhaps the Prime Minister does not understand that this cheapens the whole process of government for cabinet ministers to sell themselves to go to cocktail parties. They do not even go free when they get a free drink. They sell themselves to go there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: If the Prime Minister does not want to forbid this tawdry practice, will he at least insist that the names of those who attend the cocktail parties and the names of the consenting ministers be published after each such affair so we will know who is doing it, why, and for what?


Mr. Dick:: And what the bribery is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member is insistent on referring to yesterday's elections, he should refer to the federal byelections in London and Prince Edward Island.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the principle which the hon. member seems to be worried about, if I am not mistaken his own party indulges in fund raising dinners-


John Carnell Crosbie: Never.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Never I am told.


John Carnell Crosbie: Never in this kind of cheap political salesmanship.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The member isn't even telling the truth.


John Carnell Crosbie: These are members of your cabinet selling themselves for payment.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

U)


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As the minister is aware, after an orderly and non-militant walk from Wabasca in northeastern Alberta to Edmonton, the Bigstone band arriving at the Indian Affairs offices in Edmonton were met by signs saying "Office Temporarily Closed, Inquiries see Third Floor Security". Was the minister aware that the Indian Affairs offices in Edmonton were to be closed temporarily? Did the minister authorize the closing of the offices temporarily? Did the minister know that a security force was hired temporarily? Did he authorize their hiring temporarily? Does the minister condone the actions of the Edmonton Indian Affairs office which barred access to its offices to the Bigstone band?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: As the hon. member may be aware, Madam Speaker, we had discussions last week. We discussed a series of proposals that might work to the benefit of the Bigstone band. The hon. member was helpful in presenting those proposals to the band. It was the feeling of the chief and the hon. member that that would be satisfactory and would solve the matter without the necessity of any march at all. It is not only the allegations of the hon. member with respect to what officials in Edmonton may have done that he may be critical of, but he can be critical of himself in misjudging the matter entirely.
As far as the office being closed was concerned, yes, apparently there had been some notification that there would be occupancy of the office. It was the opinion of the director general in the field that the office should be closed to prevent that, because once occupancy takes place it is not a very pleasant picture.with respect to evacuation. In the interests of avoiding any more ugliness, that course was adopted, and I think it was probably the right one.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, the minister indicated that I had full knowledge. I want to suggest to the minister that under no circumstances did I view that there was going to be any occupation whatsoever. It was a non-militant march.
April 14, 1981


John Carr Munro: I didn't say you.


Jack Wendele Shields: I would like to ask the minister whether the offices were closed because members of the department were afraid to meet with Indian people. Is the minister going to take action to get rid of people who work in Indian affairs who are actually afraid to meet with Indian people?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, I suggest the hon. member not talk in generalities. It is not fair to people in the public service who cannot answer for themselves. If he wishes to specify, be particular and substantiate charges of the kind he has made, that there are officials in my department who will not meet with the Indian people, I will look into it very seriously. I do not think the hon. member is prepared to do that or he would have done it by now.


INDUSTRY
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Will he advise the House when he intends to bring forward for discussion his long awaited and much heralded industrial strategy?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, the timing of further initiatives in the government's programs will become clearer once there is final disposition of the constitutional measures before the House. I am glad my hon. friend has asked the question because I take it, when we come forward with these steps, we will have his full and unqualified support.


George Harris Hees: Madam Speaker, naturally I would like to be able to support such a measure, but of course first I must know what the measure is. In that line, may I ask the minister if he would very briefly outline to the House just what this industrial strategy is going to consist of, Madam Speaker?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we have already taken a number of steps that indicate our commitment to strengthen and broaden the industrial base of this country. The implementation of the national electronics program, the creation of the office of the future program, the support for the Telidon concept, the support for the Dash-8 and PT-7 engine-these are just some examples of what we are interested in doing in order to strengthen and broaden, in a regionally balanced way, the industrial base of this country.
I can give other examples such as our national space program, our efforts to have in place through the oil and gas legislation industrial benefits from offshore and Canada lands development for Canadians. What we have already done, using the work we have done within the government as a planning guideline, far surpasses anything that was done in a combination of the Diefenbaker years when my hon. friend was in
Oral Questions
government and the wasted months of the Clark government. Therefore, we have done a lot already.


STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS BETWEEN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND PROVINCE OF ALBERTA
Gilbert Parent: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. My riding, perhaps more than many others, is directly involved in the energy negotiations because of the pipeline being built in the Welland riding. Can the minister of energy please inform this House and make a few comments on the status of negotiations between himself and the minister of energy for Alberta?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I do not think there is much more I can add to what has already been made public. There was a constructive meeting yesterday between the energy minister of Alberta and myself. We agreed to meet again in the latter part of May. Our officials will pursue several avenues which we found of particular interest, in the next few weeks. This is certainly a first step in the right direction. I cannot promise that there is an agreement around the corner, but at least there is a more positive atmosphere in our discussions than I have seen before.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Over the weekend the minister made a superficial tour of Cree communities in the James Bay area. While there, he saw open sewers, full outhouses, and had a chance to drink contaminated well water. The minister has announced a review of the James Bay situation to see if the federal government is living up to the spirit of the agreement. Without waiting two months for this review, what is the minister prepared to do right away to meet the emergency situation which he saw over the weekend?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, it would of course have been more advantageous to have been able to spend more time, but the hon. member is aware, if anybody in the House is, of the number of meetings held last week with the Indian leadership here in Ottawa, and the meetings that I am required to attend this week in Ottawa. As far as the agenda was concerned it was prepared by Grand Chief Billy Diamond. We adhered to his scheduling in terms of places he wanted to see and the time we would spend there.

April 14, 1981
Oral Questions
With regard to what we are going to do about it, I can tell the hon. member I met with senior officials who attended with me at the site. We are trying to find, through a readjustment of priorities, money to cope with the short-term situation. As far as the long-term treatment is concerned, we will have to wait for the findings of the report which we expect in two months. I might say I have discussed the timing with Grand Chief Billy Diamond and the Cree. They do not want a superficial job done. They think that two months is reasonable.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the minister made a very quick tour of the area, and the people there would appreciate action that is just as quick. Considering that in the community of Paint Hills there is a fresh outbreak of gastroenteritis, which last year took the lives of several children, no action can be too quick. Will the minister promise to take immediate action to provide at least decent drinking water for this and other communities? Surely that is within the spirit and the letter of the James Bay agreement.


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, with regard to the situation in Paint Hills, that is a priority that we are already taking action on to see what can be done about the situation to improve it considerably.


DEVELOPMENT OF NEW BRUNSWICK OIL SHALES
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. A short time ago in the House the minister's parliamentary secretary announced the establishment of a federal technical committee to study the energy potential of the oil shales in New Brunswick. I would like the minister to tell the House just what participation he expects the New Brunswick government to have, when he expects the formation of the committee, and when its work will begin?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, consultations are now going on with representatives of the New Brunswick government, and we hope that the active discussions concerning this project will start in the very near future.


FUNDING FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister can indicate with whom those discussions are taking place, and also comment on the fact that the New Brunswick government has expressed concern that the National Energy Program underestimates the potential role that New Brunswick oil shales could play in the security of energy supply as well as job creation for eastern Canada. New
Brunswick has asked for some special form of consideration for a research and development program. Will the minister advise the House whether indeed he is prepared to give New Brunswick the assurance of that funding?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, discussions are taking place with New Brunswick officials, and the purpose of the study would be to determine whether there is as much merit and as much value in the oil shales of New Brunswick as certain people claim. The purpose of this study would be to evaluate exactly what are the possibilities in this respect, and we would be the happiest people in the world if the conclusions of the studies were positive.
* *
*


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Because of his comments and some of the programs which have been brought forward, I know the minister is very interested in natural gas as an option for taking us away from our dependency on expensive imported oil. I wonder if the minister knows that prior to the National Energy Program there was a large number of domestic and commercial conversions to natural gas, but since the National Energy Program there has been a real slowdown on those conversions, to a point where 100 people have been laid off at one conversion company alone because people have simply stopped converting. There are no more conversions. Is the minister aware of that and if he is, has he taken any steps to overcome this?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the hon. member may refer to a specific instance, but I think over-all there has been a significant increase lately in the number of conversions in other regions which I could mention.
As far as the program of encouraging conversion is concerned, I have stated repeatedly that people are eligible for the $800 grant for any conversion made since October 28. The program is in effect in that respect. I expect to be able to announce in the next few weeks all the details of this particular program. Its administration is being set up in every province. As a matter of fact, since the beginning of April offices have been opened in every province. Application forms should be available early in May so that citizens can apply formally for the grants.
However, people who want to switch to natural gas are encouraged to do so right now. They need only keep their receipts. If they have their receipts and they have converted to natural gas from oil, they will be eligible for grants provided under the National Energy Program.
April 14, 1981


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, if the minister will check even locally here in Ottawa, I think he will find that there has been a significant decrease, down to about 23 per cent of the number of conversions there were previously. I think that information is substantiated in a number of reports, so I ask the minister to check with his officials. I know we will all be thankful for specific information on this program because, throughout the winter, there have been a number of Canadians who have been waiting for specific details of that.


DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM EXPANSION PROGRAM
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the minister is aware that a number of Canadians in Ontario and Quebec are not able to take advantage of the program of conversion to natural gas because it simply is not economic for the gas companies to take laterals into small communities. However, it does become economic if we consider this in terms of the amount of imported oil we could replace if we could get those laterals into those communities.
I wonder if the minister has any proposals to overcome this difficulty, or if he is in fact prepared to take suggestions which would help to compare these costs and these benefits so that all Canadians can benefit from this program.


Marc Lalonde: Of course, Madam Speaker. As a matter of fact in the National Energy Program there is a provision for a special program called the distribution system expansion program which has allocated several hundred million dollars to provide for the expansion of services, particularly gas services, to communities where it would not otherwise be competitively economic. We have a program under which there will be the possibility of subsidization of expansion of certain gas lines to communities. This, however, requires the co-operation of the provincial governments, since such expansion has to be approved by the provincial boards concerned. The utilities have to apply in this regard.
There have been discussions in the last few months with the provinces in this respect. I am happy to see that practically all provinces have agreed now to the formula under which this could be pursued. It will be up to the utilities to apply to the provincial boards to get permission to extend their lateral lines for this particular purpose, and there would be grants available from the federal government under the National Energy Program to achieve the exact purpose mentioned by my hon. friend. This is in the National Energy Program.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Communications, if I could get his attention. In 1976 the Standing Committee on Broad-
Ora/ Questions
casting, Films and Assistance to the Arts conducted detailed hearings into the quality of agricultural broadcasting by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. In July, 1977, it presented its report to Parliament. It concluded, and I will read just one sentence:
Your committee is convinced that farm broadcasting, in terms of both calibre and time allotted to it, has deteriorated to a level which should be of grave concern.
The committee made six recommendations. Four years later many of those recommendations have not been acted upon.
I would like to ask the minister if he would consider either referring the recommendations to a committee for re-evalua-tion-the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture-or establishing an independent inquiry to find out just exactly what is the state of farm broadcasting by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, the answer to the hon. gentleman's question is very simple and straightforward. My estimates are presently before the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. The president of the CBC can appear as a witness, if that is the desire of the committee. I suggest that the hon. member raise these questions with the CBC when it appears before the standing committee.


Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, that is not good enough. There would not be time available for the kind of in-depth study which I think is needed with respect to agricultural broadcasting on the CBC, in a standing committee. I think the minister is really just sloughing off and not answering my question.
Is the minister prepared either to refer this matter to a committee for re-evaluation-because very little has been done in four years-or to establish an independent inquiry to take a look at the state of farm broadcasting on the CBC?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, obviously the hon. member cannot have it both ways. He has just stated that the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts a few years ago had the depth, knowledge and expertise to bring forward this type of recommendation on the CBC and its agricultural policy. I assume the same permanent committee, which some of his own colleagues are on, still has the same depth and experience. If he is saying they do not, I think that is a vote of non-confidence in his own members.


QUERY WITH RESPECT TO &quot;RADIO NOON&quot; PROGRAM
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Minister of Communications. Is the Minister of Communications aware of the considerable consternation caused among the agricultural community by the decision of the CBC to discontinue the services of Barbara Klich on "Radio Noon" in Toronto? This decision has created considerable concern both among farmers and among consumers.

April 14, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Crosbie


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, I would be pleased to bring the hon. member's concern to the attention of the CBC, as is properly my role, but I remind the hon. member, who sits on that standing committee, that it would be his role to ask the same questions of the president of the CBC when the president of the CBC appears before that committee.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I will indeed do that when the president of the CBC comes before the committee, but in view of the responsibility of the minister to report to Parliament on the CBC I want to ask him whether he is satisfied with the way in which "Radio Noon" has been conducting its affairs lately through the letting go of Barbara Klich. I want to ask him whether this has done a service to either Canadians on the agriculture side or Canadians on the consumer side, both of whom are up in arms over that decision.


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, obviously it is not for me to decide on CBC content or CBC production, and the hon. member knows that full well. I think the hon. member would probably disapprove quite strongly if I did, indeed, give that type of direction to the CBC.
As I indicated to the hon. member, I will bring his concerns to the attention of the management of the CBC. I think the hon. member himself is in a position to bring those concerns to the attention of the CBC when its officers appear before the standing committee. The hon. member is also a member of the steering committee which determines the witnesses who are going to be called during the examination of estimates, and up to now I have not known the hon. member to be either modest or humble in his requests.


POINTS OF ORDER
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order which arises from the question period. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was responding to a question I asked today, he said-I think I have his correct words-"the member isn't even telling the truth". I submit that is unparliamentary language and the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister had a close shave in two byelections yesterday and lost his head in Quebec. Now he is fleeing from the House. It is the obligation of the Prime Minister, if he says a member is not telling the truth, to inform the House how the member is not telling the truth. The Liberal Party raised $15,000 peddling cabinet ministers at $ 150 each and gave tax receipts for $ 130 each. If the Prime Minister alleges that what was said is not the truth, he has the obligation to point out to the House in what way the
member is telling a falsehood. It is the Prime Minister's obligation when he returns to the chamber-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If that is the hon. member's point of order, I just want to point out to him that since 1958 the expression "is not telling the truth" has been accepted as being parliamentary.


MR. CROSBY-SERVICES PROVIDED TO MEMBERS
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. It actually relates to a question of privilege I presented to Your Honour on April 8, 1981. You will recall that I earlier had given you notice by letter dated April 1, 1981, of my question of privilege. The question of privilege was very simple and very clear. It related to the preferential treatment given to some members of this House in respect of the distribution of-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I recall the hon. member's question of privilege. I gave him an answer in this House and undertook to see whether it would be practical, and whether we have sufficient staff, to carry out what the hon. member was asking; that is to say, that each and every member who speaks in this House be provided with a copy of the blues. I said I thought the hon. member did have a point, that all members of this House are equal. I telephoned the hon. member's office to give him a progress report on what I had done. I inquired of our services, asking them to let me know whether this service could be provided to all members who speak in the House and, if not, what would be necessary in order to do that. I have done what I undertook to do. I do not feel the hon. member has a further point of order to raise because I will give him a report when I receive one from the services concerned.


Howard Edward Crosby: I rise merely to respond to your remarks, Madam Speaker. I should have taken the opportunity to move a motion to the effect that, if a question of privilege is found, the matter ought to be referred to a committee. I appreciate that Your Honour is making inquiries, but I felt I had raised a valid question of privilege. In light of your rulings on other questions of privilege which you found to be invalid, I felt I would prefer to have a ruling on my question once you had made your inquiries. I simply rise to ask whether you are going to make a ruling in due course on the matter.


Madam Speaker:: The subject raised by the hon. member does not constitute a question of privilege. The hon. member raised it as a question of privilege, but the subject he is discussing is one which was dealt with informally in this House through arrangements made, I suppose, in discussions among the House leaders of the different parties. It is not a question of privilege, but the point of the hon. member is well taken and I did undertake to look into the matter. I hope to be in a position very soon to tell him whether we can handle such a service for members.
April 14, 1981



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,101, 2,221, 2,238, 2,247 and 2,299.


Mr. Crosby: 1.	What are the names of the persons who have been appointed to the port Authority for the port of Halifax in the last three months and, in each case, what are their qualifications for the position?
2.	Were any of the persons candidates for the Liberal Party in any (a) general election (b) provincial election (c) federal or provincial byelection?
3.	What are the annual salaries or emoluments paid to members of the authority and is there any allowance for expenses?
4.	Do any members of the authority hold membership to the International Longshoremen's Association or any other union involved in port activity?
5.	What members of the authority are involved on a full-time basis in employment or occupations associated with or connected with the port of Halifax?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The National Harbours Board advises that:
I.	The names of the persons who have been appointed to the Port Authority for the port of Halifax and their qualifications for the position are:
Gerald E. Simmons: Representative of the marine industry and business sector
A. Clifford Huxtable: Ships' agent-container ships
J.	William E. Mingo: Chairman, Halifax-Dartmouth Port
Commission
Rae Gilbert W. Austin: Businessman, with some experience at sea
Brenda Shannon: Chairman, Provincial Planning Act Review Commission
Ken C. Curren (ex-officio): Regional Director, Coast
Guard, Transport Canada
2.	Yes, Rae Gilbert W. Austin in a general election in 1980.
3.	Gerald E. Simmons: $12,000
A. Clifford Huxtable: $2,000 plus $200 per diem for meetings of the Port Authority J. William E. Mingo: $1,500 plus $200 per diem Rae Gilbert W. Austin: $1,500 plus $200 per diem Brenda Shannon: $1,500 plus $200 per diem Ken C. Curren: no salary or emolument
4.	To the best knowledge of the port of Halifax, none of the Port Authority members are affiliated with the International
Order Paper Questions
Longshoremen's Association or any other union involved in port activity.
5.	Mr. Huxtable and Mr. Simmons.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	Is there a Metric Canada TV commercial that states water freezes at 0 degrees Centigrade and, if so (a) for how long has the commercial been televised and for how much longer will it be televised (b) what is its cost to date?
2.	Since the inception of the metric program, by year, what was the cost of advertising (a) in the press (b) on TV (c) on radio (d) in publications?


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: In so far as Metric Commission Canada is concerned: 1. Several 30 second film clips concerning temperatures in degrees Celsius were prepared early in 1975 by the National Film Board in collaboration with Metric Commission Canada. Consistent with the long-standing policy of the commission these film clips were made available to the CBC, CTV and Global television networks at no cost commencing in 1975. Member stations of all three networks have since then shown these film clips as a public service. Consequently, apart from the small initial cost of preparing the material, there has been no cost to the Canadian taxpayer for the broadcast of TV film clips and messages relating to metric conversion.
2.	Due to budget limitations, Metric Commission Canada has a policy of not buying media advertising time and space. Consequently, there has been no money allocated for paid advertising in Metric Commission Canada's budget since the inception of the commission. 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 approximately $130,000 on March 31, 1975, for newspaper advertising relating to weather conversion.


Mr. Herbert: Of the total employed work force in Canada, what is the percentage of workers in the public and para-public sectors, including the Armed Forces?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports: based on the labour force survey, Statistics Canada estimates that for 1980 the average employment level (including Armed Forces) was 10,735,000, of which
1,971,000	(18.4 per cent) was in the public sector.


Mr. McKnight: What is the total (a) publishing cost (b) distribution cost (c) number of copies distributed of the booklet "Feeding and Managing Livestock During a Feed Shortage" issued by the Department of Agriculture?

April 14, 1981
Order Paper Questions


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: (a) $83,626, (b) $34,882, (c) 123,000.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence award a $17,700 contract to George Salsky for a study on the disparity in superpower space programs and, if so (a) for what reason (b) what are Mr. Salsky's qualifications for undertaking the study and on what date will it be completed?
2.	Will the results be made available to Members of Parliament?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. (a) The Department of Supply and Services on behalf of the Department of National Defence, awarded a contract to Mr. George Salsky for a study of the space programs of the United States and the U.S.S.R. the object of the study is to place the superpowers efforts in space in proper perspective, (b) Mr. Salsky's qualifications are as follows: former Senior Intelligence Analyst, degree in aeronautical engineering from a Polish University, studies in political science at Cambridge, University of Ottawa and University of Colorado, former Polish Air Force officer with service in the French Air Force and the RAF, studies at the University of Ottawa in Russian and comparative stylistics, former announcer and producer for the international service of the CBC service with NORAD.
Contract delivery date: October 15, 1981.
2. Since the report may deal with classified information, a decision to release it cannot be made at this time.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 1,985 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 1,985 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Beatty: 1. What is a complete listing of all field trials of Telidon currently being undertaken and, in each case, what (a) is a description of the services currently planned (b) charges for service may be made, to Telidon customers?
2.	What records of requests for service by Telidon customers will be kept and how will they be kept?
3.	Who will have access to records of individual users of Telidon?
4.	What steps have been taken by the government in order to ensure that the privacy of Telidon customers is respected?
5.	What studies have been undertaken by the government into possible threats to privacy posed by systems similar to Telidon where centralized records of viewing patterns, credit ratings, purchases, electronic mail and other personal information may be gathered?
6.	What action, if any, is the government committed to taking to ensure that the development of telecommunications systems such as Telidon or an electronic funds transfer system do not present threats to the personal privacy of subscribers?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: The remaining questions shall stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, April 9, consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet (for the Prime Minister) that Bill C-42, an act to establish the Canada Post Corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts, be read the third time and do pass, and on the amendment-Mr. Blenkarn (p. 9135).
Mr. Sid Parker (Kootenay East-Revelstoke):: Madam Speaker, as the debate closed last Thursday evening on Bill C-42, to establish the Canada Post Corporation, I was speaking about two areas of concern to the New Democratic Party in respect to this new Crown corporation. One concern was with regard to small contractors and the fact that this new Crown corporation will deny them the right to become members of a union to negotiate their agreements. That is a matter we discussed quite firmly in committee, and I should like to quote from the remarks of the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), as reported in the Proceedings and Minutes of the committee for December 18, 1980, as follows:
The present land mail service contracts that we have are valued at about $90 million. If we were to carry this to the extreme-and I do not want to exaggerate the figure-the possibility of increased expenditures could be doubled or even tripled.
I wonder what the Labour Relations Board would think of a private business which was denying its workers the right to become unionized because it was simply too expensive? I am sure the Labour Relations Board would take a very dim view of that.

The other area of concern we have in respect of this bill relates to telecommunications operations. In the original bill the minister brought before the committee there were provisions for the new Crown corporation to become very actively involved in telecommunications as they relate to postal matters. Members of multinationals came in large numbers-I think they gathered as many as 20 in one group-before the committee and lobbied against the corporation's becoming actively involved in this area. With the help of the Conservative party and some members of the Liberal Party, groups including IT&T, Xerox, Kodak and Bell Canada, as well as our favourites, the insurance companies and the banks, convinced the Postmaster General that these provisions should be excluded and that they should so have the right. On behalf of our party, I am very disappointed that the minister folded under the pressure and that the new bill leaves this field wide open to multinationals from other areas.
I think this is a sad day for Canada and Canadians because this is going to be the way of the future in the post office. In five or ten years we will look back at this bill and say that we as Canadians lost something we should have provided for in the bill, and that we should then have started to gear ourselves up for the future.
For a moment I would like to speak to the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn), respecting what is known as a sunset clause. He said there was not time in committee to put it forward. It is correct that a sunset clause which could possibly be looked at five years down the road was never mentioned in committee. The Conservative Party should have spent a little more time with those kinds of programs instead of worrying about courier services, insurance companies and large multinationals. Very little was said about daily postal services in committee, yet they rise in the House and speak about it time after time. We all know that postal services are bad in every riding and that something must be done about the situation. That is what we are trying to do in this bill; we are trying to establish a corporation which will operate under some good management.
I should like to talk about the management of this new Crown corporation. The minister said that the management would be comprised of representatives from labour, management and Canada at large. It will be important for the government to select the very best people it can. I think the government should consult the Canadian Labour Congress and try to obtain some of the very best labour-oriented people to help bring this corporation together in a fair way. I hope the government is able to find a top management person who understands the operations and working atmosphere of the corporation. It will be very, very important for the directors of this board to bring about, in a very aggressive and determined way, a new service and a new program for the Crown corporation.
In closing, we urge the speedy passage of this bill, despite the reservations which I have just outlined. We are convinced
Canada Post Corporation Act
that it is in the best interests of Canada to establish this Crown corporation as soon as possible.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg-St. James):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make some brief comments regarding this bill, particularly an amendment which was made at committee level. It is my understanding that at committee level it was possible to make provision for a reasonable opportunity for appeal by local citizens when there is closure of a postal service. This provision would be with respect to shutdowns, cutbacks or closures. It is a good provision. As the bill is written, a reasonable opportunity for appeal includes the fact that any regulation closing down a postal station, for example, would have to go to cabinet. This is a legislative improvement of the present situation.
Presently when the government moves to close local postal services, the decision does not have to go to cabinet, at least not by way of legislation. While I feel that provision is good in principle, I appeal to the government that the practice and the implementation of that particular clause should be equally as good.
In speaking to that area, I should like to use an ongoing example in my riding. The government announced the closing down of a postal service in the city of Winnipeg, Postal Station D providing full postal service and substituting for it a sub post office in a drugstore. Clearly it will not be possible for people to receive the same service from a very small counter within a portion of a drugstore as they would receive from a full postal station in the neighbourhood.
The principle in this legislation should be put in practice now, before the bill is passed. The residents of Winnipeg who are served by Postal Station D should be given a reasonable opportunity to appeal the decision to close down this postal station. By "a reasonable opportunity", I mean they should have available to them the time in which to make a proper appeal and the information needed.
We have written to the government about this matter. We have moved motions in the House requesting the studies or information upon which this decision was based, but it was to no avail. We have not received any justification from the government for Postal Station D being shut down.
We contend that a reasonable opportunity to appeal such a closure should include providing the studies on which the government has made its decision, so that the community can question the studies and offer alternative information. Then cabinet could look at this service to the community and say, "Let us make a balanced decision in this case; let us have all the facts before us."
One reason offered by way of speculation on this station's being closed is that there is no other building in this very large urban neighbourhood in which to house a postal station. The present lease on the building has run out, and the government claims that it cannot find another building in the area to rent in order to continue that postal service. Clearly this is unsatisfactory. It is a complete misrepresentation of the nature of the neighbourhood. There are adequate buildings in the area. I

April 14, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
wish the government would not use such a flimsy excuse for a cutback in services.
I do not have before me the basis upon which the government made the decision to cut back this service. This is why I ask the government to hold off the closing of Postal Station D which is scheduled for April 24 and to provide the information so that the community can conduct a proper appeal.
I could guess at possible reasons why the government might close down a postal station. For example, the government might feel that it would save money by way of staff or the rental of space. But I must say that there are no savings in terms of staff in this particular case. The staff will be transferred out of the local postal station to the central postal station, so the government will still have to pay for staff. The space required for the local postal station and its many activities will be transferred to other locations, so the government will still have to pay for space.
Also I suggest that adequate revenues are generated by the postal service in the neighbourhood to support local services. If I had the financial analysis upon which the government decided to cut back the service, I could make a clear criticism of it, but I would like to make a couple of suggestions about possible revenues. Meter settings have been transferred out of this area. This is a very lucrative source of revenue and could support a local postal station. Lock boxes in the neighbourhood would be a source of revenue to keep the station open. In fact, in the downtown and centralized location in the city there are lock boxes. Their numbers are being increased and there is a three-month waiting period. Yet there is not even the space in the downtown central postal station to accommodate additional lock boxes to meet the local demand. So why not decentralize throughout the neighbourhoods in the city and reap the revenues which there will be by way of providing lock box services rather than simply depriving the postal station of these revenues and depriving the neighbourhoods of any local community service?
As I have said, lock boxes would be a possible source of revenue. I have been informed that a private company has opened up a lock box service in the neighbourhood of Postal Station D. I have a letter before me from the Canadian Union of Postal Workers in Winnipeg which reads in part:
-a private company has opened up a lock box service in the area of Postal Station D-
Is this some sort of continued privatization plan on behalf of the government, turning over public services to the private sector so that the private sector can reap the profit at the expense of the local community? There is clearly a demand here for lock box services. There is a demand for a service which could produce a revenue and for a continuation of neighbourhood services which people find convenient to use.
If I had the study before me upon which the government decided to discontinue this service, I could examine the facts with regard to revenues and expenditures. At this point I am
simply forced to speculate on the reasons which were used to justify the closure of this postal station. This action is not in the spirit of the legislation which is before us. The spirit of the legislation before us is much better than that of the present administration of the government. The government should live up to the spirit of the legislation, immediately halt the closure of Postal Station D in Winnipeg and give the residents a clear and reasonable opportunity to appeal the decision to close.
I would like to say that the letters which I have received from the minister's office in response to my letters have not even been signed by the minister, so the minister has not really looked at this situation, and neither has cabinet. The new legislation would require that before a postal station such as this was closed down, cabinet would have to make a decision. It would have to confirm the regulations which would be passed under the legislation.
We are seeing a level of attention from this government which falls far short of what the legislation intends. I would have liked this legislation to pass much earlier than now so that people in my riding would be protected by it. I am informed by my colleagues who have been working on the parliamentary committee that studied this legislation that one of the reasons it has taken so long for this matter to come before the House is that Conservative members carried on a systematic campaign of delay at the committee stage. They raised all sorts of questions to put off the day when the legislation was to come before the House. So in large part the Tory members have been responsible for the fact that the postal station in my riding has not been protected by this legislation.
I am left to appeal to this government, obviously a government which today is demonstrating its insensitivity, to live up to the spirit of the legislation which is before the House.


Jack Wendele Shields: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member who has the floor indicated that the Conservative Party, my party, was holding up the legislation. I would like to inform him that I have taken my name off the list of speakers and he has spoken for 30 minutes. Who is delaying whom?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In fairness to everyone concerned, that is not a point of order.


Cyril Keeper: Mr. Speaker, as you have just said, that clearly was not a point of order. I remember that when the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) moved the amendment which is before this House, he indicated that a great deal of time was spent on this legislation, but perhaps not as much as should have been spent on it. He acknowledged that the Tories, through their gabfest at the committee level, had been delaying the return of this legislation to the House. I will not waste any more of my time-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Cyril Keeper: -with regard to the tactics of the Tories, who have deprived my community of protection under this legislation.
What I require now is a decision on the government's behalf to act in the spirit of the legislation which will be passed by
April 14, 1981

this House and allow a reasonable opportunity for appeal by the community of the planned closure of the postal station. While I feel that the provision in the legislation with regard to proper appeal and with regard to the fact that cabinet must make the final decision on cutbacks in services are good provisions, I must ask the government to call a halt immediately to the planned closure on April 24 of Postal Station D and give a reasonable opportunity to the citizens to appeal that decision.


Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-42, which is an act to establish the Canada Post Corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts.
I could not help but be upset by the remarks of the previous speaker. I think all of us in this House recognize the valuable work done by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) who has worked so hard to create a postal Crown corporation. He had a commitment from the former prime minister, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), to bring in a bill to convert the Post Office into a Crown corporation by the spring of 1980. For the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) to suggest that we are holding up this legislation is ridiculous, to say the least.
This bill was introduced last October for second reading. It was discussed in the House on October 24 and October 28. It was then delayed by this government until November 20. It is not the opposition which decides what legislation can be presented to the House and when it can be presented. That is the government's responsibility; no one else in this House has delayed this legislation. It is the obligation of the opposition to debate, probe and amend any proposed legislation which comes before the House. For a member of the New Democratic Party to stand up and say that we are delaying legislation is anything but the truth.
Bill C-42 went to committee on November 25. We debated the proposed bill in committee on that date and on the following dates: November 27, December 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 15, 16, 17 and 18. It is a very complicated bill. Everyone recognizes the benefits which will accrue to the public by converting the Post Office into a Crown corporation. Surely anyone who attended the committee meetings understood the complexity of the bill.
The bill was brought back to the House on April 8. We have an hon. member in the NDP saying that we delayed it. There is only one hon. member in this House who can bring any legislation before this House, and that is the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). The only person who tells him when to bring it before this House is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). If there is anyone delaying legislation, it is the Liberal party, no one else.
For many weeks we have been asking for legislation to be brought forward, to get on with matters and suspend the constitutional debate. We knew there were important matters
Canada Post Corporation Act
besides the Post Office, the economy and inflation, but the government refused to bring measures forward. Third reading began on April 9, and continues today, April 14. We also are anxious to have this bill go through, but we are not going to give this government a blank cheque.
There were provisions in the bill which were harmful to the public, and we have attempted to change some of them. Unfortunately, the government, with its majority and with the support of the NDP, was able to override our amendments.
The Post Office affects all of us. There is not one person here who is not affected by the post office every day in his life. Senior citizens are constantly sending us letters saying: "I do not get my letters on time. When am I going to get my mail? What are you going to do about the fact that I do not get postal delivery to my door?"
People are moving from Ontario to Calgary, buying a home, moving in, and finding out that they will not get any mail delivery for anywhere from two to five years. They are not being told that by the Post Office or by the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet). Then when they take the time to go down to the local post office to try to find out why, they are finally told, "We're sorry, there is a freeze on; we cannot help you". However, the Post Office does not provide any information telling people, they cannot have postal service. They keep quiet about that.
Numerous studies have been brought forward on the Post Office. I would like to refer to just a few of them. The first recommendations in this regard were made in 1962 by the Glassco commission and by the Montpetit commission. In December, 1978, Bill C-27 was introduced. It died on the Order Paper. In 1974 the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) was preparing to bring forth a bill to make the Post Office into a Crown corporation.
When one looks back at the history of the Post Office, one is astounded by some of the things which have happened. Between 1918 and 1965 there were three strikes in the Post Office. The people of Canada were without mail for seven weeks. Between 1968 and 1978 there were 11 Post Office strikes in Canada. However, that is not the worst part. A strike is one thing, but would one believe that as a result of the 11 strikes the people of Canada were without mail service for 51 weeks? In the last 13 years we have been without mail service for one full year. Then the government had the gall, supported by the NDP, to suggest we are holding this bill up. They should hang their heads in shame. We want to examine this bill to make sure that it is a viable bill and that the people can live with it. It is ridiculous to suggest that we are holding up passage of this bill.
There is some sad history relating to this bill. In 1967-68 the average cost of a piece of mail, regardless of size, was eight cents. The cost has now risen to 27 cents for the average piece of mail. In 1968-69 the Post Office lost $67 million. Last year it lost $279 million. It now looks as though it will lose $450 million.

April 14, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
It is interesting to look at some of the figures. In 1968 there were 36,000 workers in the post office; there are now over
60,000,	an increase of 64 per cent. However, in 1968 each worker handled 132,000 items a year; now, according to the latest figures, they handle 106,000. There must be something the matter with the way in which the Post Office is operating. We know there are problems between the unions and the workers.
In speaking to Post Office officials from time to time, I have referred to some of the ridiculous expenditures by the Post Office. In the post office in Calgary and, I assume, in many of the other supposedly modern ones, there is an optical character reader. I am not sure what it costs now, but to upgrade it will cost something over a million dollars. I have written to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) asking him when this would happen. The Post Office management are crying out for these OCRs. The optical character reader has an efficiency ratio of 78 per cent and it replaces approximately 20 people. It operates at 50 per cent of capacity. Twenty people replace the optical character reader instead of 40. In other words, they need 20 more people in the Post Office than really necessary. What do those 20 people represent? It is almost ridiculous to go through the mathematics. Twenty people at $20,000 a year is $400,000. In a little over two years they could pay for the OCR. However, the Post Office supposedly imposed a freeze. The real problem is that it does not know how to make decisions. It cannot get any leadership from the Postmaster General; he would rather sit back and wait until somebody else moves in and tries to solve the problem.
We are aware that there are problems in the Post Office between the unions and the workers. The NDP does not like anyone to say that. It is quite evident that there are problems. There are also problems between the unions and management. One union leader has said, "I don't care if the Post Office ever works; I am not here for the Post Office". All one has to do is to ask, and he will say why he does not care.
There are problems with management and staff because the union sits between them and they do not know what to do. There is trouble between the two unions and between the inside and outside workers. Although there are a number of problems, it is hoped that by making the Post Office a Crown corporation some of them will be solved.
I should now like to refer to my own riding. The conditions there are a disgrace. There are approximately 4,000 homes without any type of mail delivery. I have tried to explain to the Postmaster General, the deputy postmaster general and the regional postmasters that this involves unbelievable cost. Some of these people have to drive up to five miles a day to collect their mail. As I explained to them, the cost for gas alone is over $200,000 per year. They keep saying that they cannot afford to do anything about it, but it is costing some people $200,000 per year. If the figures that I get from the Post Office are correct, the average postman can handle up to 500 homes. Therefore, it would require eight postal officers, eight
postal workers, to handle the 4,000 homes in my riding that are without service. At a cost of $30,000 each worker, the total would come to less than a quarter of a million dollars.
This government does not know how to save money, Mr. Speaker; it only knows how to spend it. We should question everything that it brings forward to this House. We might agree with its legislation, but we are bound to examine it because we do not know what the government will try to slide through.
From time to time in this House I have risen to ask the minister some questions. On June 5, 1980, I put a question to him; on May 16, 1980, I moved a motion under Standing Order 43 and on June 26, 1980, I spoke on the adjournment debate. The questions that I brought up at those times have never been answered by the Postmaster General. He says, "Wait until it becomes a Crown corporation and we will solve all those problems".
About a month and a half ago, in reply to a question put by one of my colleagues, the minister said that for each letter that might be delivered late, 90 or 92 arrived on time. Being fairly well acquainted with the Post Office, I decided to check that out. I called the Ottawa postal station and was told that it takes two or three days for a letter to go from Ottawa to Calgary. We did an analysis and found that of 102 letters sent to Calgary from my office in February, six were delivered within four days; 25 within five days; 43 within six days; 12 within seven days; eight within eight days; six within 11 days; one within 12 days; one within 13 days and none on time. I would challenge the Postmaster General to prove that 90 or 92 letters out of 93 reach their destination on time. The minister made that statement off the top of his head.
In my constituency office the greatest problem I have by far is the non-delivery of mail. Pay is not received on time by union staff. They even have trouble with their unions and cannot get satisfaction there. There are problems between the union and the staff over pay. Many inside postal workers do not receive their pay sometimes for up to six weeks. What does the Postmaster General do about that? It is no wonder that we want to examine this bill. If we did not examine it, our constituents would be asking us why we can trust whatever the government brings forward. Obviously this government brings forward things which the public cannot abide.
I am as anxious to have the Post Office made into a Crown corporation as anyone else, but I think we must remember one very important point. This Crown corporation must be responsible to Parliament. The Post Office is in a mess but it did not get that way by itself; it got there because of inept ministers, past and present. I hope that the Postmaster General will keep in mind that one of the main ways to prevent the same thing from happening again is to have the Auditor General audit the books of the Post Office. If we do not ensure that happens, we will be remiss in our duties.
I am as anxious to see the work of the hon. member for Vancouver South completed as anyone. We hope to get the bill through, but I must tell the Postmaster General that of all
April 14, 1981

Crown corporations present and future, we will be keeping a closer eye on the new post corporation than on any other.


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: I shall keep my remarks brief, Mr. Speaker. I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-42 because I sincerely hope that we will see an improvement in the service offered by the Post Office. I also want to say that the former postmaster general has worked hard on this bill for this party in committee. I am pleased to be able to say that some of the amendments we offered have been accepted, and that was in no small part the result of his work.
1 should like to share with the House my concern for the apparent lack of provision for the maintenance of the buildings. No such amount is shown in the budget. The buildings are presently maintained by the Department of Public Works. I should like to ask the minister whether this matter has been taken into consideration.
I should like to refer to a few complaints that have been received in my office since I have been a member of this House. Just last month 1,500 letters were sent by first-class mail from Ottawa and were delivered two weeks later. It took two weeks for those letters to be delivered, Mr. Speaker. The letters were of a very sensitive nature because they were sent during the provincial election held in the month of March.
On January 26 I received a letter from a constituent in Fonthill, an Eleanor Arbour, from which I should like to quote one paragraph:
This is not the only problem we have had. I also received a letter from Buffalo that was mailed December 22, 1980. It arrived January 13, 1981. This contained tickets that we needed for New Year's Eve. The strange part about this is that friends of ours got tickets from the same place mailed also on December 22, 1980 and they received theirs on December 31, 1980.
It took this letter 22 days to travel 35 miles at the most, Mr. Speaker.
I should like to read a paragraph or two from a letter from another constituent, Mr. Kenneth Arnold of Port Colborne. He refers to a card that was mailed in Texas on December 29, 1980, and a letter mailed by his daughter in Texas on January 6, 1981. Both were received on January 12, 1981. The one mailed on December 22 took 21 days to come from Texas. In that time we could drive down there and back and spend a week or ten days, perhaps longer, vacationing.
Another paragraph reads:
Could you please do something about our so-called postal service. I read in the newspaper the supervisor of the postal service said this was due to absenteeism, they even had to close some post offices due to this. If businesses or industry operated this way, they would soon be out of business.
That is just one constituent of mine who has written regarding his concern.
I have another letter from Hilda Pearce of the town of Fort Erie. A paragraph in her letter reads:
In reference to mail delivery: air mailed in Gloucestershire, England, December 10, 1980, arriving yesterday January 12, 1981, this was the last straw.
Canada Post Corporation Act
That is an example of a letter mailed one month previous to the time of arrival in the town of Fort Erie. I hope that delivery service will improve with the passing of this legislation making the Post Office a Crown corporation.
I want to draw hon. members' attention to an organization which is active in my riding. It is called N-TEC, which stands for Niagara Training and Employment Agency Inc. N-TEC is located in Port Robinson, Ontario. The agency is a non-profit, vocational, rehabilitation workshop providing programs and services for the emotionally, mentally and physically disabled adults of the Niagara region. Currently, approximately 75 people are employed in their program. One of the vocational training programs they operate involves the delivery of bills for a number of public and private utility corporations in the Niagara region. I have visited this institution. I must say I am impressed with the facilities they have and with the staff who work with these people. This is a place where retarded and disabled people can find meaningful employment. They gain self-respect, create a self-image and learn resourcefulness. As a result they feel needed and wanted. N-TEC is heavily dependent on the revenues generated by the mail delivery program.
It seems that this program will be lost. N-TEC will be extremely hard pressed to meet all its obligations and will certainly suffer financial hardship as a result. In the light of the current economic climate, they doubt whether they could secure other contracts to recover the possible loss of mail delivery contracts which they have had. Indeed, it will be a severe blow to N-TEC.
Aside from the monetary issues, of course, the more critical issue is that of people, to which I alluded just a minute ago. People with disabilities have faced disadvantages throughout their lives. N-TEC's purpose is to try to even the score and provide opportunity where it did not exist. N-TEC gives people a chance to produce and therefore contribute to their own well-being as well as to society. The people at N-TEC do contribute. They take a great deal of pride in themselves and for the reliable and dependable service for which that organization is known. It is true there are jobs which disabled people cannot perform, but then there are many more jobs they can. Invoice delivery happens to be one of them, with the added bonus that these people can learn to work in their own community with their heads held high by the recognition they have earned.
Restoring self-dignity is the first step forward. That can only take place if meaningful work exists for these people. In this International Year of the Handicapped, should we not be thinking of ways to assist, not hinder, our disabled people? In the total scheme of things N-TEC's invoice delivery contracts are only a drop in what we might call the proverbial bucket. Whom are we hurting if we continue what has begun? They are not asking for a handout, a loan, a grant or even a parliamentary decree; in fact, they ask for nothing. The disabled ask for nothing but the right to be ordinary people.
What we need in this House, and what needs to be displayed by this government, is justice, justice tempered with mercy. I want to put on the record excerpts from two letters which I

April 14, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
feel are important and pertinent to the subject about which I am speaking. One is from the Port Colborne Hydro-Electric Commission, dated December 11, 1980. This letter was addressed to the Department of Miscellaneous Estimates. In part, it reads:
A limited number of handicapped organizations have undertaken the delivery service of certain bills in the municipalities. This service, often by young mentally retarded people, relies heavily upon the income from the service to sustain their operation and even greater upon such a service to allow these less fortunate people a chance to take a meaningful part in their community.
1 hasten to add, my request is not prompted by monetary gains, but by the need to allow such organizations the right to provide work so that those less fortunate can fulfil this meaningful role.
1 am, of course, in complete sympathy with the minister and postmaster's attempt to make the post office an equitable entity.
I, however, feel that the limited loss of revenue cannot be weighed against the accomplishment of providing work for the handicapped and mentally retarded.
I have another letter from the Port Colborne Hydro-Electric Commission signed by Mr. Bishop, dated February 19, 1981. A news release accompanies the copy of the letter to me. In the news release we read:
To date, the Hydro utility have received nothing but negative response from the Honourable Minister Andre Ouellet, Postmaster General in the bid to have the bill changed to protect the handicapped people.
At the committee stage, the minister's remarks, although sympathetic, were more concerned with the financial implications that these changes may have on the post office.
The letter which was addressed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister of Canada reads, in part:
Surety the loss of revenue to the post office that this small band of willing, handicapped workers would cause would be a "drop in the bucket" when compared to the total revenue of the post office department.
I could plead, Mr. Prime Minister, further that this is the International Year of the Handicapped. But should we have to plead for these willing workers who are limited in the type of work they are able to accomplish, who in effect ask for nothing but the right to work? I suggest not. This is and should be their charter of human rights and should be protected by the duly elected government of this country.
In conclusion, on behalf of the Port Colborne Hydro-Electric Commission, 1 respectfully solicit, Mr. Prime Minister, your personal intervention and assistance in making minor changes to Bill C-42 to accommodate the handicapped people who are at present engaged in the small delivery service.
It seems ironic that we have been dealing with the Constitution in this House. We have been talking about a charter of rights and the rights people should have, yet here is a group of people who will be legislated against because they will not be able to deliver these bills for the power company. I say it is a shame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: In conclusion, I want to tell hon. members a story about someone who lived in my riding. He had a dream. He saw the potential in these people who are handicapped and about whom I have been speaking. He believed in them. He had a dream that one day there would be a place for these people to gather and to work. That dream has come to fruition. I have visited that place; I know it stands there. It stands as a memorial to the work this man has done.
It is a sad day for this House that Bill C-42 will not allow these people to carry on this kind of work. I visited the dream he had. I visited that place and talked with those on staff. It is indeed a fine place to visit. It is a fine memorial to the man who had that dream. He passed away about a year ago, I think, because he burned himself out for others. His name was John Brennan.


An hon. Member:: Where are the NDP when you need them?


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Where are they? When we look at this particular provision in the bill, we can say with conviction that the government is heartless. It is heartless when it makes no provision to allow these people to deliver hand bills and power bills.
May I present this challenge to N-TEC and other organizations like it throughout the country which may still be delivering electric, power or gas bills for utility companies. Perhaps N-TEC should continue to deliver these bills or invoices because they are not letters. Perhaps, as the hon. member for Mississagua South indicated, that is not mail. Perhaps whether these invoices are mail in the strict sense of the word should be challenged in the courts.
I thank the House for the privilege of being able to speak for these few minutes on an issue near and dear to my heart.


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Mr. Speaker, I too will be brief. The space shuttle astronauts had to make their decisions in split seconds during their magnificent re-entry and landing today. Therefore, ten minutes should be sufficient to get my point across. I have my stop watch set.
I welcome the opportunity to speak briefly before this House on a very important piece of legislation, Bill C-42, which seeks to create the Canada Post Corporation. I want to assure this House at the outset that I support and welcome a Crown corporation for the Post Office.
As member of Parliament for Hamilton-Wentworth, I have had the opportunity many times to present the Postmaster General with numerous cases of very poor postal service to many of my constituents. In some cases I have been satisfied that the Postmaster General's answers were fair and well researched. I hope the Postmaster General is listening at the moment because I am going to pay a rare compliment to him. I give the Postmaster General credit for his attention, patience and his negotiation to get a truly better bill for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Geoffrey Douglas Scott: Now for the bad news. I have to admit that in the majority of cases when I have contacted the Postmaster General, frankly I have not been satisfied with the answers he has given me, either in this House
April 14, 1981

of Commons or through correspondence. Nor have I been satisfied with the Postmaster General's role in this House.
The hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and I have known each other for a long time. We have a good working relationship when he wears his other hat as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. However, that is the problem: he wears too darned many hats.
I believe the Postmaster General is being spread far too thin for his various duties to be effective. In addition to his onerous role as head of the Post Office, perhaps one of the most difficult and thankless jobs, he is also splitting his time as Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In addition to these weighty responsibilities, the minister has a heavy schedule as Quebec lieutenant of his party. The clearest indication that the minister is spread too thin is easily documented by the often uninformed answers he provides the House of Commons, even after I have briefed him from time to time on questions I would like to ask him as consumer affairs minister. However, I feel he has a handle on that department through his officials.
I hope once the new Canada Post Corporation is born that a different minister will be assigned to speak for that Crown corporation in the House. It will give the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs more time to spend, which I think he knows he needs to spend, on the very important area of consumer and corporate affairs.
May I deal briefly with another problem within the Post Office other than that of the minister, namely, the deplorable state of management-labour relations. We constantly hear of ongoing chaos and confusion through the media, through our work in the House and through our constituents. I cannot think of another institution or private company in Canada which enjoys or suffers worse relations.
This would seem to strike at the heart of our problem in our current postal system. There is precious little, if any, trust from either labour's or management's point of view. As long as this situation is allowed to continue, the Post Office, either as a government department or a Crown corporation, will not function effectively.
However, the problem is not primarily labour-oriented. A number of my constituents are Post Office employees. They are dedicated, do their jobs well and are proud of the valuable work they do in the time-honoured tradition of Canada's royal mail. They are frustrated, however, by the attitude of management. They are frustrated by the introduction of machinery, which has been done haphazardly without regard for those working on it. They are frustrated with a system of management where it takes two to three months to receive overtime pay. They are frustrated by a system of management which has refused to take employees' grievances seriously.
Just as management will take an intransigent attitude, so will employees. I firmly believe that if we transfer the same management personnel currently in the Post Office to the Crown corporation, just as if we automatically transfer the trouble-makers in certain sections of the Post Office to a
Canada Post Corporation Act
Crown corporation, we will simply be transferring the problem, not eliminating it. We must be able to get the Post Office as a Crown corporation organized so that we can finally move the mail quickly, effectively and efficiently. We cannot sit back and hope that this is all going to happen; we are going to have to work at it.
People ask what good it is going to do by turning the Post Office into a Crown corporation. Good question. There are good Crown corporations and there are bad ones. We on this side of the House are going to ensure that the Canada Post Corporation will be a good one. We will be watching it very closely.
Aside from the management-labour concerns, the Canadian people in general, and certainly the citizens in my riding of Hamilton-Wentworth, are concerned with the length of time it takes to get the mail delivered. We have heard a litany of disasters throughout this debate from members on all sides of this House regarding these problems.
The Postmaster General states that 95 per cent of the mail is being delivered on time. To put it mildly, my people think this estimate perhaps a wee bit high. I receive on average two letters per week complaining about the postal system and many more phone calls. I guess a lot of people simply do not trust the mail. Let me describe just three of the most recent letter complaints I have received. A letter from the Canadian Pension Commission here in Ottawa was mailed on February 2, 1981, to a constituent of mine in Hamilton. It was delivered on February 19, 1981. I find it very hard to understand why it took a first-class letter complete with postal code 17 days to get from Ottawa to Hamilton.
Another case in point is from Mrs. Howell of Jerseyville, Ontario. A reply to a request of Mrs. Howell's was mailed in Toronto on December 17, 1980 and delivered on January 14, 1981. Jerseyville is roughly 45 miles from Toronto. It would have been quicker to hand deliver it. I could have delivered it.
Mrs. Goodram of Ancaster, Ontario, had a very important letter to send to her son in Calgary. She decided to register it, thinking it would get to its destination in good order and plenty of time. She mailed it on December 22, 1980. The registered letter finally reached Calgary on January 21, 1981. You can talk about the Christmas mail rush and all the delays that entails; however, for a registered letter to take that length of time to travel half way across Canada is unforgivable.
I will not go into the countless letters complaining that it took 25 days for mail to arrive from Britain or into the delays in getting mail to Dundas, Ontario, from Ancaster, Ontario- both in my riding-a distance of less than five miles. I do not even want to go into the case of the letter which went from Ancaster to Dundas via London, England. The current record, apparently, from Ancaster to Dundas is nine days. Nine days! That is the record for the Post Office. Do hon. members see why we want a Crown corporation? The service can only improve.

April 14, 1981
Canada Post Corporation Act
We all know the frustration of dealing with parcel post. If we receive a parcel within a few weeks, the odds are even that it will be damaged. I recently received eight packages from various provincial capitals across Canada. They were provincial flags which we were to instal at 447 Squadron at Mount Hope. Half the package had been repaired by Canada Post. The parcel-sorting machines simply chewed those packages up and spit them out. Mercifully, the flags arrived intact.
Two constituents of mine, Mike and Wendy Gould, went out to visit western Canada. While in Nelson, British Columbia, they purchased some unique stoneware pottery. Unable to bring it home through the airline, they decided-with much trepidation, I might add-to put their faith in Canada Post. Well, you guessed it; even though they packed it very carefully-they absolutely plastered it with "Fragile" stickers-and registered it, the thing was delivered smashed to pieces. The district post office said, "Sorry, we can't be responsible for damage incurred," even though it was properly packaged, properly marked and properly insured. Hon. members may ask, as I did, why on earth they would entrust their valued pottery to the Post Office. They wanted to use the Post Office, not some private courier, because day after day we are told to have faith in and use our postal service.
What happens when you have a small business and must rely on the parcel post system for movement of goods? Let us consider the case of Mr. Paul Orosz of Hamilton, Ontario, who has a small car radio business. He occasionally must return units to the manufacturer. Last summer, after successfully using the mails before, he mailed on three separate occasions from two different postal stations three properly wrapped, marked and insured parcels for return to the manufacturer. All three packages where smashed when they reached their destination. Mr. Orosz was presented with a bill of $377 for repairing those radios. We found out later that the parcels were insured for theft only, not damage. Mr. Orosz used the mail because, like many other small businesses, he could not afford courier or freight rates. But he will use these in the future. What is the cost to Canada Post and the new Crown corporation if many more people like the Goulds or Mr. Orosz decide not to use the postal system again?
We are having a difficult time getting proper mail delivery in some sections of my riding. These are rural areas which have been served by the same post office for many years now. An elderly couple ran one post office but they have declined to continue. The officials in that area have not been able to find anyone to carry out the job, so they are attempting to get some other type of service, such as box service or door to door delivery. This is also happening in one special community in my riding, West Flamborough. It is an area with a great number of elderly Canadians. Service must be accessible in the winter months or in just plain poor weather. A decision has not yet been reached. The minister has assured me, however, that action will be taken-or that at least this can be more fairly, efficiently and properly dealt with-when Bill C-42 is given final assent.
Although I feel there may be an axe being held over my head, the people in my riding deserve a postal system which is efficient, reasonable and improved over the present one, and so we are waiting for the birth of the Canada Post Corporation.
In connection with this legislation, I am returning it to the sender; but I will be supporting this bill to make the Post Office a Crown corporation.


Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, it is a considerable pleasure for me to rise to indicate the support of my party for the legislation which is before the House. As all hon. members know, as postmaster general I was committed, on behalf of my party, to introduce this legislation as early as the late spring of 1980.1 want it shown on the record that that was accepted by the prime minister at that time, and I have to say to those who have spoken of delay that the delay is not due to any acts of the government of the leader of my party.
I also have to say, because it is appropriate to do so, that while I was occupying the post of postmaster general I received very considerable co-operation from all of the unions which represent the workers in the Post Office, and I also received co-operation from the managerial part of the Post Office. At my request I received very considerable co-operation from the Canadian Labour Congress, which agreed to oversee a committee which would work toward the implementation of a bill which, as far as possible, would meet the needs of management and the postal workers. I know my friend, the present Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), received continuing co-operation from that Canadian Labour Congress committee.
The whole thrust of the bill I was working on and the thrust of this bill is to give a new chance to the Post Office and the Post Office family. I believe the bill recognizes in a very significant way the necessity to continue this great public service for all Canadians, not just a limited number of them. While the bill presented to the House is no doubt not without some defects, it goes a long way toward meeting the needs not only of the Post Office but also of the Canadian public, which is entitled to service from the Post Office.
I regret that I have to bring to the attention of hon. members a letter which was written by a friend of mine in the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), but I am going to mention it. I hope my friend, the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker), who has worked as the NDP critic on matters relating to the Post Office, will not take anything I say as being aimed at him because I assure the hon. member that these remarks are made only with respect to this letter; I impute nothing to my hon. friend, who has worked extremely closely with me and has contributed very greatly to the improvement of this bill.
Again I say I regret having to bring this to the attention of hon. members, but on March 24, 1981, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway wrote a letter to a gentleman in Vancouver in which he said this:
Unfortunately, we have been unable to get all-party agreement for this very important piece of legislation.
April 14, 1981

He was referring to Bill C-42.
The Conservative Party has decided to stall the changes, mainly because the new Crown corporation is likely to hurt some of their corporate friends in the courier business. Although the bill was ready to be implemented as early as last fall-
The fall of 1980.
-the Tories have succeeded in keeping it off the floor of the House of Commons for almost six months.
I understand the cut and thrust of politics, but I do not understand a written statement which does not contain a grain of truth. I regret this very much because the hon. member is well and very favourably known to me. I suspect he did not even write the letter, but it is certainly clear that he signed it. I hope hon. members will bear with me for just a minute while I put the record straight.
First of all, the bill was introduced in July, 1980. While there were some discussions between myself and the Postmaster General to try to put it through in speedy fashion, that was made impossible because of action the New Democratic Party was taking in the House of Commons, action which was perfectly legitimate but which did extend the sittings of the House for another week and made it impossible to get any agreement for a further extension to deal with the bill.
Secondly, the bill was brought before the House of Commons for second reading on October 24. It was debated on that day, on October 28 and then on November 20. As hon. members have pointed out already during this debate, the determination as to when debates take place and when bills are introduced lies completely with the government.
The bill then came before the committee and was before the committee on December 1, 4, 9, 10, 11, 16 and December 18. During those days, because of the hard work of members of the committee from all parties and also to a very great degree the flexibility of the Postmaster General, there were at least 50 changes made in the bill, and hon. members can check the record on that. There may have been a somewhat smaller number of amendments, but they were the result of the deliberations at the committee hearings.
In addition, and just in case anyone thinks we were wasting our time, this is a list of the groups which came before the committee to give us their views about the bill, many of which helped improve it. The list includes the Canadian Telecommunications Carriers Association, the Canadian Bankers' Association, the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Canadian Business Press, the Canadian Daily Newspaper Publishers Association, the Canadian Periodical Publishers Association, the Graphic Arts Industries Association, the Consumers Association of Canada, representatives of Canadian courier companies, the government of Ontario, the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Retail Council of Canada, the Institute of Canadian Advertising, the Canadian Labour Congress, Bruce Light and Judge Rene J. Marin, commissioner of inquiry relating to the security and investigation of services branch within the Post Office Department.
Canada Post Corporation Act
Other groups that submitted briefs which were looked at by the committee include Action Bell Canada, the Canadian Business Equipment Manufacturers Association, the Canadian Direct Mail Marketing Association, the Canadian Industrial Communications Assembly, the Magazine Association of Canada, the Ontario Trucking Association, General Motors of Canada Limited, V.S. Services Limited, the Canadian Cable Television Association, Peter R. Kemball & Associates and the United Parcel Service Canada Limited.
I do not think I need gild the lily here, except to point out that all these groups which came before us have a very real interest in the Post Office and in the legislation which is before us. It does some credit to the members of the committee-and I give credit where credit is due to members of the committee on all sides, to the Postmaster General and my friend, the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke, and also colleagues of mine-that in a space of seven days all those witnesses were heard. Because they worked long hours, the bill came out of the committee in a form to be presented to the House of Commons very late on the night of December 18. The bill was released from committee that night because there was a very real sense on my part and on the part of others that, in view of the labour negotiations which were taking place at the time, all haste should be used within the bounds of common sense to get the bill through. As a consequence the bill was then released from committee and brought back to the House for report stage and third reading. It was not introduced to the House at the report stage until April 7. The blame for that, if one wants to lay blame, can only lie with the government. It certainly was not my party that was trying to hold up the bill.
I am sorry to dwell on this, Mr. Speaker, but I feel the accusation made in the letter of the hon. member for Vancouv-er-Kingsway is so false the public is entitled to have an answer to it.
When the bill came before the House there were 11 motions at report stage, and they were dealt with expeditiously. It is interesting to note that three of the motions put forward by my party were accepted by the Postmaster General, and one was ruled out of order. Three of the government motions were accepted while four of the motions put forward by my party were rejected. One of those motions was supported by my colleagues in the NDP. That was the very important amendment, which we wish had been accepted by the government, relating to the necessity to appoint the Auditor General as auditor for the Crown corporation. Hon. members will remember that the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke spoke very strongly in support of that proposal and NDP members voted with us.
In respect of the rest of the debate, it has gone on for several days and I am happy to advise the House that it is going to end this afternoon.
I just want to say a couple of things. First of all, as my friend the hon. Postmaster General knows, just creating the Crown corporation is not in itself the whole answer to the problems of the Post Office. It is a start and it has to be given a chance. I hope the government, after this bill is passed with

April 14, 1981
Adjournment Motion
our support, will be extremely careful in the appointment of the board of directors. The Postmaster General knows that the number on the board of directors was expanded at our suggestion, with his consent and compliance.
It is also important that there be some continuation of management personnel. Having had some experience in that respect, I can assure all hon. members it will be extremely important to maintain continuity of management during the transition stage, at least until the Post Office is actually operating in full swing as a Crown corporation.
The other thing I want to say, and I will close on this, Mr. Speaker, is that there are many people who, because they are frustrated and as a consequence are criticial of the Post Office, perhaps unintentionally though sometimes intentionally, tend to leave the impression that we should just break it up and disband it because surely somebody else could perform the service. I want to address that matter by referring to only a few points.
The Post Office is a great Canadian public institution. There is no way the service which Canadians all over this great land require can be handled by just taking parts of the post office operation and turning them over to private corporations. I am convinced that if that were done the easy traffic would be handled at great profit but the difficult and costly traffic would not be handled at all. If the Post Office is to succeed, it must be able to compete for the profitable traffic to make up for the fact that it is called upon as a public institution to deal with traffic which is not profitable, but which is traffic which most Canadians insist on, with every right to do so.
I want to say to all colleagues that this party supports the bill. We think it represents a new beginning. Of course, we will be watching very carefully how the Post Office conducts its business affairs. I must say on behalf of my party we wish management and the employees of the Post Office well. We understand perfectly the immensity of the task which lies before them. My experience in dealing with the leaders of the unions in the Post Office has convinced me that the rank and file of Canada Post are as anxious to reform the Post Office and deliver the kind of service they expect Canadians to have as anyone else.
It is my very great privilege and pleasure to wish everyone in the Post Office well, with a sincere desire that the postal service of Canada improve and continue improving as the months and years go on.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie)-Marine	transport-North	Sydney, N.S. to
Argentia, Nfld. ferry service; the hon. member for Halifax West (Mr. Crosby)-Marine transportation-Withdrawal of Dart containerline service from Halifax-Holding of inquiry; the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett)-Regional development-Application of program to deal with regional inequalities.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Ouellet (for the Prime Minister) that Bill C-42, an act to establish the Canada Post Corporation, to repeal the Post Office Act and other related acts and to make related amendments to other acts, be now read the third time and do pass, and on the amendment-Mr. Blenkarn (p. 9135).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Blenkarn) negatived, on division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Therefore, the question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.
April 14, 1981

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-50, an act to amend the Customs Tariff and to repeal the Irish Free State Trade Agreement Act, 1932, the Union of South Africa Trade Agreement Act, 1932 and the United Kingdom Trade Agreement Act, 1937, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton) (for Mr. Lambert) moved:: That Bill C-50, an act to amend the Customs Tariff and to repeal the Irish Free State Trade Agreement Act, 1932, the Union of South Africa Trade Agreement Act, 1932 and the United Kingdom Trade Agreement Act, 1937, be amended in Schedule VI at page 323 in the proposed tariff item 47810-1 by striking out the words "other than dental surgery".


Mr. Knowles:: Mr. Speaker, it is not that a Conservative member needs me to speak in his defence, but we understood all along that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) wished to speak to his amendment.


Mr. Kempling:: He is on his way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In all fairness it would not hurt us to sit in silence for two or three minutes, since he has been sent for and is on his way here.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, we moved so expeditiously with the Post Office bill that I think we are one jump ahead of the bus service from the West Block. I have been advised that the hon. member is on his way. If that suggestion is agreeable to the House, I think we could expedite the business and that bill.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the wind which is presently blowing, it was difficult to get here from the West Block, even in my spare form!


Monique Bégin: What about Participaction?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister should not speak of Participaction in that particular wind!
The point I want to discuss this afternoon, and the subject of my amendment, is a rather narrow one. It deals with an amendment to tariff item 47810-1. The facts of the matter are these, Mr. Speaker. Prior to November 9, 1979, the Department of National Revenue collected duties on dental materials because it considered that the words "surgery" and "surgical prosthesis" in tariff item 47810-1 did not include dental surgery or dental surgical prosthesis. However, under appeal No. 1377 the Tariff Board ruled that the term "surgery" did include dental surgery and that "other surgical prosthesis" included dental prosthesis. The Tariff Board found that the customs administration had been in error for many years.
Customs Tariff
One might ask what happens to all that revenue which was apparently improperly collected. Has any of it been refunded? Is this merely one of those cases where the taxpayer has been told "tough luck"? In any event, that is not the subject matter of our discussion this afternoon.
The Tariff Board's ruling meant that no duties were payable in accordance with the law as it was written. However, the one firm in Canada engaged in a minor way in the manufacture of dental materials, that is Johnson and Johnson (Canada), wrote to the Department of Finance to have the duties introduced on amalgams and other dental materials at the levels which Customs had been collecting in error. While the dental laboratories conference did complain about the fact that duties would be removed from finished prosthesis, they did not ask that duties be imposed on dental materials. Indeed, when the conference determined that removal of duty-free treatment for dental prosthesis would mean the consequent elimination under tariff item 47900-1 of duty-free treatment for dental materials, they withdrew their request. The officials in the Department of Finance indicated, quite rightly, that the main petitioners for the restoration of the duty which had originally been collected in error were Johnson and Johnson. That is all this budget does, notwithstanding the fact that the Canadian Dental Association, on behalf of all Canadian dentists, is opposed to this particular proposal.
I have before me correspondence addressed to the minister from the president of the Canadian Dental Association, as well as to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) and to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) which gives some more background. The Canadian Dental Association was not consulted before changes to tariff item 47810-1 were proposed in the budget.
That is one point about which I believe the officials in finance are more than arrogant. I know that in the United States, for instance, industry, associations and all aspects of the economy have the opportunity to be consulted before a budget is actually taken up and passed. In England I know that associations, such as dental associations and other trade and manufacturing associations, are consulted before changes are made in legislation affecting the amount of duty and tariffs. And why not? Is this question of taxation a cat and mouse affair that the Minister of Finance springs like a hungry cat on some unsuspecting mice or other targets at the time of the budget so that he can wring from those particular bodies or individuals the maximum tax?
I would like to receive an answer from the minister as to why there was not consultation with the Canadian Dental Association and why the Department of Finance has chosen to plug the so-called loophole. It was a bad practice. It does not bring in any revenue. It does not do a darned thing. There are no dental supplies manufactured in Canada other than the limited amalgams put on the market by Johnson and Johnson, which I think back in 1974 bought a process which had been developed at the University of Alberta in Edmonton. The amalgams are manufactured here in limited amounts. They are manufactured much more in the United States, brought

April 14, 1981
Customs Tariff
into Canada in bulk and sold here. There are no other dental materials made in Canada, with the exception of some prosthesis; but that is not the point. There was no objection expressed by the conference on that question and no action taken by the government in the budget.
All I am saying is that these materials used in dental surgery shall not be subject to the Customs Tariff as provided for under tariff item 47810-1. It seems to me that all along there has been the strongest possible case-I will admit it is on a very narrow item-for the government to leave the matter alone. The government is not going to encourage the production of these amalgams or other materials in Canada. There is not the market for these products in Canada. One could almost apply a 25 per cent tariff against American products and they would still be purchased by Canadian supply houses and sold to Canadian dentists at a price lower than the manufacturing price, along with the normal taxes that would be imposed in Canada. We would naturally impose a 9 per cent sales tax on those items.
I suggest to the minister today, as I have privately, that this matter could easily be conceded by the government and there would be absolutely no measurable impact on revenues. That is not the question. It is the principle that officials were right. We will see that they were right even though they were judged to be wrong. That is the sole effect of the government trying to restore an interpretation to a tariff item which the Tariff Board said has been wrong for so many years. I urge hon. members to accept the amendment and we could then adopt the whole bill as amended.
[ Translation]


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment moved by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), as he so aptly explained, is intended to strike out from Schedule VI of the bill a provision, or rather to make inoperative a provision contained in Schedule VI which bears tariff item No. 47810-1 and whose purpose is to reapply rates in force before an amendment made at about the end of 1970 and which came in 1979 after an interpretation of that tariff item by the Tariff Board. The effect of the new interpretation was to authorize the free entry of several dental materials which were subject to rates before that decision. Therefore, what we are doing in Schedule VI is to revert to the situation as it was before the board's decision.
Canadian production of certain of those goods such as dental obturation materials, had been started on the understanding that imports might not be duty-free. In addition, certain laboratories which manufacture dental prostheses realized that laboratories located in the United States were taking business away from them. With this provision we are therefore reverting to a previous situation, while taking into account the overall objective of a tariff policy designed to encourage the production in Canada of certain materials or certain merchandise or goods, in this instance those used in the production of dental prostheses.
However, in view of the numerous representations we have received since the budget was tabled about the complexity of the tariff provisions in the case of dental suppliers, Department of Finance officials have undertaken an in-depth study of the situation of all dental products to which rates are applicable. Unfortunately, it is now too early to announce the type of changes, if any, which might be proposed as a result of that study. It is also impossible to promise that everyone will be satisfied with the outcome of that study because, if we take a close look at the issue, we realize that there are very diverse interests between those who import such products and the Canadian manufacturers of the same merchandise and the same products.
Officials of the department are in consultation with commercial and professional dental associations. Other departments such as Industry, Trade and Commerce and National Health and Welfare will also be consulted in this in-depth study. I would also like to indicate, Mr. Speaker, that Canadian dentists have written to me to say that dental materials have increased 27 per cent. Now, reality does not seem to bear that out. The amendments contained in the budget affect only dental prostheses, materials and articles that are part of a finished prostheses as well as materials used in reconstructive dental surgery. The duty which is generally applied to these items is between 7 and \1'A per cent, although some still enter the country duty-free.
The instruments and other dental materials used by dentists are not at all affected by this change and I must add that most of these items, such as the materials, still come into the country duty-free. The items covered by the provision contained in Bill C-50 are in fact responsible for only a very small portion of total dental costs and would represent only a very small fraction of a possible future cost increase resulting from this amendment. I would think that possible increases will result from higher costs of materials used in dental prostheses, rather than from the changes resulting from Bill C-50.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, an in-depth study is under way and I think it is too early yet to agree to an amendment such as the one proposed by the hon. member. I would therefore suggest that the House reject the amendment put by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). However, I want to tell him and the House that his proposal is being given serious consideration, that the whole situation is being subjected to an in-depth and exhaustive review, and that we will be in a position to make a decision once this review is completed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Minister on what principles has he based the following conclusion: Since the Tariff Board has cancelled the tariff on the materials involved, why is he reinstating the tariff and making a study later, as he has said? Why not make the study first, and if the
April 14, 1981

conclusions of this study show that the tariff should be reinstated, do it afterwards? But no, first the tariff is reinstated, and we are told: Perhaps it will be cancelled if it is justified. The Tariff Board has told the minister that the tariff had been cancelled. It was unfair. I therefore wonder why we are going back to the previous position.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I shall recognize the hon. minister so that he may reply to the question asked by the hon. member.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated, according to its policy, the government intended to subject these items and materials to a tariff. Technically, the Board indicated that they were not subject to a tariff. We are re-establishing what the government intended to do. In passing, I would like to point out to the hon. member that the general purpose of the tariff policy is to allow the Canadian manufacturing industry a certain margin of action in the production of certain goods. This is precisely why we are reinstating this tariff, to allow the Canadian industry to enter this sector of production.
The hon. member is asking me why we do not wait. As I have already stated, there are diverse interests involved. Obviously, the interests of the importer are not the same as those of the producers of such materials, even though there might be very few of them. We also say that we must maintain this relative protection. And we have seen that the margin is still not too wide to provide a certain freedom of action for Canadian manufacturers. We are now reviewing this whole situation. We shall find out what is the position of the various interests, and when we have reviewed the situation, we shall make a decision. This does not mean that the decision will be to remove the tariff. It could very easily be to maintain it.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Amendment (Mr. Lambert) negatived, on division.


Pierre Bussières: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Customs Tariff
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Agreed. When shall the bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now, by leave.


Pierre Bussières: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, having seen some examples of how the government, having once levied a duty, will not let go, I want to speak about a little incident regarding some rather minor products that have a lot of contact with Canadians. I suppose there is hardly anyone who does not have some dental repair work or dental surgery done, so all of us will be affected by the decisions made by the government this afternoon.
I also have some doubts about the bona fides of those at the administrative level. I suppose that at some time or other all of us indulge in civil service or bureaucrat bashing. A lot of it is justified. I have been here for about 23 years and the longer I am here the more difficult I find it to fathom the mental process of the bureaucratic mind and the type of philosophy that permeates it. For many, it is that it will be right and right at all times, regardless of how wrong it may be. We have seen evidence of that in some of the practices of the revenue-gathering departments.
In the Department of Employment and Immigration we have seen bureaucracy become a law unto itself. The incident is merely a game; a practice which had been adjudged to be in error, even though an error of many years. I could not justify the minister's thinking when he said that it had been the government's intention or policy to subject the dental materials covered by item No. 47810-1 to customs duty. How can he tell us this? The words do not say so, because the Tariff Board says the words do not say so. There is no indication that that was the government's intention. It is the government's present intention, of course, that this should be covered, but to say that it was the intention when the tariff item was set up is to beg the question and, to me, is not justified by the events. But that is a minor item, Mr. Speaker.
Today we are on their reading of a bill that is as imposing in bulk as was the Bank Act. It covers a great deal of ground. The amendments to the Customs Tariff are detailed and laborious and there is nothing that is less interesting or more sterile for us to examine. These amendments arise out of the changes made at the Tokyo Round which is, in effect, a liberalization of tariff walls among trading partners. That is something that is welcomed on both sides of the House.
Some of these amendments will be of gradual tenure; they will be in effect over eight years subject, of course, to the sometimes wild flights of fancy of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), who feels that he can wrestle inflation to the ground by slashing prices in Canada to meet those of

April 14, 1981
Customs Tariff
imports and thus make Canadian producers become more competitive. Goodness knows how much this lengthy exercise has cost the Government of Canada or how much it has cost a number of provinces to send people to attend the negotiations in Tokyo and in Geneva. Trade associations also sent delegations to give testimony to the negotiators. The whole effort, which lasted a number of years, has cost us a great deal of time and effort but is a step in the right direction. In some ways it is the negation of economic nationalism. This economic nationalism moves around the world in various and often unexpected ways.
Let us consider the Common Market. The nine members dispense with tariff barriers between the partners. This does not dispense with tensions among the various competing producers of goods and services within the community, however. One should hear what the French say about the English. And Britain is taking a hard, second look at its membership in the Common Market. France is apprehensive about Spain coming in. Each is trying to protect its own interests and, of course, to sell more goods to its neighbour. The object is never to buy more but always to sell more.
Judging from outward appearances, one might think that the Common Market represented a decline in economic nationalism, but is that really so? The Italians send tanker after tanker of red wine into the Bordeaux region to be mixed with the French production. When the French farmers hear about this, the trucks are summarily dumped by the wayside. Truckloads of Italian tomatoes are dumped in France. French wine is dumped in Germany. Now they are talking about English mutton and lamb. Goodness, those poor little beasties are getting some great maledictions in France!
Although there is still tension, it is certainly a great deal less than the tension created by the economic nationalism which some of us, who in the 1930s were teenagers, saw rampant in Europe and in other parts of the world, including Canada and the United States, when tariff walls were raised out of sight, and everybody closed their doors. What did we get out of it? We got World War II. It was bound to come.
The implementation of Bill C-50,1 think, is a gesture on the part of Canada. I know it will receive assent on both sides as a stamp against economic nationalism. Through it, we are going to open up trade, which is the production and exchange of goods. True enough, that is not sufficient because Bill C-50 does nothing about non-tariff barriers. If there is anything which can get more oppressive and difficult to deal with, I would like to know what it is.
There are countries around the world which are great traders as long as their goods can be put in someone else's market. But try to get some of our goods, of a generally competitive nature, manufactured goods, for instance, into one of their markets. Try to get manufactured goods into Japan. There are all sorts of reasons why manufactured goods cannot appear on the Japanese market.
Let us deal now with the Common Market. Canada has heavy machinery plants, and in the pulp and paper manufacturing area as well as in the generation of electricity we have firms which stand second to none in the world. But it is very difficult for those firms to get tender documents not only from Common Market countries but also from Britain. The British board of trade simply says that there is nothing doing, that there are no copies of the tender documents available to anybody else, that the products in question will be made in Britain or within the Common Market. We are excluded. That non-tariff barrier is as good as slapping a 100 per cent customs tariff on the goods and services.
I do not think this House has had a satisfactory explanation from the ministers concerned as to what progress has been made, where further progress might be made, or to what practices Canada objects. Nor have we been told who are the greatest offenders regarding non-tariff barriers. I know we have some. If such be the case, let our trading partners tell us. I understand that some of our European friends consider our anti-dumping rules to be pretty barbarous. On the other hand, I invite the Europeans to look at some of their own. We can look at our American friends and see what they do. Some of their treasury board rulings and designations could be said to be pretty fast and vicious. We have only to look at some examples.
I always say try to sell ideas and commodities. We should not dwell on the difficulties. Let us see how we can do things. We should always stress everything positively. Do not tell me how you cannot do something, Mr. Speaker; I want to know how you are going to do it. I think that is how we should approach our negotiations. We should not put emphasis on the difficulties. I am not suggesting that our negotiators, in this particular round leading up to the accord embodied in Bill C-50, took that approach. They had a difficult task. The only thing many of us would reproach them for is their absolute secrecy in the early days. Everything was close to their chest at that time. They would not approach provincial governments. Literally they had to be dragged kicking and screaming into co-operation with the provinces. They would not take industry into their confidence. Things were very very difficult.
I think this is because there is a mental block in the bureaucracy in Canada that does not want to talk to business openly. There is a wall. Maybe it is the old Chinese wall. Nevertheless, a barricade exists between Canadian industry and what is known as government service. I would not say it is deliberate or that able administrators here in Ottawa do it so they can run the show. I will not impute those motives to them. With notable exceptions, there does not seem to be the required relationship between Canadian industry, Canadian business and government circles in Ottawa. I shall not speak about the provincial capitals because I know nothing about their inner workings.
Having dealt with that background, by this bill we are going to put and end to the Union of South Africa Trade Agreement Act, 1932, the United Kingdom Trade Agreement Act, 1937, and the Irish Free State Trade Agreement Act, 1932. The
April 14, 1981

1932 acts are, of course, in line with the general treaty of that year arising out of the conference held in Ottawa which gave rise to the BP classification in our tariffs. It worked wonderfully well. As a matter of fact, if it had not been for the BP, a great deal of industry would not have been built in this country.
As a result of the British trade agreement and the preferential treatment, American firms established many manufacturing subsidiaries in Canada so they could hit the European and British market. Via the British market they were able to trade with Egypt, India, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, all the colonies and East Africa. It was, in fact, the old British Empire that gave birth 50 years ago to the development of a great deal of Canadian industry.
This has created a branch plant economy in many industries. However, that is the only way there is going to be any industry. When the 1932 agreements were negotiated and implemented, this country had a remarkably small population of 11 million and had to deal with 50 million people in Britain, 50 million in France, 60 million or more in Germany, as well as the populations of Japan, China, India and the rest of the world. We were one little pea in a big bag of little peas and some big ones.
To put it in balance, we must be grateful for those men in the various countries who in 1931 and 1932 negotiated British preferential treatment, the British Trade Agreement Act and the various acts we are now repealing 50 years later. The reason is that Britain, having gone through the turmoil of World War II and a generation of terrible troubles thereafter, joined the Common Market, as did Ireland. We are totally excluded. It is meaningless to have British preferential treatment when Britain and Ireland are members of the Common Market.
In so far as South Africa is concerned, it too was a member of the group in 1932. It has gone its divergent way and is now being ostracized by countries in the rest of the world, many of whom are the world's greatest hypocrites. That is not the way to treat the troubles in South Africa. I certainly do not like apartheid, but we practise it here in Canada, only with more subtlety and with greater hypocrisy.
I find it absolutely unjustifiable that we have Canadian churchmen and various groups belabouring South Africa. I say physician cure thyself before you start preaching about others. Nevertheless, we are putting an end to our trade with South Africa on a preferential basis. I regret it. I think of all we could have done with South Africa. By being friends and maintaining communications with them, we could perhaps convince them to amend their ways and they could convince us to amend ours. By placing them in a ghetto and ostracizing them, we will not gain any influence over them, not if I know the people of South Africa, and I met many of them during World War II and have known others since that time. However, such has been the way of public thinking and the actions of government, because it was the popular thing to do.
Customs Tariff
We have put an end to our trade agreement with South Africa and put their goods under the general tariff. That will not change anything in South Africa one iota. What we have done shows the narrowness of our minds. Some day we will regret it. In Rhodesia we participated in an action against people who have now had to turn over government to elements whose future can be contemplated with some concern.
The whole of the continent of Africa is close to domination by the Soviet Union. It is being delivered. With patience, in ten to 15 years the Soviet Union will get the whole of North Africa. Next, of course, will be South Africa. That is the only bastion. When that happens, the United States will rue the day of their Andrew Youngs and others who ran about opening up the defences against the Soviet Union. These comments do not relate to this bill, but I hope the House will excuse my discursive remarks because they do relate to South Africa. Perhaps I can get a reaction from some members in this House. As soon as I mention South Africa, some of them tend to want to spit. I suggest they look at themselves in the mirror to see whether they should not spit at themselves.
I had a minor difference of opinion with the minister on one particular point. However, I recommend that the House pass Bill C-50. In saying that, the Minister of State for Finance is the jack-of-all-trades in finance. He is handling this Customs Tariff bill. I ask that there be prepared a truthful assessment to show where our tariff policy is heading, or whether it is drifting.
From where is the initiative to come for other changes? Where are some real initiatives with regard to non-tariff barriers? Will we have to get at non-tariff barriers by tackling them through our participation in international financial organizations? One area I suggest to the minister we might investigate in order possibly to get at some of these artificial barriers is the Inter American Development Bank. Our participation in that concern is at a reasonable level. Along with our friends in the United States, we carry a considerable wallop.
If various developing countries approach Canada, the United States and others with regard to financial aid on a multilateral basis, we should make it conditional upon the removal of certain improper trade practices to which we feel we are subject.
After all, if the United States can tie some of its economic relations and its economic help to human rights, there is no reason why we could not tie some economic aid to the removal of certain barriers. I offer the suggestion. Through the World Bank we participate in financial assistance in the Far East. There may be some bilateral financial assistance. However, this is where it becomes practical. That is our chief obstacle to increasing Canadian trade, apart from our high cost of production and, I think, perhaps a great deal of lack of interest on the part of Canadian businessmen who will not get out and really hack it on the market. Our Canadian banks are available for financing. The Export Development Corporation is there work-
9270

April 14, 1981
Customs Tariff
ing hard, and can be made to work more effectively. We have a great deal going, if we would only recognize the fact.
I hope this aspect of our trading relationships with the world will meet the approval of the House and that we will do other things to improve that position. May we hear from the minister in the fairly near future as to what we can get with respect to a study on non-tariff barriers as far as they affect Canada?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not intend to take a great deal of time in dealing with this bill but 1 do want to make some comments. The last comment of the previous speaker was of considerable interest to me. I think he is right that we have to get a better understanding of the imposition of non-tariff barriers as they come into play and into force, while on the other hand we are seeing a move by these very same countries to support the reduction, gradual or otherwise, of existing tariffs.
I know the minister's department has looked at this matter, and I am sure in times gone by the House of Commons has also looked at the impact of tariffs and the effect they have both on domestic industry and on its capacity to exist, but before I deal with that I want to say that on the matter of South Africa I noted that my colleague from the Conservative Party was waxing eloquent just a few moments ago. I think he must surely understand that every measure must be used during periods of time when it is generally acknowledged by the administration itself and by others around the world that the policies enacted by an administration toward people create situations which are discriminatory and which are considered by the majority in the free world to be unsatisfactory or unconscionable.
I therefore do not want to engage in a discussion of the relative merits of the hon. member's argument other than to say that the same argument can and has been used about other countries over many years, and there comes a point in time when an action is appropriate. At the time the actions taken were deemed to be appropriate, and I think they were appropriate.
Let me turn to the bill and the general philosophy of the bill. My concern is that as we see the nations of the world, Canada being one of them, galloping along toward free trade, the impact of that movement on Canadian manufacturing, Canadian exporting and the capacity of Canada to hold its place in the world and to provide employment opportunities and economic opportunities for Canadians in this country becomes somewhat suspect. I am sure I do not have to go back into history to explain the historic significance of tariff barriers. Much of the industry which exists in Canada, and has for 50, 60 or more years, is of a branch plant nature. It came to Canada in order to get behind the tariff wall. I think before we move too swiftly toward the elimination of tariffs, we have to appreciate that our situation is somewhat different from those of a number of other countries.
The movement away from a tariff wall, so to speak, toward a free trade, though it may be of benefit to certain areas of industry, could be disastrous for other areas. We must fully
understand the branch-plant nature of Canada's economy. The reason why the branch-plant was set up in Canada was to make available an operation which would be able to take advantage of the domestic Canadian market while at the same time not having to pay the tariff which would have raised the product above the price that would have been the price established for the Canadian manufacturer.
Canadian industry is small. Generally speaking, it meets a market of about 10 per cent of the U.S. market. Our major trading partner is the U.S. Most of the branch-plant nature of Canada's industry is related directly to the United States. The U.S. manufacturing capacity is large enough so that if it had the desire and if there were no impediments in the way, it could quite conceivably meet the entire Canadian market requirements out of its current unused productive capacity. But it is not unreasonable to think that much of the nine million household requirements in Canada could easily be met by the indigenous capacity of U.S. industry to manufacture that is not currently being utilized.
If we were to have a free trade arrangement, as has been proposed by a committee of the other place-or at least is being considered by a committee of the other place-or if we were to go too swiftly toward free trade, there would be no imperative reason for the parent company to put the necessary capital reinvestment into the Canadian operation to maintain its efficiency. The end result of that could and, I suggest, would be that the Canadian operation would be allowed for a time to continue to operate, but in the final analysis it would not be kept competitive with its parent within the U.S. and in the end would become redundant. The justification would be that it should be closed because it is no longer competitive, and the U.S. manufacturer would solidify all of his manufacturing in his home base and would then just simply ship his products to Canada as manufacturers ship from Oregon to California, from Ohio to Florida or from West Virginia to South Carolina. That would be the relationship.
One of the factors we have going for us in regard to standing in the way is that we have a reasonably large domestic market, but not large enough to sustain if there is no reason for maintaining the efficiency of the industry. I think we have seen in the auto industry the very thing I am talking about. The auto industry is a rationalized North American industry. It is faced with a downturn in its market as a result, in many instances, of inefficient management unable to foresee what was evident to other manufacturers, and the initial reaction of the industry was to attempt to rebuild its industry within its home base, the United States, and to put less of its reinvestment dollars into Canada. It was only because we were able to say that at some point, I suppose, we could return to a tariff arrangement-and we did have in place some kind of agreement-that we were able to keep the industry from centralizing its operations almost totally in Michigan or in other parts of the northern and mid-northern United States.
April 14, 1981

I am frankly concerned that we are moving with some haste to establish a free trade arrangement over a period of time that will work to the detriment of Canadian industry, because of its branch-plant nature, that will work therefore to the detriment of Canadians in general, will not result in lower prices as many people anticipate it will, but will, in the final analysis, because of the lack of competition in Canada, result ultimately in higher prices because we will have to buy many, if not all, the products we want from offshore.
Without engaging in a long and difficult argument, I want to suggest that all is not quite as cut and dried as the provisions of this bill and the suggestions made by other people would make it appear to be. There is a requirement from the Canadian public on the Canadian Parliament to have a better understanding of the possible and likely implications of this move. Although consumer groups, and I support them in many things, may feel at first glance there is significant benefit to Canadian consumers by a reduction in tariff, because they will be able to gain access to what are today cheaper goods, the only thing which makes those goods cheaper is the fact that they have to compete with a Canadian-made product. Witness the soft fruit industry. Those of you who are familiar with the soft fruit growers' industry can appreciate the difficulty that industry has had over the years in competing with the influx of soft fruit grown in the United States and in other parts of the world, and the access that soft fruit has to the Canadian marketplace. You will appreciate the problems of the farmer who is faced with having to attempt to make ends meet with what is the mean average of the mid and end-of-season price while the importer is able to take advantage of the early, mid and end-season price and, therefore, has a much higher mean average. He is therefore able, because of climatic conditions and access to the Canadian market, to force the Canadian farmer in that industry at least-I am not familiar with other farming groups, but my colleague may be able to speak to them-to become competitive with considerably less cash flow and, therefore, a smaller profit margin. I am familiar with this group representing an area that was substantially involved. The Canadian farmer in that particular industry, in Ontario at least and in other parts of the country, is faced with this problem.
I want you to extrapolate that, if you will, and position yourselves in relation to a number of other industry sectors, considering the impact of allowing that which is happening in the farming industry to occur in those other industry sectors. If there were no tariffs in place, and if there was no reason, other than the marketplace, to want to be located in Canada for manufacturing purposes, then it is not unreasonable to assume that many of what are now called the North American multinational giants, but what really are U.S. multinational giants, would find no good or justifiable reason for maintaining their employment levels, plants or efficiency here.
My recommendation in this regard is, first of all, that we approach it with caution, and second, that we structure here in the House of Commons a group which will once again take a
Customs Tariff
serious and hard look at the ever-changing nature, particularly now, of Canada's economic base. We should look at the winners and losers and the reasons there are those winners and losers in Canada's manufacturing sector. We should try to understand through an analysis the reasons why there have been so many plant closures in Canada in the last 24 to 48 months. We should determine whether those plant closures resulted simply from a rationalization of the parent operations in respect of greater productivity, and determine whether the increasing and potential opening of the market of Canada to a free trade arrangement will not be in the long run more of a hazard than a help to us.
There are certain specific groups we all hear from, ranging from the shirt manufacturers, who have written, I am sure, to each and every one of us, to the dental associations which have written to us on the other side of the issue, which are making a very valid case that has to be given careful consideration. But the basic and more fundamental problem is one that we will face somewhere down the road. My view of it, having had discussions of late with people in the United States and having looked at the potential hazard to the Canadian manufacturing sector in particular, is that if we were to move with unseemly haste, we could well create a situation which would allow them, quite justifiably, to say they need no longer be located here. The end result of that, of course, could be quite disastrous. It would require us to become even more dependent on our raw materials in order to maintain our standard of living. It would require us to sell ever more of those materials in an unprocessed and semi-processed state in order to maintain that standard of living. The political pressures to continue the wholesale sale of our basic heritage would be immense, and it is questionable whether any government, Liberal, Conservative or NDP, regardless of where it was located in the country, would be able to withstand those pressures, given the unemployment and the lack of economic opportunity which would become the order of the day.
I do not pretend for a moment to be an expert in the field, although I have studied it at some length for many years, and I do not know when you ever become an expert because experts seem to have very conflicting opinions, but having looked at it, I see some indications of potential difficulties. In our desire to appear to be nice guys in the world of trade and commerce, we are not only agreeing to reductions in and elimination of tariffs, we do not even understand that the countries with which we agree, or with which we enter into these agreements, do not necessarily always live up to the letter of the agreements.
Those of us who have looked at the problem still have a long and somewhat curious view of the DISC program in the United States, for example, and the fact that it was found, I think it is fair to say, to be outside the GATT Agreement. That did not end it. It stayed in place, nevertheless, because it would seem to be of some national concern and some national benefit. There are few of us who do not understand that in Japan, particularly in the automobile field, while there may well be a willingness to reduce the tariff, the possibility of

April 14, 1981
Customs Tariff
entering the market as a result of all the other non-tariff barriers which are placed before the sale can be consummated is virtually non-existent for the North American manufacturer.
It concerns me when I hear people cheering about the reduction in anti-pollution control measures and safety measures in the United States. They seem to indicate that it is of some benefit to the industry at a time when industries are spending considerable sums of money re-tooling for world production. Many of the countries to which these companies hope to sell will demand that those anti-pollution devices and safety measures, which the United States is prepared to set aside for now, be in place. So, the cost will be considerably higher to produce two different levels of automobiles. They did not stick to their guns in an attempt to produce one automobile which met the world demand. Rather, they succumbed to pressures of a domestic kind.
Very few people recognize that one of the reasons we have difficulty selling aircraft in Japan is that the country is currently in the business of developing an aircraft industry. While they would argue, on the one hand, that they do not have tariffs to make it difficult for anyone to sell, on the other hand, by virtue of other measures, they make it impossible to sell.
If I may say so, we must put aside our boy scout attitude. I do not mean this in any derogatory sense, but the fact is that the world operates in a very tough-minded way. Therefore, countries of the world make their decisions based on what is in their best interests. The direction in which we are travelling may not be in our best interest. We may not be exercising the care and caution which is required to safeguard the industrial opportunity of Canada for future generations.
The whole area is fraught with question marks. The minister has entered into and completed the negotiations. He should know that what is on paper does not necessarily always reflect what one meets in the marketplace when one tries to do business in other countries. That is why I think the comment of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was correct. We must get a handle on the non-tariff barrier problems which exist around the world and their effect on our enterprises which are attempting to do business outside Canada. We must get a handle on the extent to which the branch-plant nature of our economy is influenced by the parent operation and on the real possibility that free access to our marketplace could undermine the necessary investment to maintain the competitive position we require if we are to provide for ourselves.
We need a much more thorough review of the situation. We should look at today's society instead of adopting the ten-year-old view of the situation. We must look at the ever-changing economic conditions in every part of the world and the difficulties with which the manufacturing sector is faced.
We will not delay this legislation unduly today, but I hope the minister will be able to make a commitment that in the
near future he will establish a group compromised of members of the House of Commons to look at the very difficult problems about which everyone talks but which no one really understands.
How do we enter the Japanese market? It is not a matter of building a better mouse trap. If we build a better mouse trap, they will keep us out until they have built a better one still. Anyone who is knowledgeable about international trade understands that. Therefore, when we take a look at Japan in the context of the rest of the world which is pooling its resources to solidify its economic conditions, it chills our spines, especially when we think of what might happen in the future.
I ask the minister to give these suggestions some thought before we are much further down the road. There may be a point beyond which we cannot possibly return. The minister must realize that countries do not necessarily operate by the written rules; they operate by the ones which serve them best.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make three brief comments in connection with the impact of tariffs. Canada is a vast and diversified country. In my view we must give a lot of consideration, when we set or remove tariffs, to the impact this will have on every part of our country. For instance, at the present time there is a rather heavy tariff on logs coming from the United States into western Canada. This has made the building of log houses uncompetitive with other types of construction. It is having an adverse affect. Whoever set these tariffs should look at what they are doing to the housing industry in western Canada; I am sure they will realize then that some changes should be made.
My second comment is on the way in which items are handled. There are emergency organizations that deal with items that come into the country. Some tariff officials take too long to consider these things. There has been an arrangement for several years whereby some of these items, particularly in terms of landed or stalled aircraft, would go through immediately as an emergency. Recently there have been delays in the Calgary office. This could very well put a company out of business. With the current unemployment situation in Canada, we should encourage every industry to stay in business as well as bring in more business. Administrative delays in the handling of a piece of machinery for a stalled aeroplane could very well ruin a business.
Third, I think we should look at the impact of tariffs on all parts of the country: the "far east", central Canada and the west. Too often tariffs are set to accommodate only one part of the country. Western people today are paying much higher prices for clothes and shoes because of tariffs. We must protect our Canadian industries. On the other hand, the coal industries in the east and in the west have been downgraded because we have permitted American coal to come into the country without being subject to tariffs. Westerners pay more for shoes and clothes; but our miners are not working. We should consider the impact right across the country so that all Canadians receive the benefit of tariffs or no tariffs, whichever the case might be.
April 14, 1981


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Pierre Bussières: that Bill S-17, an act to implement conventions between Canada and New Zealand and Canada and Australia for the avoidance of double taxation with respect to income tax, be read the third time and do pass.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock? [Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: When the House rose at six o'clock the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) had the floor.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is the third time I have taken the floor today, on various subjects. We are now studying a bill from the Senate. Unfortunately we do not see that often enough because the subject we will debate this evening is indeed a good one for prior consideration by the Senate.
I for one have been convinced for years that unfortunately the government sets far too many bills aside for first consideration by the House of Commons; they could be sent to the Senate first because our colleagues there have a wide experience in government affairs and they could very well study them at a more leisurely pace and I would say under much less pressure.
Tax Conventions
I am not a leader of the official opposition, but on the other hand I do have a certain knowledge as a result of my experience in the House of Commons. As it happened I was debating Bill C-57 this afternoon, the excise tax measure. It is well known that I am the expert on excise matters on this side of the House. Later on in the afternoon the Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. Bussieres) brought in Bill C-50 for the consideration of the House. They rushed to come and get me because I had introduced amendments to Bill C-50 and if we are to study a bill having to do with double taxation I can say that, thanks to my experience, I am the expert on the Income Tax Act.
So here I am again tonight, for the third time. I apologize. I see the minister whom I know very well, but we are debating related but different subjects. Well, on this point I will speak at length. Although a Senate bill may look harmless and even if the subject may not seem very important either, it has to do with conventions to avoid double taxation so we are going to discuss the principles.
Mr. Minister, if I may, I would like to execute or rather to prod the goats behind you that are ruminating and seem to have only a ruminating interest in some of the comments made here.
It is just like what happened this afternoon when we were debating Bill C-57. During our discussions with the witnesses, certain government members were very excited and had animated exchanges with them. However, when we discussed the same bill this afternoon, they remained completely silent in the House, and those who were the most militant said that they were abstaining from the debate. Come on! Where is their political courage? Where is their moral courage? All I am asking them is to show some moral courage!
For my part, I must express my views on these bills. The government members can remain silent. They can take part in the committee proceedings in turns because they have a rotation system. I am thinking about the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, about the government members, about what happened when the committee was considering Bill C-57. I had to recognize about two dozen members who were there to represent the government. They are nothing but big lumps! Only a few of them are interested in the subject.
What I find most surprising is that they will then ask me: "Mr. Lambert, you are an expert in the matter. What is your opinion?" Well, I can say quite simply that it is not by being a big lump in committee that I became an expert.
I was a government member myself and I could reply to some parliamentarians who are now laughing up their sleeve that I was a parliamentary secretary myself long before them and much earlier in my career. I was also Speaker of the House and minister. They could start with that.
However, some bills are considered in committee, it is not enough to look clever in the House and gather around the

April 14, 1981
Tax Conventions
speakers to applaud them, because we now have television in the House and government members feel that they should gather around the member who is speaking.
I simply say to you, and the minister will admit it this evening, that one has to be familiar with the bill not only in committee but also in the House. Then the minister will be able to assess his colleagues as well as the members opposite. At present, after 24 years in the House of Commons, I think that I am rated quite low as far as ability is concerned. There are several bills with which I am familiar, such as the Income Tax Act, the Customs Act, the Excise Tax Act, and the Bank Act. I feel that I rank in the lower quarter. That does not mean that I do not consider myself ahead of the vast majority of my colleagues in this area.
But let us get back to the subject. We are considering tonight a convention to avoid double taxation with respect to income tax and to promote economic activity in either Canada, Australia or New Zealand. I must tell the minister that I have some reservations because, and bear with me in my philosophical reflections tonight after my lecture this afternoon, I think we as Canadians have not done our duty in view of the declining role played by the United Kingdom in the Commonwealth. It was up to us to show leadership in the Commonwealth. Yet, what have we done? We sat on our royal assets. Lack of interest! I have had ample opportunity in the last two decades to visit New Zealand and Australia and I knew their soldiers as prisoners of war in the 1940s. I had friends everywhere, in government, in the bureaucracy, that is in the public service, and among the people too. When I went to New Zealand, my arrival was simply announced and people everywhere knew me. The same thing happened in Australia, which I visited on several occasions. Do you know what our colleagues in those countries were blaming us for? They felt that we, as Canadians, were too aloof.
We were too hoity-toity. We were too concerned with our place in the North American Sun. We did not, Mr. Speaker, take up the challenge that the Australians and the New Zealanders wanted us to, not to dominate them, but to join them. I say this is the best we can do with Australia and New Zealand, that is to join them in the activities of the Commonwealth out in in the eastern Pacific. We are not going to dominate them. O Lord, the average Aussie would hit you over the head, and with justification, if you tried it. However, we should join them.
The United States has met with some problems out in the Pacific. We are not going to try to take advantage of them. However, Britain was caught up in some real problems in the 20 post-war years. We could have served the cause of the Commonwealth a great deal more, and here I am not going to attribute blame to any administration. It started from the time I was in Parliament. There was the most amazing silence and lack of co-operation. There was the feeling that the Aussies
and the New Zealanders were part of the Antarctic penguin group. It was almost that bad. In trying to accomplish certain problems within the Commonwealth, we have taken an attitude difficult to put into words. Frankly, I am disgusted with our attitudes on external affairs and defence. I used to be fairly close to that from 1963 until 1967, and even in the earlier years. However, I am amazed at our performance. This lackadaisical performance, this drifting with regard to the commonwealth, this drifting with regard to Australia and New Zealand has been more than countenanced by the present administration. All along their members have not cared one damn hoot. Why is that? I suppose it is because a lot of them felt that they were not part of World War II and therefore, in the spirit of a new generation, they felt that World War II was something that should be left in the past. They are like the kids who drifted on the streets in the 1960s and who said that the vets of the 1940s were part of history and should be forgotten, not one of them remembering that they sprung from the loins of a World War II vet and that life had been made safe for them as a result of the sacrifices of those who had ventured into the ranks of the armed services of the allies in the 1940s.
I am amazed at the complacent attitude that many people today hold toward people of my generation. We had a great deal to lose but we walked into the recruiting centres on a Saturday afternoon, we left universities in mid-course without thinking about any real challenge, but we were going to do our duty by our country. A good number of members on both sides of the House did that. I did it but I do not wear a medal on my arm and I would not care to. I will be damned, however, if I will be told by anybody in this House that I am less than loyal to this country because I oppose certain changes to the Constitution or because I oppose certain changes to the way of life that I defended.


An hon. Member:: You're getting excited.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No one will accuse me of being excited. I will point out and I will name any hon. member who will dare do that. I will name any hon. member who will call into question the loyalty of any of my colleagues who served during World Warll.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It is a fascist tactic.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will name any so-called youngster and I will name-


David Michael Collenette: Speak to the bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will name anybody who is a smart aleck. I will also name those who, like the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette), would dare suggest that I should speak to the bill. I have spoken to bills long before that hon. member ever knew anything about relevance. He is a political whippersnapper.


David Michael Collenette: Well, you have to start somewhere.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: With the emphasis on the whipper!
April 14, 1981


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Be that as it may, I want to come back to this particular bill and our relations with the Australians and the New Zealanders. To a whole generation, which encompasses the majority of government members, relationships with Australia and New Zealand are as strange as night is unto day. Few of them know Australians and fewer still know New Zealanders. We have missed the boat, Mr. Speaker. The opportunity was there. I knew the Aussies and I knew the New Zealanders and I know that year after year we have neglected our relationships with them. There could be formidable relationships today in trade and influence-influence at the United Nations and through working together. I am sure that if you had put together the Aussies, the Canadians and the New Zealanders, they would be marching as a team of three on the principles of the United Nations. Do they do that now? Not at all. We have been kept dispersed. I simply say that it is the responsibility of the administration that there has been this difficulty.
That we should have tax agreements with them is all to the good. Canadian oil drilling companies have headed out to Australia as the result of the National Energy Program. Other people are going to New Zealand to provide expertise. Ten or 12 years ago I remember that the husband of the president of the women's organization in my constituency was named by the government of New Zealand to head the offshore drilling program of the government of New Zealand. He was a Canadian who had acquired the expertise through working for one of the so-called international companies and because of personal relationships, was named to head the program.
This is the sort of contact that must be maintained between governments. When you know the people concerned and what they will be doing, you can help them and they can help you. The way some governments behave, you would almost think that some of our allies were enemies.
Turning to the detail of this particular bill, Mr. Speaker, there is one feature on which I should like some explanation and reassurance from the minister, and that is with regard to the changes that may be implemented in the agreements, that these shall be presented by way of resolution which shall be subject to affirmation by the House, if I am correct.
There are many other parts to this bill. I invite the hon. member who sits behind the minister and says "read the bill," to read the government fact sheet. He has not seen it, obviously. I will elucidate what this bill covers because the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Ostiguy) who made that statement obviously is not aware of what is in this bill.
What are the specific provisions of this tax treaty? First, witholding tax; second, capital gains; third, non-discrimination; fourth, teachers. Incidentally, there is no specific provision for teachers. Next come the provisions governing pensions and annuities. There are no tax hideaways for pensioners. You cannot decide that you are going to live in some of the more salubrious lands of Australia or New Zealand hoping to live in
Tax Conventions
a tax hideaway. Next we find relief from double taxation and the anticipated legislative timetable. This bill was supposed to be referred to the Standing Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce in the Senate. Next we find the anticipated nature of the reaction to the tax treaties. The bill is unlikely to be opposed, it says in this release. We can question some of it in so far as points of discussion are concerned. This is a government handout. The parliamentary secretary would have been as entitled to it as I have, but I got it. He did not.
In so far as New Zealand is concerned, the question might be asked how the new treaty differs from the existing 1948 agreement. The main differences are the following: first, witholding tax, and second, dividends.
Article 10 of the treaty provides that dividends paid to residents of one country by a company which is a resident of the other country may be taxed at the source country at a maximum rate of 15 per cent. There was no such limitation in the 1948 agreement.
Article 11 covers interest. It provides for a general rate of tax of 15 per cent in the source country. There were no such limitations under the 1948 agreement.
Article 12 covers royalties. It provides for a general tax rate of 15 per cent in the source country. The 1948 agreement provides for an exemption in the case of copyright royalty but does not put a ceiling on other royalties. I am sure the parliamentary secretary was fully aware of this.
In the case of capital gains, the rules under Article 13 permit a country to tax capital gains realized on the disposition of real property and of rights to exploit or to explore for natural resources found in that country. They do not restrict the domestic rules. I am sure the parliamentary secretary is able to explain all of these applications. The 1948 agreement does not deal with the taxation of capital gains. After all, the capital gains tax did not exist in Canada at that time. Therefore, the respective domestic rules are applicable.
What about non-discrimination? The revised treaty rights of the 1948 agreement do not contain any specific rules on non-discrimination.
Here is something for the parliamentary secretary for I am sure he will be interested in pensions and annuities. Under the 1948 agreement, pensions and annuities are taxable only in the country where the recipient resides. Article 17 of the revised treaty does not reflect that policy. It recognizes the right of either country to tax such payments at source provided they exceed $10,000. It is hoped the parliamentary secretary will serve in this House long enough to qualify for a pension in excess of $10,000. Then he might branch out to find out just what Australia and New Zealand have to say about the taxation of pension payments.
In so far as teachers are concerned, the two-year tax exemption provided visiting teachers in the 1948 agreement will be terminated. This is something of great interest, particularly in western Canada.

April 14, 1981
Tax Conventions
With reference to Australia, the question might also be asked as to how the new treaty differs from the 1957 agreement. The main differences are the following; first, withholding tax on dividends. Article 10 of the treaty provides that dividends paid to residents of one country by a company which is a resident of the other country may be taxed in the source country at a maximum rate of 15 per cent. This is of some benefit. The 1957 agreement also provides for a 15 per cent limitation. Article 11 covers interest. It provides for a general rate of tax of 15 per cent in the source country. There are no limitations under the 1957 agreement. Article 12 covers royalties. It provides for a general tax rate of 10 per cent in the source country. The 1957 agreement provides for an exemption in the case of copyright royalties but has not put a ceiling on other royalties.
Considering the attitude of the Government of Canada with regard to royalties, we hope many Australians have invested in Canadian oil lands because they will only receive 10 per cent on royalties. That does not mean that the Government of Canada will not raid Canadian owners of royalties on oil lands because the government has already indicated its disposition to depredation.
The rules in Article 13 provide that a country may tax capital gains realized on disposition of real property and of rights to exploit or to explore for natural resources found in that country. They do not restrict domestic rules. The 1957 agreement does not deal with the taxation of capital gains. Therefore, the respective domestic rules are applicable. See if you can sort that out within the Canadian and Australian taxation rules.
The revised treaty does not contain any specific rules on non-discrimination. In so far as pensions and annuities are concerned, under the 1957 agreement pensions and annuities are taxable only in the country where the recipient resides. Article 18 of the revised treaty does not reflect that policy. It recognizes the right of either country to tax such payments at source.
As I recall it, minister Benson, standing in this House at the time of the so-called revision of the Income Tax Act, said that it was Canada's right and obligation to tax all pensions at 25 per cent, regardless of where the recipient resided and how that recipient had earned his pension. I presume that is the situation in Canada. Therefore, that is also the situation in Australia and New Zealand where the pension of any Canadian who qualifies will be taxed at the same 25 per cent base rate.
In so far as teachers in Australia are concerned, the two-year tax exemption provided visiting teachers in the 1957 agreement will be terminated.
These are some of the factors with regard to this particular scheme. I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will recall the particular difficulties we had with the former minister of justice, who was subsequently the minister of finance, Mr. John Turner, about amendments to agreements of this size which shall be subject to either positive or negative resolutions of this House. If there has been one
subject about which there has been lengthy discussion in this House, one which has lasted now for 16 or 17 years, it is precisely that question of how to act in accordance with the rules. This is a reflection on House leadership. Frankly, they were scared-I was going to use a more awkward word-to refer the House rules to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization and request that it bring forward modernized rules reflecting the views of both sides of the House after what can only be qualified as a dog's breakfast which was imposed on this House in 1969. We knew it was a dog's breakfast but the government did not. Now we hear all sorts of comments about the House rules from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and others about how they are abused. They fashioned the rules, let them live by them.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and other members, including some on the government side, who were interested in the rules at that time reached a consensus on how the matter should be handled throught the rules rather than through statutes. We have about half a dozen statutes kicking around in various places which determine how this House will act upon affirmative or negative resolutions for the purpose of bringing forward orders in council which may amend certain statutes. We have them in tax statutes with regard to double taxation. We have them with regard to the revision of statutory instruments. Now we are introducing them into the double taxation statute which is before us this evening.
The situation is less than a dog's breakfast. It requires a little good will on the part of the government. The government should say that it will consider the question of affirmativenegative resolutions with regard to orders in council affecting legislation or changes to certain legislation, and amend them to comply with the rules of the House so they do not depend upon erratic statutes that live here, there and about.
Government House leaders have been scared stiff. At the beginning of this session, the present government House leader was thumping loudly on his desk, speaking ad nauseam over the television about the changes that would have to be brought into this House in order to bring the rules up to date. I remember when he was a freshman member on the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. What he says today has not changed one iota from what he said then when he did not know which end was up.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Was that last year?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, it was some years ago, when he came here. There has not been one bit of clarification in that time. Whas has happened was simply that if someone on the government side speaks, one member of the opposition shall also have the right to speak, and then we will have a vote. This is strictly for the birds.
I see my time is running out. I appreciate Your Honour having given me the benefit of not looking at the clock. I recommend to the House that this bill be passed. However, the
April 14, 1981

minister has to come up with some answers. We are entitled to them. I have raised the problems, now let us hear the answers.


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to follow my colleague for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who is much more knowledgeable than I with respect to income tax bills and tax treaties.
I compliment the government on reorganizing the tax treaty between Canada and New Zealand. I am surprised it took so long to produce a new tax treaty following the amendments to the Income Tax Act of 1971. It is high time the government managed to get this treaty organized. It was given first reading in the Senate in 1980, nine years late. In fact, at this point it is ten years late.
This should have been done at the time of the income tax revisions because our trade with Australia and New Zealand is exceptionally important to this country. These countries have economies that are similar to that of Canada. Therefore, we should be doing a great deal more than at present.
I suggest the minister take to cabinet the suggestion at present being worked out and work on it a little harder, namely organize some kind of free trade treaty with Australia and New Zealand. Those countries are in the southern hemisphere. They have a standard of living which is to some extent comparable to ours, though perhaps not as high. These countries have the same kind of industrial and sociological base as Canada. They represent a total population in excess of 17 million. If it were combined with ours, we would have a free market of 40 million people, producers and consumers. It would make us more competitive and give us the production runs needed by our manufacturing industry.
Goods manufactured in those countries could be sold in this country off season, and our goods could be sold in Australia and New Zealand also off season. That would give all three countries an opportunity to extend the length of production runs and would make it possible for us all to take part in the kind of industrial activity which is so important.
This is why tax treaties are important. It makes it possible for entrepreneurs in Canada to set up business in Australia and New Zealand and not be penalized by taxes. In the same way, entrepreneurs in New Zealand and Australia can set up operations in Canada without being penalized. That is the essential point in trade negotiations. An entrepreneur trying to do business in another country should not be double taxed.
I say to the minister that this is the first step, but only the first step. It is important that we organize the trade treaty, including taxation measures, so as to make it possible for us to integrate our markets. We in Canada have a market of only 24 million people, and we badly need a reciprocal market. We could have such a market with 41 million consumers if we joined Australia and New Zealand.
There has been some concern about imports into Canada of
meat products, fruit products and so forth from Australia, and
to some extent we tend to be parochial in that regard. The
Tax Conventions
truth of the matter is that when we have the same products for sale to the world, there is no reason why we cannot combine and organize our sales to the world in an effective manner to protect both our interests. If we had some sense, we would not be complaining about Australian beef, Australian lamb or Australian fruit. We would be getting together with both Australia and New Zealand to market through a central strategy meat, fruit, wheat, coal and nickel to the rest of the consuming world. We would not have to worry that they might sell some fruit in our market or they might sell some lamb or some beef in our market, or that we might sell our products in their market. What we would be doing as producers and suppliers is dealing as effectively with other countries as countries in the Middle East are dealing with us as suppliers of oil products.
It is about time we had a government which was prepared to look at this situation in a cold, businesslike sense and not just from the point of view of a simple tax treaty. We have made tax treaties with such countries as Malaysia and Singapore, but we should look at this from a sensible point of view. Australia and New Zealand could be our closest and best trading partners. Indeed, there should be a free trade arrangement and a free tax arrangement so that it would be clear that the tax on businesses in one country would not be doubled in another country. It is very important that we do this.
In presenting this legislation will the government, before this year is finished, complete the present negotiations with Australia and New Zealand, and will it go one step further by developing one common market for our countries?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I would be quite happy to let the minister speak, but I think the point should be made that this is third reading. He does not have the right of reply, but I am sure the House will give him unanimous consent to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank hon. members for allowing me to make some brief remarks. My first comments should please the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), for I should like to advise the House that the negotiations between the representatives of the Department of Finance in Canada and their counterparts in the Federal Republic of Germany will resume tomorrow on double taxation between the two countries. I hope that this will be the last round of negotiations, that our representatives will return with a final agreement and that we will be able to legislate another agreement in order to avoid double taxation.
As to market integration, an issue which goes far beyond the scope of this bill, I should like to remind the House that by

April 14, 1981
Tax Conventions
giving third reading this afternoon to Bill C-50, we have put into force the new tariff agreements resulting from the last multilateral trade negotiations, better known as the Tokyo Round, so that we are really in the process of liberalizing international trade, which should surely meet with the wishes of the hon. member.
With regard to the technical question brought up by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) on the matter of supplementary conventions, of course, abuse may be seen in the use, as indicated in Part III, of an order of the governor in council to change a tax agreement. Still, Clause 8 must be read followed by Clause 9 which stipulates that when an order under section 8 is used, it must be laid before Parliament and does not come into force until the thirtieth sitting day following its tabling, so that between the day it is tabled and that thirtieth sitting day, there is the possibility of addressing a motion to one or the other of the two Houses of Parliament with a view to cancelling the order, and that said motion must be signed by 50 hon. members.
So, in fact, a formula is provided allowing the House to have the order of the governor in council cancelled that would alter part of a double taxation agreement; that provision is one that can be found in all bills to implement agreements to avoid double taxation.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to add to what I said on second reading of this bill. I hope, like other hon. members, that we will have occasion to approve similar agreements, such as one that would create ties with our neighbors to the south, the United States, and one to create ties with the Federal Republic of Germany.


Mr. John Gamble (York North):: Mr. Speaker, as a consequence of some of the remarks made by the minister I would just like to point out that the great "built-in protection" in the bill to which he made reference, being the need to submit an order passed by the governor in council to this House for its consideration, has, as an integral part of that protection a form of time limitation, and the minister might well have directed his attention to that rather offensive provision of the bill.
I am speaking, of course, of Clause 9(4) which provides that even though a motion may indeed be referred to the House, it is referred to the House for five hours of debate. We know that this government has an inclination with respect to most legislation which it now brings forward on a regular basis to impose either closure or some form of time limitation. This time limitation is now finding its way into statutes which are passed by the House regularly with respect to tax conventions between Canada and other nations. I recognize that it is important in international tax agreements to have some kind of control over what a rebellious democratically elected Parliament may do from time to time, but that is one of the failings of democracy.
With respect to treaties signed by Canada and submitted to the United States Senate for its consideration-as was the case
with the east coast fishing treaties-the U.S. Senate, being democratically elected, decided it would not grant its approval. However, no time limitation was imposed in the United States with respect to the granting of that approval or the casting of a vote for or against the position of the United States government, even though at the time of entering into that treaty, the government of the United States indicated its support for the proposition which both Canada and the United States adopted.
I therefore find that Subclause (4) of Clause 9 is repugnant to the freedom of debate that should take place in this House with respect to every piece of legislation which is brought forward. This creeping time limitation may eventually give way to a circumstance in which we may well be confronted with 15-minute time limitations to consider any legislation the government may wish to bring forward. What is the purpose of our being here if it is not to reflect wisely-we hope wisely- upon the legislation the government brings before the House? We may well ask ourselves why we do not stay home. Why bother coming to this House, if it is not to debate freely the merit or lack of merit in any government legislation? I find it offensive to be confronted with what appears to be a routine piece of legislation with a built-in time limitation in the form of closure in respect of what should be a non-partisan matter.
May I just comment upon the general scope and effect of my experience of government reaction to the avoidance of double taxation in Canada and other foreign jurisdictions. A moment ago the minister spoke of the negotiations which the Department of Finance and, presumably, Revenue Canada had entered into with the Federal Republic of Germany regarding the very issue of the avoidance of double taxation. We know that such a treaty currently exists. It is not working very well. I can give the minister a piece of information which he might like to carry back to those negotiations with the West Germans.
There has developed a system of avoiding the application of the convention between our two countries, and it is the simple expedient of never issuing an assessment in the foreign jurisdiction. All foreign nations' tax authorities need do is to extract a penalty by way of a deposit against potential future tax liabilities and never issue an assessment.
I have just concluded a meeting with Revenue Canada, the branch which deals with the enforcement, as it were, of our tax convention with West Germany, and some of those officials threw up their hands and said, if the West German authorities would only issue an assessment, they could act. So far, all they have done is to extract $200,000, and they have done nothing with it for nine years.
If tax conventions are to have any real substance and, indeed, prevent double taxation of Canadian residents or Canadian business enterprises-and they should surely be as much our concern as German residents and German business enterprises are the concern of Germany-we must see to it that the effects we wish to produce are in fact produced and that we do not fall into the trap of permitting one of the authorities to evade the real purpose and intent of the conven-
April 14, 1981

tion by never issuing a tax assessment against a Canadian taxpayer.
It is my hope that particular attention will be given in these negotiations of which the minister spoke, to the obvious way of avoiding the intent and purpose of our conventions with foreign nations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed.

Pierre Bussières: that Bill C-58, to amend the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise this evening before our Easter break to speak on behalf of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) on a bill, the sentiments behind which have long been with us; that is, to shorten the election period. I might remind members of the House that this bill is identical, I believe, to a bill presented by the former government, led by the right hon. member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). I am glad to see the House leader of the official opposition party in the House, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), as I believe it was he who introduced that bill in the previous Parliament.
The bill we are discussing is very short, but it proposes a very important change in our election practices. If passed, the bill will shorten the election period from 60 to 47 days. I am sure many of us in this House who have been through a number of election campaigns, will welcome this shortening of the election period. I have no doubt there will be easy passage of this bill after due consideration, because everyone, I am sure, is interested in the basic principle behind it which is, of course, to shorten the period by some 13 days.
You know, Mr. Speaker, that the shortening of the period will be accomplished by the dispensation of the practice of sending copies of the preliminary voters list to urban households. Instead, a printed notice of enumeration will be mailed to each electorate.
Canada Elections Act
It is important to note that a change of this nature has been discussed for many years. During the last two elections campaigns there were more discussions than ever about the length of the election period.
It is not only parliamentarians who have been concerned about this. I should like to draw your attention to the fact that the Chamber of Commerce, for example, has said that the two-month campaign means-and I am paraphrasing now- that public business is interrupted for quite an extended period. The chamber requested at its 1980 annual meeting that serious consideration be given, when the Canada Elections Act was next before the House for amendment, to shortening the election period.
Many others have contended that our drawn-out election campaigns have not allowed people to focus on the main issues and policies. Instead, public interest is lost and many people are not sufficiently well informed by the time the election date arrives. You may also remember that back in 1973 this House passed amendments to the Canada Elections Act dealing with election expenses. One of the provisions of that amendment was to limit paid advertising by parties to 29 days, I believe, before election day.
The effect of this in the 1979 and 1980 election campaign- because that particular provision was not in effect in 1974- was one of limiting the general focus of the public on the election itself. I am sorry, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton did not understand me.


Walter David Baker: What did you say?


David Michael Collenette: It was my contention that by restricting the paid election advertising to the last 29 days before an election-I think it was the last 29 days-the public's focus has, I believe, narrowed, so that in effect we do have what amounts to a four or five-week campaign.
What we are saying in this bill is: let us give it some statutory limitation; let us conform to what is in fact becoming a reality, a reality which has occurred because we amended this act previously to take into account the election expenses provisions, which I believe worked quite well in the 1979 and 1980 election and in the byelections since 1976.
During recent elections another form of complaint has also been heard. This complaint concerns the practice of sending copies of the printed preliminary voting list to urban electors. This concerns women particularly. I know my friends on the other side, who have shown a great interest in women's concerns during the constitutional debate, especially my friends in the New Democratic Party, will take this into account in considering the reduction in the length of the election campaign. Many women living alone feel that the voters lists, which are also posted in public places, receive far too wide a circulation. The name, address and sex of each person who has been enumerated are displayed on these posted lists. This information is also available to every person within a polling division, since the printed preliminary list is mailed to each household where the people have been enumerated. Thus, it is possible to find out who lives in all the houses nearby or in all

April 14, 1981
Canada Elections Act
the apartments in a building. It is a simple matter to determine from the list, for example, where there are women living alone. Recently many women's groups have passed resolutions opposing the practice of sending out the preliminary lists. The Canadian Federation of University Women, with a membership of 12,109 people across the country, passed a resolution to this effect at its annual meeting in August, 1980. Various police groups have also stated that they feel the wide circulation given to the lists is a security risk to many people. The bill, if passed, would help to alleviate these sorts of complaints, in addition to shortening the election period. To many people, a change in the practice of mailing preliminary voters' lists is as important, if not more so, than a reduction in the length of the election period.
I speak from personal knowledge. Not only was I on the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections from 1976 to 1978 when we were discussing amendments to the Canada Elections Act-and I heard the concerns of the chief electoral officer on this point-but as one who represents an urban constituency in metropolitan Toronto, 50 per cent of which is composed of apartments, I realize this particular problem must be dealt with. I wish the situation would be otherwise, but we must change the Canada Elections Act so that we do not put fear into the hearts of many of our female citizens who do not like the publicity which is now being afforded by these lists. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the provisions of the bill, I should like to review the facts that have led us to introduce these amendments. I have already mentioned some of the criticisms which this legislation would silence. I must also point out that the possibility of shortening the period required to hold a general election has already been considered by the Privy Council's privileges committee. The Chief Electoral Officer submitted a report on ways likely to shorten the election period in which he considered various ways to reduce the time required for drawing up lists of electors.
I noticed that almost all our government colleagues are here tonight and that we have two women members here, but all members opposite are well aware that one of the reasons why our elections are so long is that new lists of electors are drawn up at every election. Many countries do not do this. They use what are called permanent lists or continuing election records.
In his 1975 report, the Chief Electoral Officer did an excellent study on the use of such lists and records. The permanent lists are drawn up or updated once a year only. They have the advantage of being ready as soon as an election is called, but they can also be several months old and be outdated and thus deprive of the right to vote many otherwise eligible voters whose name does not appear on the lists. But on the other hand, the records can be changed at any time or very soon after publication of the writ of election. Both methods are costly because they require permanent or semi-permanent administrative systems to compile and update the lists. In his
1975 report, the Chief Electoral Officer estimated at about $30 million a year the cost of having a system of electoral files which could be regularly updated until an election was held. Of course, the cost would now be much higher.

After reviewing the pros and cons of some form of permanent voters' list, the chief electoral officer suggested that a substantial shortening of the election period could be achieved by eliminating the practice of printing and distributing copies of the preliminary voters' lists to urban electors.
Typesetting and printing these lists by traditional methods is a time-consuming and costly process. It was suggested that voters could be informed of the fact that they are on the list by a notice of enumeration sent to each household. Candidates would still be provided with photocopies of the preliminary lists. The Chief Electoral Officer pointed out in his report that this rather simple change in our election practices could shorten the election period to 47 days in all.
I think 47 days is quite a considerable period of time, especially when we consider the modern age in which we live with mass communications and jet travel. I realize this will impose certain hardships on rural ridings, and I see a couple of members tonight who have particularly large northern ridings. But it is our contention that 47 days would be sufficient in which to conduct the election period.
The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections discussed the report of the Chief Electoral Officer at several meetings in 1976. After extensive questioning and debate, it became clear that the members of the committee did not think the introduction of permanent lists or a continuous electoral roll would be desirable at that time. However, there was considerable support in the committee for the idea of shortening the election period through the elimination of the printing of preliminary lists, as provided in this bill.
On March 23, 1976, a motion to that effect was agreed to in committee. At a later meeting on April 1, 1976, a second motion was passed. In that second motion, the committee recommended that even if the government decided not to reduce the election period, consideration should be given to eliminating the printing of preliminary lists for the reasons we have stated.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, it is important to remember that the bill under consideration takes into account the recommendations which were discussed at length both in a committee of the House and among the general public. It is also appropriate to mention that Bill C-58 is nearly identical to Bill C-21 which was introduced and tabled on November 5, 1979, on behalf of the previous government by my colleague for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the House leader of the official opposition. Only a few very slight technical changes have been made to this bill.
I hope that my colleagues opposite will support the principle of this bill and examine it seriously in the committee. Bill C-58 proposes two major changes in our election practices. First, it
April 14, 1981

will reduce the election period to a minimum of 47 days, which will substantially shorten the length of election campaigns which have lasted something less than 60 days these last few years. A provision of the bill would guarantee a minimum of 11 complete days between the announcement of an election and the beginning of enumeration. In recent elections, according to many people, time has often been very short to recruit and train enumerators. The Chief Electoral Officer has noted for instance that, in 1979, something less than six days passed between the announcement of the election and the beginning of the enumeration. A lapse of eleven days before enumeration would allow the organizations of candidates to recruit enumerators and the returning officers to make these enumerators more familiar with the important work entrusted to them.
The second major change proposed under Bill C-58 will be to stop sending the preliminary lists to the electors. As I have just said it takes a lot of time to print those lists by traditional methods and that is one of the reasons why the electoral periods have always been so long. Instead of the lists the bill proposes that a card be sent to each enumerated voter.
Besides confirming to the elector that his or her name appears on the list this card would provide information on the revision of the lists, the location of the voting poll and the possibility of voting before election day. I should point out that this card would be sent to all electors whether they be in urban or rural ridings. Under current legislation the preliminary voters lists mailed to urban households give among other things the location of the poll, the revision procedures and other detailed information which is not made available to rural riding residents. The bill will help to do away with that serious and long-lasting anomaly.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes to make a small number of changes in our election practices. These are not new ideas; they have been studied and discussed since 1976. As I have mentioned, following the past two federal elections, many groups and individual citizens have spoken out in favour of a Canada elections act along the lines of what is contained in this bill.
The government presents this bill in the hope that it will receive support from all parties. The members on the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections will, no doubt, study this bill in great detail. I know that they will be assisted in their work by the chief electoral officer, whose 1975 report has helped us greatly in trying to see if there are ways in which our election campaigns could be shortened. The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections may want to suggest changes in Bill C-58, but I sincerely hope that we will be able to bring into effect the changes which are being proposed. As elected members, we must constantly strive to maintain the public's confidence in our electoral process.
Canada Elections Act
I am sure, given the fact that the previous Liberal government, the previous Conservative government and now the present government have all agreed with the principle contained in this bill, that all members will give it speedy passage through the House of Commons so that when we do engage in the next election campaign we will be conducting it in a much more realistic time period of 47 days. I think that will probably bring us more into line with most other countries in the free world which have elections, even those large countries such as the United States, Australia, or other countries like them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The United States takes a year!


David Michael Collenette: My friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), says that the United States takes a year. Perhaps the U.S. is not the best example. It seemed to me that the campaign in the United States really took place only in the last six weeks before election day.
In any event, in many provincial jurisdictions the period is much shorter. We have just gone through an election campaign in Quebec which took about four weeks, I believe, and a 37-day campaign in Ontario. I think we will all be doing ourselves and the people of Canada a great favour by giving this bill speedy passage through the House.


Frederick William Wright: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would entertain a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: That would necessitate the unanimous agreement of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Frederick William Wright: Can the parliamentary secretary tell us about all the people who have spoken out about this matter? Who are they? Do we have it in writing? Are they in this House? Who are all these people who have spoken out about a change in the elections legislation?


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, it is for this precise reason that we need to give speedy passage at second reading to this bill and refer it to the committee, so that the minister who will be present before the committee can answer questions such as the one asked by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Wright). It is a very reasonable question but it is one which should not be spoken to in the context of the debate on second reading when we are dealing with the principle of the bill, but rather, when it is before the committee.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to take part in this debate. At the outset I would like to express concern and disappointment in that the parliamentary secretary did not see fit to answer what I thought was a reasonably straightforward question which might have expedited this matter.

April 14, 1981
Canada Elections Act
He raised a point in the House which at the outset I would like to address, that is, that this bill-and I think I quote him-"would go a long way to increase the confidence in the electoral process". With respect, I dissent. Certainly the purpose of the bill is not to increase the confidence in the electoral process. The bill has absolutely nothing to do with increasing the confidence in the electoral process. I think my good friend the parliamentary secretary overspeaks himself. I find there is a great deal of confidence in the electoral process.
One of the reasons for this bill is precisely one of the things that this bill would cease if it were passed. It is something upon which I have reflected. My friend was absolutely right when he said that I had the privilege of introducing a bill much the same as this one. There have been some changes made to it. I must say to him that at the time I had concerns with respect to the bill and I am now glad that the House will have an opportunity to reflect upon those concerns. One of these concerns is the fact that we have a system in place, in the electoral sense, in which the people do have confidence. That is one thing in which they do have confidence, although they are sometimes a bit shattered by the results of an election. I have spoken to many people who have confidence in the electoral system who find themselves, at the end of an election, saddled with a government which has broken every promise but one. That happens to be the promise about the price of oil. You will recall that one, Mr. Speaker. I see you smiling-you do recall that. Some of us in the country would urge the government to break that one last promise and get it over with so we can settle the impasse which exists in the country with respect to energy pricing. But that is said as an aside.
The process itself is open. It is governed by excellent officials. It ensures not only who people are but it ensures that neighbours, friends, political workers, candidates, official agents and everyone involved in the process who should be on the list is on the list. This is a result of the circulation of the list, the very thing that this bill, if it is passed in its present form, would eliminate. The list is compiled and circulated for a good reason; that is, to ensure the open and notorious aspect of our public elections. I recognize the balance and the concerns that my friend has spoken about; but this does become a balancing of the concerns. I care a lot about the process. It may be that we can accomplish the shortening of elections without eliminating the open and notorious aspect of them. That is why I am disturbed, with the reflection of time, that the bill is so narrow and that we have not yet addressed what was in the Speech from the Throne about electoral reform.
Everyone will recall that Speech from the Throne. I am sure we all recall the promises in it about great things which would be done for the country economically and socially. There would be electoral reform. Remember those words? They talked about proportional representation. We were supposed to deal with that. We were supposed to reform the institutions of Parliament to make them more responsive. We were going to look at the whole electoral process to ensure that all parts of the country were represented. Quite frankly, I am disappointed that what is brought forth here is a bill on a very narrow point
taken out of another government's legislative program and dealing with only one aspect of it; that is, the shortening of election campaigns.
In the course of his speech my friend relied to a great extent, on the period of time for elections in provinces. We all know they are much shorter. I have a list of them here in front of me, but I will not deal with them in detail. It seems to me that the most extensive period of time is in British Columbia, which is about 38 days. I am not at all surprised that provinces have shorter periods of time for elections. I am not the least bit surprised about that. There are ten of them in the country, and they vary in size, complexity, geography, weather, and all the kinds of conditions which affect you and I, Mr. Speaker, as candidates in getting around from place to place to meet real people whom we ask to send us to Parliament. They all have that variation. However, the great difference between a provincial election and a federal election is that, notwithstanding the aeroplane, the automobile, and all the modern means of communication, the problem is multiplied ten times in a national election. So I think for that reason we ought to reflect very carefully on that bill.
As a person who advanced a bill on behalf of the government, I say that we ought to reflect very carefully with respect to that bill before we rush headlong to approve it. It must be explored quite deeply because this House of Commons is an interesting place. My friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette), told us that he represents the riding of York East in which apartment buildings predominate. He said that about 50 per cent of his riding is made up of apartment buildings. Most of the people in his riding, or at least half of his riding, have chosen to go upwards rather than outwards. So, relatively speaking, it makes it quite an easy and uncomplicated task for a member of Parliament or for a candidate in an urban area to deal with that constituency within a short period of time.
However, as people within a riding begin to spread out, and if one moves into suburban ridings, the circumstances may be different. If one goes into rural ridings, there may be even a greater problem. If one goes into the north, where there are great distances to cover and where aeroplanes are required to travel within the riding and covering those distances takes time, then a new set of problems arises which we must accommodate.
We accommodate diversities of language, we accommodate diversities of racial groups, and we accommodate regional diversities within Canada. There are electoral diversities which we must consider as well.
Quite frankly these are matters which cross my mind as I consider that bill. We never did reach that bill in the course of the last Parliament. I am just as happy we did not because of the differences which there are in the country. I am not suggesting that this bill will not ultimately pass, but I do not think we should rush headlong into it. I believe that hon. members who represent different kinds of constituencies have
April 14, 1981

different sorts of electoral problems and should have an opportunity to speak in the debate, because the interesting thing about electoral reform in the House of Commons is that we have usually done it in consultation with each other.
The whole Election Expenses Act was an exercise in mutal assistance as the opposition and the government worked together to produce what I consider to be in principle-it is always subject to change from time to time-a masterpiece in the political process. It is that because all kinds of hon. members participated in that election.
It is no argument to say that this bill follows naturally from the provisions of the Election Expenses Act which requires that advertising begin only after the election campaign has been in process for a period of time. Paid advertising may be placed in newspapers, on television and on the radio only in the last 29 days of an election campaign.
I think the general public will agree with me when I say that 29 days is sufficient time. In terms of financing elections, 29 days is too much, however, in terms of the impact upon the public, I guess that 29 days is enough. People complain to us all the time about their favourite programs being pre-empted and how the election ads in the newspapers and over the radio in their automobiles and in their kitchens as they are working have interfered with their usual listening habits, yet this is all part of getting the message across. But the message is enough. However, if my friend is justifying shortening the election period by using the argument of the shortness of the advertising period, then, I say, with respect, he is comparing apples and oranges. I do not think one necessarily flows from the other. My reason is this. The kinds of advertising I am talking about, the paid advertising, is usually done in Canada on a national party basis. Even the leaders of the party depend upon that. The theme of the campaign, the theme of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the theme of the contender to the job of the Prime Minister is usually done on a national basis. I do not know about you, Mr. Speaker, but within my budget I cannot reasonably afford, in an election campaign under the Election Expenses Act, to have television advertising. I am sure you cannot afford it. I cannot afford to have the giant ads running in the newspapers. I cannot afford radio advertising, except for a very small part of the campaign, nor can any private hon. member in this House do so, because we are all governed by very strict expense provisions, and so be it. It is right that it should be so. This is not a complaint, it is a fact. This is not supposed to be anything else than the House of Commons.
However, what I can do, and what that time allows me as a candidate and everyone in this room to do is to build up, to augment or to develop an organization that works. Where is it, you may ask. Where the people are, on the street. In the context of an election, it allows me as a candidate, or anyone who stands for public office, the time within the election campaign, not to fly over the riding, not to drive through the riding in a motorcade, but to get out in the street and meet the people and to carry on the work that one should do in this business between elections, but to do it within the election
Canada Elections Act
context, when the public mind is focused on the election. That is the importance of time, whether it be in an urban or a suburban constituency.
That is why I think all of us should think very carefully about what we are doing. If we represent rural ridings then there may be another set of problems with which I am only partially familiar. However, they are there. It takes time. There are members now sitting on both sides of this House who represent rural constituencies and who know how much time it takes to go up and down the concession roads, to get out of your car, because one cannot canvass those houses on foot, and go out to meet the farmer, his wife and the members of his family, to get back in your car and get on your way again. No one who has not done it can quite understand the problems. But it all takes time.
I know that our society is becoming urbanized and we are centralizing in cities. But, whatever we do in terms of accommodating potential members of the House of Commons, we must, I think, accommodate the differences which arise with respect to this matter. That is why I do not think we should rush into this adopting this measure and saying it is the greatest thing since sliced bread, because it is not. There will be opinions expressed in the course of this election which will indicate that to the people.
I talked about sending out the lists. I realize there are problems. The parliamentary secretary mentioned some problems that have been brought to my attention, but, I confess, not as forcibly as they may have been brought to his. Even when I was in charge of that bill in the other government, I was not deluged with complaints about the operation of that act. I think we should perhaps work on changing the list and the form of the list. This might be helpful in shortening it.
Why should lists be sent out? It is part of the openness of the election system. It is part of telling people that they are part of a community and who else is in that community. It allows people who live on the street to know who lives up the street and to deal with them on a much more personal basis. It also assists the people who work for parties to assess whether someone who is on the list should be there or whether someone who is not on the list should be on it. It allows friends and neighbours to help others.
Its most important quality is its openness. When only a small number of the lists is produced and they are sent around to only a few people, that has the effect of treating some citizens differently from others. I think in an open election where every vote counts, and only counts once, and every voter is treated equally, they should be treated equally in every part of the process. That is the reason for the list and that is the reason we ought not to move quickly just in order to save some money.
When this bill goes to committee, I hope we will look, for the first time in this Parliament, at the matter of a permanent voters' list. I know this would be expensive but it would be a valuable adjunct to our system. I know it would mean that a

April 14, 1981
Canada Elections Act
number of people would have to be employed to do this, but I think it would be worth while considering, so that we could make sure that the process is as responsive as it possibly can be.
There is another point about the shortened election which some of us, and perhaps most of us in this House, do not think about. That is that it favours incumbents. It is very easy for us to pass on that and say that we should shorten the election but, in effect, it favours the incumbent. I often wonder if that is fair. I look at some of our practices and wonder if they are fair. I think we have to consider that a short time favours the incumbent. If we are to make the process open and if we are to make sure that it is open to everybody on more or less an equal basis, then we must examine every proposal that comes forward to make sure, whether it is with respect to our constituency offices or anything at all, that we do not favour ourselves as incumbents, even if we do so inadvertently. Even if we do that with the best intentions, I think the shortened election campaign favours the incumbent, and we ought to look at it from that point of view.
There are other hon. members who want to speak on this, Mr. Speaker. I said at the outset that I thought it was important that the bill be brought forward if the government thinks it should be. It is regrettable that it is not considered in the context of a host of other things that we should look at in terms of the election, but there is time to do that. There is no great rush that I know of to shorten the election to 47 days unless my hon. friend knows something that I do not. There is time for us to consider not just this little narrow point-and that is all it is, the narrow point-but some of the broader things that our members will be speaking about as the debate goes on.
It is a way of improving the process, not just for those of us who are here but for everyone who might want to be here and to ensure that it is open to everyone else. That is the spirit in which we will approach this debate. It will allow us as Members of Parliament on all sides to speak to the differences that there are in this country. There is a tendency for us to forget the broadness and diversity of the country from time to time.
One thing that being a Member of Parliament of Canada has allowed most of us to do is to get to know our country better and to realize that the issues of Prince Edward Island, say, are different from the issues that concern British Columbia, the prairies or central Canada. We also learn that the conditions are different, the solutions are different and that the law can apply differently, to discriminate among the different regions of the country. If that is the type of thing we have to avoid, I hope there will be expressions from all sides of the House about how this bill will affect the regions from which members come, the constituencies which are different and the problems which are different.
This is a blanket piece of legislation, whether your constituency happens to be in British Columbia, Ontario, downtown Toronto or somewhere north of sixty. That is the proposition we are going to apply to the whole diverse country of Canada. That is the spirit in which we will approach this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) told us at a House leaders' meeting that he proposed to bring forward this bill, I confess that I made an immediate and personal response. I said, what about making it retroactive for the last 16 elections? I have done a little arithmetic and realize that it would have added quite a bit to my life if we could have taken out 13 days from each of the last 16 federal elections in which I have been a candidate. Although that statement makes the point that candidates are concerned about the length of the election, the people who have the greatest interest are the voters of Canada. What we have to come to is a judgment on whether they like elections that last eight or nine weeks or whether they would like them a little shorter. I believe that the general view is that our election campaigns are too long; that they are such that toward the end of the campaign many people lose interest or feel that the same arguments are being thrown back and forth among the contending parties, and if we could cut the time by a couple of weeks it would be better for the process.
I agree with my hon. friend, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), that there is no final arbitrator who can say what length of time would be best. I suppose we cannot really tell until we have tried the shorter as well as the longer. But I express the view, that as I see it the people of Canada would approve of shortening the election campaign.
I remember that in 1979, after we had gone out of here, the House having been dissolved, the British Parliament was also dissolved. They held an election and their Parliament sat again while we were still out on the hustings. I know that the area of Great Britain is minuscule compared with ours, but that country has twice as many people and elects twice as many members as we do. It also has had twice as much experience as we have had with electing members to a democratic Parliament.
My friend across the way said his face turned red when he was talking about shorter elections. Thank God we do not have the United States system which results in elections lasting for about a year at a time. As a matter of fact, I sometimes wonder about the sense of their electing members to the House of Representatives for a term of only two years when they campaign for about a year. When do they get down to business? At any rate, it seems to me that we would improve the process if we had a shorter period. After all, the proposal in this bill for 47 days does not make it extremely short. It is still longer than any of the elections held in any of the provinces. However, I would hope the idea might be given some consideration.
Let me say right away that I agree with the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton that this is a matter which should be arrived at by consensus. This has been the practice about amendments to the Canada Elections Act down through the years. We usually wait a few months after an election, some-
April 14, 1981

times into the second session. But we are now into the second year, even if we are not into the second session. At any rate whatever changes are made, they are studied very carefully in committee, and I hope we will find a way to adopt that practice in so far as this matter is concerned.
I say with respect to my colleagues in the New Democratic Party that the same differences exist among their ridings as those to which the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton referred in his remarks. After all, I have a constituency that I can walk around in a few hours. I believe it measures about eight square miles. On the other hand, my friend, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar), has an area which is larger than 15 or 20 countries in some parts of the world. Then there is my friend from Churchill and my friend from Skeena with large distances to cover in their ridings. There are others who have these far-flung ridings. As a matter of fact, you do not have to go to the north to find far-flung ridings. In the heart of Manitoba there is the constituency of Selkirk-Interlake. And so it goes. It is only natural that with these different conditions members will have different views.
I may say also there is some concern about what is to be done with respect to the lists. I believe there have been meetings among the bureaucrats of our various parties, persons who are not members of the House at all but who get called into action when there is an election. They have some joint concerns, and these matters could well be looked at by the committee. But I feel very strongly that these differences of views and the need for consensus and the need to study the details of this bill and even to consider other ways to achieve a shorter election period should not stop us from going ahead with this matter.
I gather from what my friend, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, said, that there are other members in his party who wish to speak, so that my sitting down now or my sitting down at one minute to ten o'clock would not result in the bill receiving second reading tonight. I see that opinion confirmed by the nod of the head from my friend from Nepean-Carleton.
I hope there might be some interparty consultation about this, maybe among the House leaders or maybe among the persons most concerned, in our parties. I hesitate to make the following suggestion, but I throw it into the pot along with all of the others, namely, that if it is felt that some of the details in the bill are not quite what some members want, then maybe instead of sending the bill to committee we could send the subject matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. My hon. friend from Nepean-Carleton says he does not think there is any hurry. That is what he thought on December 10 or December 11 a year ago. He knows what happened then.


Walter David Baker: You thought there was a hurry and you know what happened.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There probably is not a situation like that one now, but time does have a way of going on. Just because the next election may not be until 1984 or 1985, that does not
Canada Elections Act
mean we have all kinds of time. This is 1981, and time marches on.
I hope in one way or the other that we will convey this idea of a shorter election period to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so it can be considered there. I expressed the view that I think the judgment of the people of Canada will be with us, in other words, that a shorter election would be better for the process. That, of course, does not set aside all of the other things in the process to which my hon. friend referred. That does not set aside the extreme importance of the result of the election, but as between a long-drawn-out election of about nine weeks and an election of about seven weeks, I believe the preference of the people of Canada would be for the shorter election.
Therefore, I speak in support of the principle of the bill, although, as I say, our colleagues on the committee will want to go into the various details of it. I hope that before we are finished with this bill we will have arrangements for a shorter and more compact election period the next time members are sent out onto the hustings.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Essex-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I might indicate at the outset that I have to concur with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he indicated his belief in his reading of the electorate generally with respect to the time during which elections are held in Canada. I would like to think as well that my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), when he was expressing his concerns with respect to the lists, had not overlooked the other principles in the bill, in particular the reduction of the time period, and that there would be some concurrence in his mind as well. I notice he nods his head affirmatively that the principle of reducing the time period from what has been the historic practice in Canada to something shorter, perhaps to 47 days, which has no magic to it, but is an attempt to reflect the concerns of the electorate generally, has, up to this point, been viewed as being too long.
With respect to my other hon. friend who asked the parliamentary secretary where the concerns about the elections had come from, I ask him to recall the last campaign. Perhaps he might remember that even his campaign workers, particularly during the last two or three weeks of the campaign, heard comments that people really felt they had heard it all before. Television and radio announcements and comments at various all-party meetings and all-candidates meetings were old hat. People had had the opportunity already to reflect on the issues being put forward by the various party leaders. They were already in a position to express themselves and needed no further time to do so.
My hon. friend from Nepean-Carleton pointed out that there are distinctions and differences with respect to various ridings. It is interesting that three of us speaking this evening come from Ontario, and yet all three of us represent ridings which are rather different in their makeup. The first speaker, my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, represents a riding which is essentially densely populated by high rise towers but spreads out hardly at all. My colleague from Nepean-Carleton

April 14, 1981
Adjournment Debate
represents a riding which perhaps spreads out somewhat farther but does not have as many high rises as the riding of York East. My riding, out of a total number of 180 and some odd polls, has only 20 urban polls in the whole riding. With respect to the rural areas and the necessity for the openness and notoriety of the lists, my hon. friend from Nepean-Carleton points out a difference. I want to put something on the record on which I ask my hon. friends to reflect. My urban friends consider that the stability of the population in rural ridings is a benefit.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to impinge upon the time of the House, but I know you can make an allowance. I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council the business that we will be dealing with tomorrow. What are the intentions of the government with respect to the balance of this week? If he could answer those two questions it would be helpful to all of us.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I know that all members would like to work diligently on Thursday and Monday, but we feel that members deserve a rest. Therefore, it is the government's intention to call tomorrow Bill C-61, the Young Offenders Act. Hopefully we can rise tomorrow night for the Easter weekend.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I rise with reference to an answer to a question given to me yesterday by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). The minister has developed a policy which is even more punishing to Atlantic Canada and Canadians who are dependent upon transportation than his predecessor, Otto Lang. Mr. Lang excelled in the user-pay principle, but the present minister has come up with a new principle. Transportation needs are to be decided on something called the multimodal principle.
There is a transportation envelope for each province and there have to be trade-offs within that envelope for each province. In other words, he has said that the transportation
envelope for Newfoundland will be $210 million a year. To give one example, he said to the Newfoundland government that if they want money spent on the Trans-Canada highway and other roads in Newfoundland this year, or on any transportation service, they will get it by permitting us to discontinue some service now being provided to Newfoundland.
The service the minister has chosen is the ferry service in summer from North Sydney to Argentia in Placentia Bay. He said eliminating this ferry service will save $8 million to $9 million a year. The Newfoundland government and people can then decide what other transportation mode they want it spent on. That is the new policy. The new minister is the Jack the Ripper of Canadian transportation policy, Jean-Luc the Ripper.
With the discontinuance of the Argentia-North Sydney ferry service, 300 jobs would be lost in Newfoundland. The minister is from central Canada where they have all the modes of transportation they need. All modes are efficient modes and they have been built up over 100 years. However, in the Atlantic provinces we do not have satisfactory multimodes or any mode of transportation.
In the envelope for Newfoundland, the minister is including the Cabot Strait ferry service which is required by the terms of union. Presumably he is including all road spending, the Trans-Canada Highway, the subsidies for the coastal steamship service, subsidies on the shipping service by Clark from Montreal to St. John's, the new shipping service from St. John's to Goose Bay where there is a CN marine scandal because they gave the contract under false tendering practices to a Liberal friend, Mr. Woodward of Coastal Shipping Limited, a contract which is now being investigated.
They are including airport spending in Newfoundland, the Newfoundland railway expenditure, VIA Rail bus service across Newfoundland, ferry service to Bell Island, St. Barbe to Blanc-Sablon, Change Islands and so on. They are including navigational service, the marine traffic control centres, ferry services. All these services are included in this envelope.
The people of Newfoundland are told that if they want an improvement in the Trans-Canada highway, their airport services, coastal steamship services and ferry services, they have to permit the government to discontinue spending somewhere else.
The Sullivan royal commission on transportation in Newfoundland did not recommend discontinuance of the Argentia to North Sydney service. They suggested that it continue with improvements. I want to point out to the minister that the MacPherson royal commission of 1961 said that the situation in Newfoundland, "Is a special case distinct from the rest of Canada". But the minister wants to take us in Newfoundland, ignore this special situation and say that we are going to be treated in the same multimodal, trade-off, envelope way as Ontario, Quebec or the rest of Canada. Well, it will not work, and the people of Newfoundland will not accept it, the municipal councils will not accept it, the people of the Argentia-Pla-centia area will not accept it, I will not accept it, the Newfoundland government will not accept it, and if the five Liberal
April 14, 1981

MPs who represent other Newfoundland districts here in this House accept it and promote it, they will go down to defeat in the next election, believe me, Mr. Speaker. We are not going to accept it.
We traded off a number of years ago the railway passenger service in Newfoundland. It was a trade-off to get the federal government to assist in spending on the Trans-Canada highway. What we got in return was a bus service from St. John's to Port aux Basques that is inferior in many ways. It never satisfactorily replaced the rail service.
I urge the minister to stop this approach to Newfoundland. We need all of the modes improved in Newfoundland, not one mode set off against the other, not less spending on one if you want more spending on the other. The minister has sunk the synchrolift at the urging of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey). He terminated the Trans-Canada highway agreement. We do not know if he is going to start it again. He is teasing Torbay airport, doing relatively little for it. He has harpooned the harbour improvements in St. John's. This minister is a veritable Jean-Luc the Ripper. That may be all right here in central Canada and Toronto, but even in Toronto he proposes spending $300 million over the next ten years in improvements to the Toronto airport, doubtless needed. I agree that that is a needed expenditure. I will not even mention Mirabel. But he is down gutting our little province saying there is a $210 million transportation envelope, as though this was a gigantic amount when it is very, very little when you divide it among air services, coastal services, ferry services, marine services, water carrier services and the many needs of a province of 48,000 square miles on the island and 110,000 square miles on the mainland of Labrador, with all that implies in scattered communities and transportation needs.
I am asking the minister now-he has affirmed that the Argentia to North Sydney ferry service will continue this summer-to drop this kind of policy in Newfoundland, to make available to Newfoundland perhaps another $80 million to $90 million to enter into a Trans-Canada highway strengthening agreement. The highway is in a desperate condition. We need another three-year agreement, 75 per cent-25 per cent from the federal government. Stop trying to impose this new idea of trade-offs with the people of Newfoundland.
He is going to make Cape Breton suffer, by the way. The representative from North Sydney is in the chamber tonight, and if he wants to help his area in North Sydney, he will do his best to see that this ferry service is not discontinued.
So I hope the parliamentary secretary when he answers tonight will tell me that this ludicrous proposal is going to be dropped, because if it is not dropped, the howl of outrage and protest from Newfoundland is going to give that gentleman quite a lot to do. He will have to do a lot of travelling in Newfoundland this year.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member gets
Adjournment Debate
more alarmed about these issues, let me assure him that no decision has been made either with respect to terminating the Argentia ferry or with respect to a new highway strengthening program.
I realize that in the first case he does not want a decision and in the second case he does. It should be some comfort to him at least that the Argentia ferry is assured of sailing as usual this summer.
As the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has been at pains to explain to him, what is happening is a series of discussions with the province of Newfoundland and the other Atlantic provinces aimed at finding the best uses for the limited amount of federal money available.
The hon. member seems to get terribly excited when the minister mentions the idea of an envelope and trade-offs. This reaction is quite remarkable, since the hon. member himself spawned the idea.
When the hon. member asked the question yesterday, he said that "the people of Newfoundland know what the minister is trying to do to them, eliminate a service here and then spend the money somewhere else". I would like to quote from a document I happen to have on file. It describes a new system for controlling government spending. It says that the system:
-is intended to focus attention on the hard choices to be made and the trade-offs among alternative policy actions.
It talks about the need to "establish known limits". It says that "the creation of resource envelopes is central to the new system".
Perhaps the hon. member recognizes the document. He should, because he tabled it in the House in December of 1979 when he was minister of finance. So all this is really a great compliment to him. The Minister of Transport recognizes the value of the system proposed by the hon. member and is doing his best to implement it rapidly.


MARINE TRANSPORTATION-WITHDRAWAL OF DART CONTAINERLINE SERVICE FROM HALIFAX-HOLDING OF INQUIRY
Howard Edward Crosby: Mr. Speaker, on March 12, 1981, I had the opportunity to address some questions to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in respect of the withdrawal of Dart Containerline service from the port of Halifax.
My main concern at that time was twofold. First I wanted to ask the minister whether he was in fact ordering an inquiry under the Canadian Transport Commission into the withdrawal of Dart Containerline service from the port of Halifax and, second, I wanted him to consider the role of the Crown agencies, the Canadian National Railways and the National Harbours Board, in relation to the operation of container services in the port of Halifax and the port of Montreal. I was concerned, as were many people in the port of Halifax, that the CNR, in conjunction with the activities of the National

April 14, 1981
Adjournment Debate
Harbours Board, had permitted this removal of Dart from the port of Halifax to the benefit of the port of Montreal.
The minister, much to my surprise, indicated that there was to be no such inquiry under the National Transportation Act of the kind we in Nova Scotia had envisaged. In fact, the Premier of Nova Scotia, the Hon. John Buchanan who had been in Ottawa a few days before, had spoken to the Minister of Transport, and had come away with the impression that there was to be a general inquiry into the activities of container traffic in the North Atlantic using both the ports of Montreal and Halifax, as well as other ports, including the port of Saint John. In fact, in relation to the matter of the inquiry, the minister was simply referring to Section 27 of the National Transportation Act which requires that when a railway company acquires an interest in a shipping company, the acquisition must be brought before the Canadian Transport Commission for examination and approval.
What is happening in this instance is that CP ships are acquiring, or are in the process of acquiring, an interest in Dart Containerline services, and it is the acquisition of that interest by CP ships that has attracted Dart to the port of Montreal.
This matter has to be reviewed by the Canadian Transport Commission, and that will be the subject matter of the inquiry. We do not know how broad that inquiry will be. It is very important for those of us who are interested in the port of Halifax to have the opportunity to present to the Canadian Transport Commission all the factors that have to be taken into account.
What is happening is this. The port of Montreal for the last number of years has been experiencing some difficulty in attracting the large container vessels which are now being employed in the North Atlantic and worldwide marine container traffic. Apparently this has resulted in severe difficulties for shipping companies like CP and Manchester Lines which have seen their north Atlantic traffic drop off. This is the motivation for those companies to become more active and aggressive in acquiring part of the north Atlantic container traffic and has led to moves such as the acquisition of an interest in Dart.
We are concerned because we who are interested in the port of Halifax see some sinister elements in this. In the first place, Canadian National Railways operates the only railway link between Halifax, Montreal and other westward points. The Canadian National Railways last fall, in accordance with an agreement drawn up some years before, acquired an interest in the CAST shipping group. This is an equity interest. It makes CN an owner in the CAST shipping group. It has the right, under its agreements, to acquire a very substantial ownership in the CAST shipping group.
This has caused some concern among other shipping companies, such as Hapag Lloyd, as well as Dart and other international marine transport companies. They are concerned that
this unhealthy liaison between CNR and CAST may result in unfair competition to other north Atlantic carriers.
Many of us think that this is what motivated the move by DART to form a liaison with CP Ships. We think all of this ought to be reviewed very carefully and very closely by the Canadian Transport Commission. We are disappointed that the minister has not seen fit to exercise his authority and power under the act through the Canadian Transport Commission by holding a general inquiry to determine whether these activities-that is the liaison between CP Ships and Dart Containerline service, on the one hand, and the liaison between the CAST shipping group and the CNR on the other-are not detrimental to the public interest in terms of competition in international container traffic.
We are mainly concerned because of the great opportunity this gives the port of Montreal. This brings up the role of the National Harbours Board. We wonder what the National Harbours Board is up to. It appears that some time ago, with the help and co-operation of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), they were busily engaged in expanding very dramatically container terminals in the port of Montreal, both on behalf of the CAST group at the Task Terminal and on behalf of CP Ships in relation to the Racine Terminal. We wonder whether this was a plan and program to expand container traffic in the port of Montreal at the expense of the port of Halifax. We want and need an inquiry.
There are many people in Halifax associated with container traffic operations of Halterm and with the container traffic operations of CNR on the land side who say that no inquiry is necessary. I say to those people that what is happening is not in the best interest of the port of Halifax. It is an attempt to cover up what is going on. Those of us who are interested in the welfare of the port of Halifax want all facts to be brought before our national organization, the Canadian Transport Commission, so that everybody knows what is going on, everybody can see what is happening and can make their objections. It may well be that this whole move from the port of Halifax to the port of Montreal and the consolidation of container traffic within the port of Montreal are not in the Canadian interest. We want the minister to answer for that.


Robert Theodore Bockstael: Mr. Speaker, in the last month there have been several statements in the House on the subject of the hon. member's question. On March 10, I answered a late show question put by his colleague across the Halifax harbour. On March 17, during an opposition day debate, the minister went into considerable detail on the port of Halifax. So, tonight I will simply review the main points of this issue.
The minister indicated that he will not order an inquiry into the Dart move, but that several opportunities exist for those who wish to intervene formally in front of the Canadian Transport Commission.
At his meeting last month with Premier Buchanan, the minister agreed to undertake some further study into the questions of rail freight rates and icebreaking services on the
April 14, 1981

St. Lawrence. But he pointed out that increases in Halifax-Montreal freight rates over the last ten years were considerably smaller than increases in comparable rates and clearly smaller than increases in the consumer price index. The cost of icebreaking services, to the extent that they could be assessed, would represent a negligible impact on the flow of container traffic.
The other aspect which has been raised is the question of port charges. It is a fact that harbour dues, berthage and wharfage charges are identical for all east coast ports. So there is no discrimination against Halifax. In fact, Halterm enjoys a 50 per cent rebate from the National Harbours Board on wharfage charges, a rebate which amounted to a subsidy of $1.8 million in 1980. It is true that the National Harbours Board intends to raise the land rental rate for Halterm, but Halterm has enoyed a fixed rate of 15 cents per square foot for ten years. The new rate has been determined in exactly the same manner for lessees at all NHB sites.
In summary, most people recognize that in spite of the move of Dart, the port of Halifax retains great promise. The president of Halterm, who stands to lose the most, has rejected the idea of government intervention, and the executive director of the Halifax-Dartmouth Port Commission has painted an optimistic picture of the port's future.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT-APPLICATION OF PROGRAM TO DEAL WITH REGIONAL INEQUALITIES
Robert Alfred Corbett: Mr. Speaker, my participation in this evening's proceedings arise out of a question which I asked of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) on February 12, 1981. It concerned the designation of the manufacturers' tax credit program which was announced in the budget of last October. The criteria which have been used to determine the base for that program is what I was specifically questioning. I felt it was particularly pertinent that there were several areas in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and other regions of Atlantic Canada which qualified under the criteria that were made available to the House under the proposed program.
The fact of the matter is that apparently all of this is being managed under the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, which has been in place for a number of years. In that regard I would like to draw a brief history of the program of DREE to the attention of the House, how it originated and what it was intended to accomplish, and then provide to the government a proposal which I think would be much more effective than that which, in my opinion, DREE has not been able to accomplish over the years that it has been in place.
Regional disparities, back in the 1950s, were recognized as being something the government should come to grips with. One of the first programs the government of the day implemented was a program of equalization payments. The purpose of these was to reduce to some extent the difficulties that regional disparities were creating in the country. There were a
Adjournment Debate
good many programs which developed after that, including the Agricultural and Rural Development Act, commonly known as ARDA, the Fund for Rural Economic Development, which was known as FRED, the Atlantic Development Board was created, the Area Development Incentives Act was brought before the House and, finally DREE was created.
The purpose of DREE at that stage was to co-ordinate the rest of these programs under one central authority. However, the principal purpose of DREE at that time was to concentrate on the development of those regions of the country which the government felt were in a state of regional disparity. Then after DREE was formed, it undertook an umbrella-like initiative, which included the Regional Development Incentives Act. This act was an inducement to manufacturers to locate in particular regions.
I suggest that DREE has been nothing more than a stop-gap department and it has provided nothing more than band-aid programs and band-aid assistance to certain regions of Canada which have not been long lasting or of any meaningful advantage to the area.
I would like to suggest to the government that people in Atlantic Canada-and I see here the parliamentary secretary from the Atlantic region who cares about what happens there and who will respond to what I am saying-would like to see something much more meaningful than the band-aid approach which has been promoted by DREE over the past several years. They would like to see something which will have a lasting effect. In this regard I would like to suggest that Atlantic Canada be set up as a specifically designated area by the federal government in its negotiations for special trade and tariff recognition in its agreement with the United States. We are geographically a part of that vast market of 48 million people-twice the size of Canada's population. There are 48 million people in New England who are our natural trading partners. If we were to develop a program which recognized the contribution that Atlantic Canada could make to the rest of Canada by giving a specific advantage to that area to manufacturers so that they would locate in that region for reasons of trade with the New England states, I believe that a lasting contribution could be made to Canada by Atlantic Canadians. It would withdraw them from the over-protective attitude of the government which seems to say, "Equalization payments will take care of all your needs", it would reduce the terrifically high unemployment there, and it would be something of lasting value for Atlantic Canada in its contribution to the prosperity and future development of Canada as a whole.
I think that is the approach which they should be taking rather than continuing on with what I refer to as band-aid programs.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, the minister has been asked many times by hon. members in this House why their constituencies have not been designated to receive the benefit of the Special Investment Tax Credit

April 14, 1981
Adjournment Debate
Program. I am beginning to derive considerable satisfaction from the importance they attach to this bold and innovative program. Most recently the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) asked why more areas in New Brunswick had not qualified for this tax credit.
I will explain to him again the criteria that were used for designation. I will do so in order that he and other hon. members of the House will fully understand the justifiable bases on which these designations were made.
We, on this side, are concerned about people. We are concerned particularly about those who suffer the most economically, living as they do in areas where family unemployment rates are significantly above the national average and where per capita incomes are lowest in relation to the national average.
The Special Investment Tax Credit Program is designated to give these people a hand, by making it worth while for successful and profitable firms to locate in these areas and to provide them with the employment and other economic opportunities that they have lacked for so long.
But we are also cognizant of the need for fiscal restraint. Therefore, with reluctance, we decided to limit the benefits of the program to the 5 per cent of the Canadian population most in need.
It will be obvious to the hon. member opposite, and to others, that not all areas of Canada, and particularly not all of the Atlantic region, could be designated in the light of this contraint. Being from the Atlantic region, I would like to see more parts of it designated, but obviously this would not be equitable in relation to needs elsewhere.
The first point I would like to make in response to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal is that I, too, would like to see other parts of New Brunswick designated. Perhaps this will be possible in the future if the optimism which the hon. member holds for this program, and which I share, materializes in the form of proven success.
The second point I would like to make is that the SITCP is an incentive program. It is a challenge to the private sector to create jobs. But mostly it is a challenge to create jobs in areas where the need is greatest.
The member for Fundy-Royal has asked why more areas were not designated in New Brunswick. The answer is simple.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m.
At 10.31 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, April 15, 1981