1982-07-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, business investment is plunging downward in response to dwindling company profits. The National Energy Program, the Foreign Investment Review Agency, and the disastrous MacEachen budgets, with the resultant high interest rate policies, have ravaged the business community in Canada with the obvious result of one and one third million unemployed, thousands of bankruptcies, and the loss of homes by hundreds of families. The latest Gallup poll indicates a mere 14 per cent of Canadians think the government is doing well with the economy. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That the government inform the uninformed 14 per cent, who obviously have neither read a paper, listened to a radio, nor watched television, so that they, too, as well as the 86 per cent, will realize just how badly the Liberal government has mishandled the economy, or, better still, that the government immediately change the direction of its present disastrous policies.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, equity and fairness are essential for the restraint program to succeed. The staff in the offices of the ministers entered into a contract with the government in June, 1982, and this will run until April, 1983, before the 6 per cent takes over. The Canadian air
line employees entered into a three-year contract in September, 1981, and these employees have been advised that their contract will be cancelled and the 6 per cent restraint will take over on September 1, 1982. If this arrangement follows through, it will be making flesh of one and fish of another. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart):
That the government be consistent and permit every contract to run to completion before applying the restraint program.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In the last week there has been an invasion of Nicaragua from Honduras, by forces of former dictator Somoza. Many of these men have been trained in the United States and are now being supplied by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Just this weekend the ambassadors of Mexico, Venezuela, France and Honduras in Managua visited the border region of Nicaragua and confirmed the slaughter of civilians by these armed bands. Madam Speaker, I am seriously concerned that this conflict in Nicaragua will soon turn into a regional war. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That this House instruct the Secretary of State for External Affairs, on behalf of the Canadian government, to contact the government of Honduras to urge that that government take immediate steps to stop all incursions from within Honduras against Nicaragua.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

July 26, 1982


MARINE TRANSPORT
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, the development of oil and gas in the Beaufort Sea and Arctic Islands will likely necessitate substantial tanker traffic in Canadian Arctic waters. In order that such shipping can be conducted safely, economically, and without undue risk to the environment, accurate navigation charts will be required. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson):
That this House approves of the work done to date by the Canadian Hydrographic Service and directs the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to complete hydrographic charting of the Beaufort Sea and Northwest Passage with all due dispatch.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Last week the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) publicly undertook to release a report on the international and domestic air travel of public servants. Last Wednesday I was informed that the report was complete and was awaiting perusal by the minister. Today I am informed that the report is to be referred to the Treasury Board, I assume for necessary rewrite, deletions, added obscurity and obfuscation. This being the case, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That the House unanimously call upon the President of the Treasury Board to come clean today with all the dirty details of public service travel and to stop hiding vouchers and lists of misspent tax dollars due to pressure from his colleagues and the power mandarins of the Ottawa Valley.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, Canadians forced to the brink of disaster by the government's continuing high interest rate policy will be forced, as a last resort, to use their life insurance policies in times of financial emergency, and will then have their problems compounded even further by the application of a government tax. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That since permanent life insurance plays an important and significant part in the social and economic planning of a family, the federal government proposals to tax life insurance should be amended so that old rules would apply to exempt policies and new rules to the new non-exempt policies.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in light of the encouraging announcement last week by the Minister of State, International Trade (Mr. Lumley) that he is now willing to relax his discriminatory and adverseri-al tactics in delaying the customs clearance of Japanese automobiles destined for Canadian dealers, and in view of the indication the minister gave that he is now prepared to negotiate with our Japanese trading partners in good faith, I move, seconded by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook):
That the minister be directed to extend his maximum efforts in co-operation with his colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, toward ensuring the immediate customs clearance of the more than 14,000 automobiles backlogged on Vancouver area docks so that the hundreds of laid-off transportation employees, dock workers and auto dealership employees across Canada can quickly return to their jobs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, my riding of Simcoe South is home to the nationally-renowned
July 26, 1982

Holland Marsh black muck market gardens. These food producers are suffering because the federal excise tax on natural gas adds about one-third to their greenhouse heating costs. I have in my possession a letter from Augie Ingratta of Leamington, which indicates that, on a total natural gas bill of $75,336.72, more than $18,100 is for federal excise taxes. I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens):
That whereas the National Energy Program caused the federal excise tax to go from zero to 83 cents per thousand cubic feet, causing an unfair burden on food producers and, consequently consumers, the federal government consider rescinding this tax retroactively in order to lower greenhouse production costs and ultimately consumer food costs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SHIPS AND SHIPPING
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas Canadian Pacific ran an advertising campaign last year saying it was proud of its past and proud to be Canadian, whereas CP ships are all registered in Britain and Hong Kong and the company maintains an 82-year-old tradition of staffing its ships with British officers and also employs foreign crews, whereas if CP ships employed Canadian crews it would provide at least 1,500 jobs for Canadian seamen, and whereas the only thing Canadian about CP Shipping is that it continues the 101-year Canadian Pacific tradition of having the government in its pocket and ripping off the Canadian people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House demand that the Government of Canada institute a marine industrial strategy and that it insist Canadian Pacific immediately repatriate its ships to Canada and employ Canadian crews, or that the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs join with me in initiating an action against CP for false and misleading advertising.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
S.O.	43 TRADE


PROMOTION OF POTASH SALES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my motion arises out of the fact that potash production in Saskatchewan is down 56 per cent this June over a year ago. Hundreds of workers have been laid off since the election of Dr. Devine and the Conservatives in the April election. In light of the fact that the situation facing workers and communities dependent on the production of potash is now very serious and the new Conservative government of Saskatchewan has not shown the competence of the previous NDP government with respect to finding and developing markets for the province's potash, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo):
That the federal minister responsible for international trade undertake an aggressive campaign to promote the sale of potash throughout the world.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Due to the lack of funds in the Farm Credit Corporation 80 per cent of the applicants are being turned away or put on hold. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
That this House requests the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Agriculture to act quickly on the government's expressed intention to provide new funds by way of the proposed credit instruments mentioned in the budget and, further, that more aggressive action be taken to implement the powers that the Farm Credit Corporation now has to raise more funds.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
COMMONS DEBATES___________________July 26, 1982
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Over the weekend the minister said on the CTV program "Question Period" that the program for cheaper loans for home owners, farmers, and small businessmen will be in operation by October, and that he cannot imagine circumstances which would prevent the implementation of this program. Is this statement based on the preliminary reaction of the special consultative committee, or is it based on work that is being done within his department?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I do not recall saying anything about the month of October. I have noticed in press accounts that that date is put on the time when the program might be implemented. 1 have not had an opportunity to check the transcript but, in any event, what I said is based upon my own expectations. As I stated on the program, I still cannot imagine circumstances which would put this program off the rails. I have confidence that the committee will find it acceptable or, indeed, if the committee wants to make further recommendations, 1 believe it will find it to be a program which can be implemented. However, I have not received any report from that committee yet, nor do I have an additional report from my department.


PROJECTIONS OF COST
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. 1 am sure the minister is aware there has been some discussion in the media about some substantial technical problems relating to the implementation of the program. There is also some question that the projected cost of the program as set out in the budget will be far less than what will be the case once the program is implemented.
1 want to ask the minister whether he took these factors fully into account in the answer he gave to my first question and in his comments at the weekend when he made the statement that the program will be implemented in a very short period of time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I did notice at the weekend that concerns raised by unidentified persons as to the operation or feasibility of this program were summarized. I believe that is a healthy process because the purpose of the consultation is to ensure that all the possible technical difficulties are examined and that a way is found to implement the program. I have had no further reports either from the committee or from my department to justify the comments the hon. member quoted.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, it would certainly be helpful to Canadians to know whether the minister takes seriously the concerns which have been expressed, and whether he feels the program will sail through as he indicated at the weekend.


EFFECT ON CANADA SAVINGS BONDS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, 1 think the minister must also be aware that there is some serious concern in the financial community that the indexed form of investment will provide formidable competition to Canada Savings Bonds and other forms of savings instruments, none of which have the benefit of this indexed feature. In addition to being considerable competition, it may well push up interest rates on general mortgages on existing houses. If the committee reaches the same conclusion, does the minister intend to reassess the plan, or is he considering changing the form of Canada Savings Bonds to provide an indexed feature on them so that they can compete with the new indexed term deposit?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I note that the hon. member used the expression that these proposed indexed instruments would provide formidable competition. Certainly it is intended that they be attractive so that depositors will move large amounts of funds into such indexed instruments. Unless they are attractive, or indeed strongly competitive, then the plan would be unworkable. Offhand, I do not find that a compelling deficiency in the plan. It seems to me that it must be made attractive to depositors and holders of large amounts of funds in other forms for them to move those funds into indexed instruments.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance who undoubtedly noticed on the weekend two rather conflicting attitudes. The Prime Minister indicated that he may well use leverage against certain private concerns if they do not abide by the 6 per cent and 5 per cent ceilings. On the other hand, Mr. Lawless, President of CN Rail, indicated that such ceilings would not be binding on his rail operation. He then proceeded to tell the press that he intended to put in place increases related to cost as he saw fit.
Have any members of the government been in touch with CN Rail and asked it to temper its demands, which appear to be in direct defiance of the 6 per cent ceiling on which the
July 26, 1982

Prime Minister indicated he would use leverage to have it accepted by other concerns in the country?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have not been in touch with CN about their proposed tariff changes but I presume that the hon. member would agree that in a circumstance of this kind the due process provided by the law should be allowed to take place, namely, that any body which has a right to go before the Canadian Transport Commission should be permitted to do so. Once the Canadian Transport Commission makes the decision, if it is above the 6 per cent, then would be the occasion for the government to act. I understand that the CTC, through its general counsel, has stated that the 6 per cent rule would be of persuasive importance to it in reaching its conclusions.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. He undoubtedly noted that the President of CN Rail, Mr. Lawless, stated "-we don't file on the basis that we must ask permission," meaning filing with the CTC.
Would the Minister of Finance inform the House on one further matter. He is very buddy buddy with Ian Sinclair of CP. Has Mr. Sinclair, or anyone else on behalf of CP, given a firm commitment that that rail organization will abide by the 6 per cent and 5 per cent ceilings with regard to its rates in Canada? Specifically, has Mr. Sinclair given any undertaking that CP will no longer demand that the Crown rate be adjusted upwards? This would mean a 100 per cent hike for the average farmer in this country by 1986, and 2.5 times the present level by 1990.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have not discussed these particular questions with Mr. Sinclair. As you know, he has undertaken to chair the private sector six and five committee, made up of businessmen whose job it will be to persuade their colleagues in all sectors of the economy to abide by the six and five.


Mr. Clark:: By example?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 assume that Mr. Sinclair has given his answer by taking over the chairmanship of the committee himself.
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Red Cross has estimated that, as a direct result of the Israeli invasion of Lebanon, there are now more than 200,000 people in need of assistance. The Canadian government more than a month ago provided $1 million in assistance to people in terrible circumstances. Since the need is obviously much greater, will the Government of Canada consider increasing assistance immediately specifically for medical supplies and field hospitals?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member mentioned, a few weeks ago we announced a contribution in the amount of $1 million for rehabilitation relief in terms of food and medical supplies for victims in Lebanon. I am now able to inform the House that we are contributing another $1.4 million, making a total of $2.4 million, which I believe per capita is by far and away the highest contribution in the world. I will investigate how that money is being assigned, but I understand it is being given to relief agencies to be distributed in a way they think most fitting.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to commend the government for its decision increasing aid. 1 take it from what the minister has said that he will investigate the purposes for which the money is being spent and will inform members of the House about it.


QUERY RESPECTING PROVISION OF HOUSING AND FOOD
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I will follow up my first question by asking the Secretary of State for External Affairs about the government's intention for another kind of specific aid, this time in the form of housing, and in terms of the need for increased supplies of food. Since Canada is one of the world's great producers of food and is also a producer of pre-fabricated and portable housing, will the government take steps to ensure that increased assistance in these two areas of human need are also provided?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the amount that I have announced to this point of $2.4 million is not intended to be our final contribution but is really an interim contribution to deal with this problem. 1 will certainly examine the most effective uses of any future contributions that we may make. The provision of housing may indeed be a longer-term rehabilitation need rather than a short term need, but I will certainly look into it.


PROVISION OF TEMPORARY SHELTER
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, just for clarification on the question of housing, my question

July 26, 1982
Ora! Questions
concerns short-term housing needs. Specifically I understand portable shelters of some kind are required by literally thousands of people. Will the minister look into the possibility of Canada supplying additional supplies of temporary shelter?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Yes, Madam Speaker.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. The Department of National Defence has been busy installing fuel metres in some 20,000 married quarters. Effective September the department is going to shift the burden of paying for heating to the service man. As the cost of heating fuels is not restrained by the government, which profits from it, what does the minister plan to do to ensure that his department is not an accomplice in raising the cost of the service man's shelter by more than 6 per cent?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I am very glad the hon. member for Victoria has asked that question. As you know, we have to give advice three months ahead of time of rent increases, and the next occasion will be August 1. The entire question is under study at the moment. As far as logic is concerned, if military people, the armed forces, are to be restrained by the 6 per cent and 5 per cent government policy, logically I cannot see how we can allow an increase in rent of more than 6 per cent.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, 1 am very glad to hear that assurance from the minister.


REQUEST THAT RENTS REFLECT HEATING COSTS
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, could the Minister of National Defence give me further assurance, and also assure the House and the service man, that when the service man starts paying his own fuel bills his shelter charges will be reduced not only to reflect the current cost of heating but also to reflect the future large increases in heating fuels which this benevolent government is planning?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, with respect to the policy of charging for utilities according to their use, our energy policy was designed to give initiative to the service man to use utilities carefully, that is, to conserve energy. Therefore I think it is still a good policy, but as far as the question of the hon. member is concerned, I think the same logic applies as in the case of rent increases.


CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I should like to return to the Minister of Finance and follow up on the question of the hon. member for York-Peel. From newspaper reports I understand that the minister was in the room with the Prime Minister and Mr. Sinclair when the Prime Minister invited Mr. Sinclair to be head of this blue blood private sector industry committee to help the government out of its difficulties.
How in the world could the public have any credibility in Mr. Sinclair if there were no discussions, not about rates which CP would be charging its customers that might be above the 6 per cent or 5 per cent suggestion of the government, but about contracts already negotiated by CP Rail, and I understand also by CP Air employees, when CN employees, let alone Air Canada ones, will have a negotiated and/or enforced 6 per cent and 5 per cent increase which is far below what CP has already negotiated? Was there any discussion that, as a moral leader in this difficult situation, Mr. Sinclair would go to his people in CP and show another example of leadership by having CP roll back some of the increases?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have every confidence that not only will Mr. Sinclair attempt to persuade others in the country to follow the 6 per cent and 5 per cent, but I am satisfied that he will do likewise in whatever operations for which he has responsibility. The hon. member is aware that this is a matter which specifically has to be dealt with one way or another in the bill now before the standing committee. I believe we ought to wait to see how the committee deals with this problem before we make up our minds finally on whether or not CN and CP are to be treated differently or in the same way.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, that is an interesting answer by the Minister of Finance because I remember when he had some interest in labour matters in the House of Commons. Certainly the minister would agree that rail discussion and negotiation have taken a long time but that there is something called industry-wide bargaining.


RAILWAYS
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, taking Bill C-124 as is, not being a prophet to see how it will come out of the committee, but assuming that it comes out of committee pretty close to the way it went into the committee, would the Minister of Finance not agree that unless there is a substantive change in Bill C-124, there will be a grievous
July 26, 1982

and gross anomaly in negotiated contracts for CN employees and CP employees to the disadvantage of those under the Crown corporation? What will he do about it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, 1 think the comments of the hon. member make a lot of sense but, before asking a hypothetical question, why does he not wait until the bill is in the House and until we dispose of it? Maybe when the bill is disposed of, all his questions will be satisfied and answered. 1 cannot anticipate what goes on in that committee, but I believe members of the committee are as keen to resolve these difficulties seen by the hon. member as he is himself. I am quite aware of the joint bargaining which exists in this industry and how important it is that that question be tackled in committee.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Recently radio licence fees for private aircraft were doubled. Both landing fees and parking rates have been increased to ridiculous levels, yet on July 1, as the hon. member for Vancouver South pointed out on Friday, the Vancouver airport shut down vfr traffic in the middle of the day. Will the minister agree finally, with my contention that his department is in an adversarial position to general aviation? How else can he explain the harassment of private aircraft?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, recently I had a question on the Vancouver incident of July 1. I indicated that at that time there were problems with respect to overtime payments to air controllers in my department, and I recently indicated that these problems had been resolved. There are not any more of them. On the subject of fees, tariffs, rates and so on which my department charges the Canadian public, these were frozen as of the date of the budget. If my hon. friend knows of any which have been increased, I would like to know. They are not permanently frozen, but we are awaiting more details, as the Minister of Finance just indicated, before we take action on the application of the 6 and 5 per cent rule.


RADIO LICENCE FEES
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, of course the freezing came after the increase in radio licence fees. Our friends in the United States do not even have radio licence fees, nor do they have any ridiculous requirements for such things as 720 channel radios. These regulations are limiting air traffic entering Canada both for business and pleasure. Does the minister not see the damage this is causing? Does he have no control over his department, or does he just not care?
Oral Questions


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, in order to find out the differences between the Canadian situation and the American one, presumably one would have to study a pretty wide range of services provided by both departments. I have been exposed to questions of this kind-somebody says that in a particular instance my department is charging more than the American department, but then, upon looking at it in more detail, I find that in other sections the Canadian department charges less. The hon. member has an easy way today, with all the expertise at his command, to shoot one particular example and to generalize from it. I beg him to give me a chance to demonstrate that in other instances Canadians are better treated than are the Americans.


EMPLOYMENT
[Stage Direction]
SUGGESTION THAT PUBLIC SERVICE OFFER SIX-MONTH JOBS IN GASPfe AREA
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. At the beginning of July, a local survey showed that as a result of shutdowns in the paper and copper industry, the riding of Gaspe had an unemployment rate of 60 per cent. Only people employed by the provincial or federal governments had steady jobs. My question is as follows: Last weekend, I met people from my riding who suggested that employment in the public service should be for a six-month period only. At the end of the six months, public servants would be given a taste of the unemployment situation, and the Public Service could hire another team for a subsequent six-month period, so that more Canadians would be able to have steady jobs. I would like to have the minister's opinion of this proposal.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, this is a very constructive proposal. It is quite true that public servants have a degree of job security that does not exist in the private sector. That is one of the reasons why we tabled Bill C-124 in the House.


HOUSING
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I am not easily discouraged, so I will ask the minister responsible for housing a question. Are rental units currently under the auspices of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, that is, managed or owned by CMHC, to be held to a maximum 6 per cent increase this coming year?

July 26, 1982
Oral Questions


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I assume that the motivation for the question arises from the announcement of the government on budget evening. The Minister of Finance indicated that the policy referring to the 6 per cent and 5 per cent guidelines would apply to agencies, departments, et cetera, which have control over prices directly. I would refer the hon. member to a news release issued by the President of the Treasury Board, and which is dated July 20. I indicated that Public Works Canada, all agencies reporting through me to Parliament, have agreed to comply with the government policy.


Ian Deans: That was a very interesting answer.


QUERY RESPECTING LIMITATION ON RENTS
Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, are rental units that are being managed or owned by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to have rental increases this coming year of no more than 6 per cent?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, to assist the hon. member I would be happy, through one of the pages of the House-


Ian Deans: Do you know the answer?


Paul James Cosgrove: -to provide a copy of the government policy, to which Canada Mortgage and Housing is subscribing, as I indicated.


FINANCE
Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and Acting Prime Minister. On Friday, July 16, four of the Acting Prime Minister's colleagues, the Minister of National Revenue, the Minister of Public Works, the Minister of Justice, and the Secretary of State, flew to St. John's, Newfoundland, in a government jet to attempt an impossible task. They said they were going to sell the new federal budget.
They had a press conference at 11.30 and had 250 people whom they invited in to drinks and lunch in the middle of the day at the Holiday Inn, at a cost of $4,700 for that little face-to-face meeting. Is it the government's policy to sell restraint in this manner, by a show of opulence, wealth, and power, with two bars in a Holiday Inn, and glazed salmon, just like the minister's eyes are glazed now. Is this how the minister plans to sell restraint in the government to the Canadian people, or will the government cancel these ostentatious and opulent shows? Will the minister tell us how many of these there will be, and at how many places does the government plan to have such a performance across Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I think the ostentation and opulence are probably more in the hon. member's mind and imagination than existed at the event which was hosted in St. John's by my colleagues. In any event, if the hon. member is really concerned about restraint as it applies to public expenditures, I think I can assure him that whatever was spent will not be picked up by the Canadian taxpayer.


QUERY RESPECTING PAYMENT FOR RECEPTION
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue was asked a question there about the general public's fear that the new budget might not work. He said fear is good as long as it is not paralysing fear. Let me tell you I am paralysed with fear when I look at the Acting Prime Minister.
The press has been told that this $4,700 bill from the Holiday Inn for drinks, glazed salmon, booze, wines, hams and all the rest of it, was paid for by the Liberal Party of Canada. Would the Acting Prime Minister confirm whether or not these bills are to be met by the Liberal Party of Canada? If they are, why are these ministers travelling by government aircraft and who is paying for the aircraft? What is going on? Is this a show of the Liberal Party, or is the public paying for it? Who is paying for it, and why? Would he explain just what is happening and tell the public what the Liberal Party and the government are doing, or is there any way of distinguishing one from the other?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has no business inquiring into the affairs of the Liberal Party. He is entitled to inquire as to whether the taxpayers paid for this particular event. The taxpayers did not.


John Carnell Crosbie: Who paid for the aircraft?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member talks about not being impressed by the Acting Prime Minister.


John Carnell Crosbie: Paralysed with fear.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I suggest that he not become over confident. Every time that happens to him, he falls hard.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Does the minister still fully intend to see the remuneration under the Canadian Armed Forces pension plan capped at 6 per cent next year, bearing in mind that last year
July 26, 1982

the receipts and credits to the Canadian Forces superannuation account amounted to $480 million in interest alone, at 5 per cent, and the pay-out to servicemen and beneficiaries was only $280 million? Does the Minister of National Defence feel that it is fair to cap these indexed pensions for which servicemen have been promised full indexing at the cost of living rate-to cap them at 6 per cent, bearing in mind that the pension account is $200 million in surplus for last year when you compare accrued interest with funds paid out to beneficiaries?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, this is a question which will have to be evaluated by the Treasury Board and our department. I think it would only be fair if we succeed in our program of 6 and 5, if the inflation rate goes down to 6 and 5 in one or two years. I think the indexation of pensions has always been subject to our cost of living inflation rates. If they go down to 6 and 5 I think it would only be fair to index these pensions to the rate of inflation at the time.


Thomas Edward Siddon: The minister knows that if this undertaking is carried out, the government will have broken trust with the servicemen of Canada.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Solicitor General. In the same light, if we look at the Royal Canadian Mounted Police superannuation account we find that contributions by the members of the RCMP amounted to $22.5 million in the last fiscal year, but beneficiaries received only $16 million, and interest accredited to the account amounted to $60 million at a rate of 6 per cent. Is it fair to cap the pensions at a six per cent increase, remembering that members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been promised full cost of living indexing, and recognizing that the pay-outs to the beneficiaries are far short of interest and contributions from serving members of the RCMP?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has often indicated, we are seeking to establish a 6 and 5 per cent inflation rate for the Canadian economy over the next two years. In the area where the federal government has direct control and can show leadership, we are proposing to do so with the support of the House.


PROGRESS IN ESTABLISHING NEW NATIONAL SECURITY SERVICE
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Solicitor General. On August 25, I believe it will be a year since Mr. Fred Gibson, Q.C., was appointed head of the planning and transition group to develop
Oral Questions
a new security and intelligence service. What progress, if any, has been made during this long interval? What can the minister tell the House?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, a considerable study has been done of the problems of national security which were the basis of the McDonald Commission's recommendations. A document is in the process of preparation for me to take to my cabinet colleagues, I am looking forward, in the next few months, to being able to spend a considerable amount of time with them on the consideration of national security matters, and hope that it would be possible some time in the fall to bring forward the government's response to the recommendations.


FUTURE OF EXISTING PERSONNEL
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, have any new guidelines been formulated, even if not publicized, to clarify the role of existing personnel in the force during this transition period, in order to reassure them and the country about their future and to prevent loss of some special expertise?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Yes, Madam Speaker. Mr. Gibson and the commissioner, and the deputy commissioner responsible for national security, have been in constant touch with the members of the security service assuring them of a continued place in the security service and it will be the basis of the new separated security service when one is formed.


FINANCE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Acting Prime Minister will know that the Prime Minister said on Friday, "I would hope that every grant, every accord and every subsidy that the government is paying out of taxpayers' money would be used as leverage to enforce the 6 and 5 provision." Is it the policy of the government that every grant, every accord and every subsidy of the federal government will be used as leverage?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Madam Speaker, that is the intention.


PREPARATION OF GUIDELINES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, have guidelines been established, or are they being established?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the cabinet is presently engaged in the process of preparing these guidelines. We

July 26, 1982
Oral Questions
have already had discussions. The general principle has been established, and we will be approving these specific guidelines probably this week.


REQUEST THAT GUIDELINES BE PUBLISHED
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, will those guidelines be published so that people who are taking advantage of government programs will know in advance of any unstated strings that might be attached to any grants, any accord, any subsidy-any strings attached which are unstated and which are not in accord with the law of the land?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, we have not given any consideration to the question of publication, but the Leader of the Opposition will recall that when we did establish certain guidelines for administered prices, the President of the Treasury Board did make these public. I would think that, once we have completed our work, we will give consideration to whether it would be useful to make those criteria or guidelines public.


TIMING OF POLICY APPLICATION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, there is enough confusion in the country right now. It would be absolutely incredible and verging on the criminal for the government to have this kind of guideline and not let the people know when they apply for subsidies, accords or grants from the Government of Canada. Let me ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether this new policy will apply retroactively. Will it apply to people who are now in receipt of grants, accords or subsidies from the Government of Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, it would be my opinion that it would not be justified to review all former grants which were put forward or put out under particular circumstances. This is a policy which was established in the budget. We are determined, insofar as we can bring it about, to establish a 6 per cent and 5 per cent economy. Where we are giving grants or incentives, we intend to enter into discussions and into negotiations with the recipients, encouraging and persuading them to follow the 6 per cent and 5 per cent rule. That will be our policy and our effort. Nothing will be done in a way which is not in accordance with the 6 per cent and 5 per cent rule, and nothing will be done which is not in accordance with the public interest and the welfare of the Canadian economy.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, an interesting aspect of the explanation to this House might revolve around whether the government at one time appointed the chief executive officer of Imperial Oil to advise the government on competition while the company was skinning the country. Again, an explanation of the appointment of Ian Sinclair to the government's blue ribbon committee might be interesting.
However, I would like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he could explain how he proposes to remove the income bias from the urea formaldehyde foam insulation program which would allow upper income families to receive the $5,000 grant while lower income families would be deprived of it by the nature and structure of the program. In order to facilitate movement, I think it would be valuable for the minister to give us some indication of how he thinks that bias might be removed.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the interpretation of the hon. member is misleading. It is quite clear that the program applies to everyone, irrespective of income. It has been brought to our attention, and it is obvious, that some people might have more difficulty in taking advantage of the program. This weekend, during a meeting with the National Advisory Council, I undertook to find ways to help these people. Indeed, the home owners' representatives who met with me this weekend have indicated that they want to work through a sub-committee of their own in order to address these very questions. Possibly, additional funds could come from the provinces. Now that we know the result of the board of review, we will indeed try to bring the private sector in for some compensation. At the same time, we will explore other federal government programs which could be beneficial to home owners. So, there are a variety of ways by which to help the home owners who have difficulties, but the very first thing which must be done is to pass the legislation now before the House, which would at least entitle every home owner to the possibility of receiving the minimum of $5,000.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I think that this is probably one of the truly momentous occasions when the minister has completely reversed himself, as he now admits that this is the minimum amount to be payable. In case he has slipped, perhaps he can clarify the matter for me.


TIMING OF GRANT PAYMENTS
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the minister is certainly correct when he says the bill should be quickly moved through the House. But is he asking to create a situation, as a result of that legislation, where $5,000 would be immediately mailed out to upper income families who have the money to clear the urea formaldehyde foam out of their
July 26, 1982

homes, while senior citizens who are experiencing health problems and who do not have the money to remove the foam from their homes would be forced to wait until advisory committees, the private sector or other people come up with some money somewhere down the line? Would the minister like me to vote for a program which would give $5,000 to upper-income families and would not give the money to lower-income families in Canada? Would he like that?
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs): Madam Speaker, the hon. member could vote one way or he could vote the other. I will not tell him how to vote. But I am telling him, however, that he has been putting pressure on members of the National Advisory Council who have met with me to try to change their decision unanimously to support the passage of this legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


André Ouellet: Indeed, I would hope that in the coming hours the hon. member will not deny thousands of home owners the opportunity to receive the grants of $5,000 which are available to them. When I refer to the minimum of $5,000 for those who have gone through major expenditures and are spending more than $5,000, I use that expression that, indeed, they will be receiving this amount of money. We are on record as trying to find additional funds from the provinces, from the private sector and, if possible, from the federal government from other programs to help these home owners to get rid of the foam, if that is their desire, and to apply the corrective measures to their homes. I do hope the hon. member will stop bargaining with some of the representatives of the home owners and will indeed support this legislation.


THE ARTS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. The Privy Council Office agenda on Friday listed an extension of the term of employment of the co-chairmen of the federal cultural policy review committee to December 31, 1982. Could the minister tell the House when the final report of that commission is expected, since it was expected in September? If the report is delayed, as the extension would suggest, until some time in November or December, what will that do, in particular, to the minister's broadcasting policy?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, a week or two ago I was advised by the co-chairmen of the review committee, both Mr. Applebaum and Mr. Hebert, that they did not expect to be in a position to make their report public until the end of October. So, I would expect that the report would indeed be made public some time after that date. The extension was granted until the end of December in the event that there were some unforeseen delays in the
Oral Questions
publication. Obviously, before the government would want to finalize any broadcasting strategy, and I do underline the word "finalize", the government would want to have the benefit of the views of the Applebaum-Hebert Commission.


CANADIAN DAIRY COMMISSION
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister knows that the Canadian Dairy Commission is being investigated by the RCMP. Will the minister tell the House whether or not, when the report comes in, it will be made public and whether it will be government policy to prosecute if, in fact, the report indicates that there have been some bad acts committed by members of the CDC?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I have already told the House that if there had been any wrongdoing by anyone, they would be penalized.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, the minister has not indicated whether the RCMP report will be made public. That is an important matter.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that Crown corporations have enormous power over Canadian citizens, yet he wants to set up still another one, namely, Canagrex, with the power to buy and sell as compared to the power simply to promote and facilitate. Why would the minister be prepared to pass authority from this House to still another Crown corporation which can abuse the rights of all Canadians by favouring certain regions over others?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows full well that when Canagrex was before the committee I accepted an amendment from a member of the New Democratic Party which would make it mandatory for the Auditor General to review in depth the operations of Canagrex each year. 1 would challenge him to find provincial Crown corporations in the province of Alberta, which have tremendous authority, which are subject to that kind of scrutiny. He intimates, Madam Speaker, that we are creating something different here, that Crown corporations in Saskatchewan, British Columbia or Ontario do not have that kind of authority. They all have that kind of authority. He implies we are trying to create some kind of monster.

July 26, 1982
Government Notices of Motions
I challenge the hon. member to find any private sector company which has not had some faults in its operation. I am not saying and never did say that the Canadian Dairy Commission was perfect. But it has been investigated two or three times and, as I said earlier, if someone has done something wrong there, let them be found, charged, prosecuted, and let them take the consequences.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of an answer which the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) gave not once, but twice. 1 would like to give him the opportunity of correcting the record if he in fact made an error, as I think he did. It was a very important question.
I refer, Madam Speaker, to the $5,000 sum for which UFFI victims are eligible. I would like to ask the minister to clarify this, if he would. He said twice that the minimum amount available to victims would be $5,000.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member because question period is over. If the hon. member needs further clarification, he can get it tomorrow, but that is not a point of order.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, I would like to have an opportunity to raise a question of privilege arising out of the remarks of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) during question period. He implied that I had been twisting the arms of the members of the home owners' council to have them change their unanimous decisions of this weekend. I suggest the decisions are not unanimous, that the minister is mistaken, and he has maligned me-


Madam Speaker:: Order. That is not a question of privilege either.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
July 22, 1982-The Minister of Finance:
That the notices of ways and means motions to amend the Income Tax Act and the Income Tax Application Rules, 1971, tabled in the House on June 28, 1982, be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and that the committee shall report its findings thereon no later than September 30, 1982: provided that, if the House is not sitting when the report
has been completed, the report may be deposited with the Clerk of the House and shall thereupon be deemed to have been laid upon the Table.
Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to section (2) of Standing Order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders later this day, or at the next sitting of the House.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,295 and 4,356.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	In (a) 1979 (b) 1980 (c) 1981, how many days did each of Canada's destroyers spend at sea?
2.	What percentage of the defence budget, exclusive of training, was manpower related costs for the fiscal year (a) 1979-80 (b) 1980-81 (c) 1981-82 (d) 1982-83?
3.	For the same years, what percentage of the defence budget was training related?
4.	In terms of new recruits and skilled personnel, what was the percentage of eligibles re-enlisting in (a) the Mobile Command (b) the Maritime Command (c) the Air Command (d) any others for the fiscal year (i) 1978-79 (ii) 1979-80 (iii) 1980-81 (iv) 1981-82?


Mr. George Henderson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: 1. See table below.
2.	(a)	1979/80-57.5	percent
(b)	1980/81-54.9 percent
(c)	1981 /82-54.6 per cent (forecast)
(d)	1982/83-52.0 per cent (estimates)
The above percentages include pay and allowances for both military and civilian personnel, contributions and payments in respect of personnel benefit plans and personnel support such as food and clothing.
3.	(a)	1979/80-13.0	per cent(b)	1980/81 -12.6	per cent(c)	1981 /82-12.4	per cent (forecast)(d)	1982/83-11.9 per cent (estimates)
The above percentages include pay and allowances for military and civilian personnel as well as operations, maintenance and capital expenditures.
4.	Since statistical data is not kept on the basis of functional commands, information has been grouped by trades specific to navy, army and air force plus those common to all three environments. The statistics for re-enrolment (after having
July 26, 1982

been released) and re-engagement (after having completed the basic engagement) are listed in tables I and II below.
Sea Days* for Canada's Destroyers 1979, 1980 and 1981
1979	1980	1981Algonquin	89	60	46Annapolis	60	129	102Assiniboine	42	106	93Athabaskan	118	123	101Fraser	92	120	59Gatineau	117	107	95Huron	39	99	90Iroquois	116	99	96Kootenay	57	99	104Mackenzie	123	123	35Margaree	101	32	32Nipigon	124	74	118Ottawa	119	115	80Qu'Appelle	124	129	106Restigouche	130	103	4Saguenay	70	49	106Saskatchewan	120	53	92Skeena	111	79	27Terra Nova	105	22	100Yukon	42	105	107
*A sea day is defined as a period of 24 hours underway, part days being cumulative. For example, a destroyer engaged in daily operations from 0800 until 1600 on three separate days would accumulate one sea day of service.
Note: The destroyers St. Croix, Columbia and Chaudiere were not operational during the period.
Order Paper Questions
Percentage Re-engaged	49.4	48.3	42.3	50.3Navy Trades (per cent)	7.3	8.8	8.1	9.7Army Trades (per cent)	25.2	33.3	26.8	23.6Air Force Trades (per cent)	18.6	12.5	17.8	20.6Common Trades (per cent)	48.9	45.4	47.3	46.1


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Was the contract payment for the F-18A for 1982-83 $440 million and did the main estimates tabled in February 1982 show a budgeted expenditure of $751 million and, if so, for what purpose is the extra $311 million to be used?
2.	What are the projected costs for each year of the contract for the F-18A, broken down into (a) contract payment (b) inflation (c) exchange (d) other expenses?


George Roland Henderson: 1. Since the main estimates were tabled in February, 1982, some figures had to be adjusted to take into account new data on economic price adjustment and exchange rates. As a result, the 1982/83 budgeted expenditures for the CF-18 program now stand at S802M.
The original contract with McDonnell Douglas Corporation for the supply of 137 aircraft and ancillary equipments called for a fiscal year 1982-83 payment of $440 million. The contract has been amended to cover in part the purchase of a 138th aircraft and necessary engineering changes bringing to S448M the 1982/83 payment schedule.
An economic price adjustment clause obligates either party to reimburse or credit the other yearly for the difference between actual inflation and the 8 per cent contract baseline. Actual inflation in the United States aeronautical sector has been higher than the 8 per cent baseline provided for in the contract and as a consequence, the projected FY 1982-83 payment to the contractor will be approximately $500 million in U.S. dollars.
	Table 1			
	Re-enrolment			
1978/79	1979/80	1980/81	1981/82Total Enrolment (other ranks)	7,062	8,405	10,320	10,933Percentage Re-Enrollees	7.00	4.97	5.88	6.70Navy Trades (per cent)	0.96	0.78	0.89	0.86Army Trades (per cent)	2.66	1.85	2.13	2.33Air Force Trades (per cent)	0.66	0.27	0.52	0.61Common Trades (per cent)	2.72	2.05	2.34	2.90Table II	Re-engagement	1978/79	1979/80	1980/81	1981/82Total Number Eligible to Re-engage	9,320	10,780	9,862	9,521
The difference between the $500 million payment for the aircraft contract and the budgeted expenditure of $802 million is for exchange ($103M) related to the contract payment and other expenses ($199M) for a total of $302 million.
Note 1: Other expenses cover program elements such as spares, aircraft maintenance support equipment, simulators, missiles, infrastructure, engineering changes, training courses and hardware, publications, research and development charges, federal sales tax and program management charges.
2. (a), (b), (c) and (d) The projected contract payments, inflation, exchange premiums and other expenses for each year of the program are as indicated below:
Aircraft Contract
Other
Millions	Payment (a)	Inflation (b)	Exchange (c)	Expenses (d)	Total
Previous					
Years (actual)	331	116	66	108	505FY 82/83	500	219	103	199	802
July 26, 1982
Order Paper Questions
		Aircraft Contract		Other	
Millions	Payment	Inflation	Exchange	Expenses	Total(a)	(b)	(c)	(d)	83/84	533	268	107	405	1,04584/85	478	259	97	412	98785/86	403	233	83	369	85586/87	336	209	68	292	69687/88	103	69	20	127	25088/89	16	11	3	35	54Total	2,700	1,384	547	1,947	5,194
Note 2: The figures for inflation of the aircraft contract column (b) are included in the yearly aircraft contract payments listed in column (a).
Note 3: The "other expenses" total (see note 1) in column
(d)	also include inflation and exchange totalling S355M and S203M respectively.
Note 4: The sum of columns (a), (c) and (d) represents total expenditures.


David P. Smith: I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
[ Translation]


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


Dave Nickerson: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he yet has an answer to question No. 4,344. Some time ago the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said there was a committee of public officials from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development looking into the important question of northern taxation. I have searched high and low in that department and have not been able to find any public official who will admit to being a member of that committee.
It would seem to be a very simple question, and of course it would not be embarrassing to the government at all unless, of course, the minister has misled the House and no such committee exists.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I do not have the question or a progress report in front of me, but I will make an inquiry on behalf of the hon. member.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-92, An Act to amend the National Harbours Board Act, the Government Harbours and Piers Act, the Harbour Commissions Act, the Canada Shipping Act and the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport.
Madam Speaker:: There are eight motions standing on the notice paper at report stage of Bill C-92. Motions Nos. 1, 3, 7 and 8 should be debated separately and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 2 and 4 should be grouped for debate, and because both motions are concerned with the principle of financial self-sufficiency, a vote on motion No. 2 will dispose of motion No. 4. Motions Nos. 5 and 6 will be debated together and voted on separately.


Ian Deans: Motion No. 1
July 23, 1982-That Bill C-92, an act to amend the National Harbours Board Act, the Government Harbours and Piers Act, the Harbour Commissions Act, the Canada Shipping Act and the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, be amended in Clause 2 adding immediately after line 17 at page 3 the following:
"(/) shall, where possible, attempt to complement the development of a
Canadian marine industrial strategy."


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, this motion follows very closely an amendment we presented in committee which asks that the bill have an additional objective. In committee we had asked that there be a specific statement which encourages Canadian traffic to move through Canadian ports. We thought this was most important because it is common knowledge that there is a good deal of Canadian traffic now going through American ports which should be going through Canadian ports. That was voted down in committee and we asked that it be added.
We now have an amendment from the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) which states that the port policy shall, where possible, attempt to complement the development of the Canadian marine industrial strategy. Members of this House surely know that it is the position of this party, and I would hope of all parties, that the time is long overdue when we must develop our own shipping to a much greater degree. Most of our ships are not built in Canada or manned by Canadians. Quite frequently, of course, it is ships of convenience which come into our ports and carry out goods at very reduced prices.
As part of a marine industrial strategy we feel very strongly that there must be training programs for people who want to get into the shipping industry. If you meet with marine unions and with the people who have had a long history on the docks and in the industry, they are all in their late middle age or older. It is really criminal, Mr. Speaker, that young people in
July 26, 1982

our country are not being trained in the necessary skills for the marine industry. In fact, many of our skilled people come from overseas. It is important that we have a positive program of shipbuilding. Space should be reserved for this in the development of our ports. There should be a real promotion of the shipbuilding industry. No longer do we want to see docks made in Japan with a subsidy from this government and then towed to the port of Vancouver. I support this amendment and I hope other parties will as well.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, the amendment in essence commends the support of everybody in this chamber. However, I have some reservation as to whether this is the proper bill under which it should be debated. In any event, the end sought by the amendment is commendable and should be given serious consideration by this government.
In the last three or four days 1 have attempted frequently to rise to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) what the Japanese trade officials said to him when he put the specific question, as he alleges, as to who will transport our Canadian natural resources from our country to theirs and other Asian nations. In that case it refers specifically to gas, but there is also the question of coal.
When the government under the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was defeated by the NDP and the reigning Liberal government, the then minister of transport, the distinguished hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), had gone 90 per cent of the way toward the gradual establishment of a merchant marine for Canada. It was then killed. It is dead.
The holier-than-thou attitude of my friends to the left seems to promote the development of a marine strategy for Canada to a very high level. They conveniently forget that just two short years ago the end they are now seeking to achieve would have been accomplished had they not got into bed with my friends across the way. That is just one example. I am sure dozens of members on this side of the House can cite amendments which, had they not got into a holy alliance two years ago, would now be effective. That end will I support without any question. Whatever the amendment in principle means, if it does mean the development of a maritime strategy for this country, it could only be supported and endorsed. Indeed, it has to be supported and endorsed. If it means greater safety, if there is some way we can use ports legislation to create an understanding and awareness of the need for greater safety and greater training, then by all means let us support it.
It is a matter of some regret that the member would use this ports legislation to bring in an amendment that should be dealt with somewhere else. It should be dealt with in direct confrontation with this government over its failure to establish a marine strategy for this country, to re-establish a Canadian merchant marine, to reinforce in the minds of Canadians and in statute the urgency of Canada getting back some of the $4 billion or $5 billion annually that goes offshore to foreign cartels for the movement of our goods and the importation of
Canada Ports Corporation Act
goods and services. It is bad enough when they are transported directly by water, and even worse when done indirectly through ports in the United States. I will not belabour that point.
In principle, the amendment directs itself to a very worthwhile principle. I am not sure that Bill C-92, to establish a national ports corporation and a series of local port corporations, is the vehicle to do it. However, it gives us an opportunity to shed a little light on what the sponsor of this amendment has been attempting to do in recent weeks. By all means it has that type of general endorsement and support.
The government has been remiss. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) more than any other in this chamber is perfectly aware of missed opportunities. Foreign vessels have been hauling natural resources out of our north such as paper, coal and gas. This is occurring day in and day out. These foreign-owned vessels are crewed by other than Canadians. In terms of wheat, this involves billions. Not a bushel leaves Canada on a Canadian-registered, Canadian-crewed, Canadian-owned vessel. Why not? Thousands of jobs are at stake. It is either an absence of vision or an absence of will.
I suspect it is that we fall prey to the difficulty that occurs from time to time in this chamber. When a good idea is put forward, if it does not come from the government it is rejected. It is amoral to have put aside the work of the former minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville, who had put in place the steps that would have led to the gradual development of a Canadian merchant marine and, therefore, the resolution of this problem, albeit this government has been preoccupied. However, why it has not put in place in recent years a new national transportation act, I will never understand.
We have 27 horses in front of a vehicle that does not exist. We are entering into a debate that will be over later today. For the most part, hon. members will be pleased when it is over. However, we have in front of us dozens of horses without a vehicle. It is not in tune with the realities of the world today. There is no vehicle to load or to pull. The National Transportation Act is outdated. Its principal opening statement is outdated. It does not meet the needs for the balance of this century.
I support the principle of the amendment. However, I have some doubt as to whether this is the proper place to deal with it. 1 commend the Johnnys-come-lately to my left for having thought to see some two years after the fact whether they did let the horse out of the barn by failing to close the door.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) is seeking the floor. He was not in his place when the amendment in his name was introduced, and he is deemed to have spoken. Is there the unanimous consent of the House for the hon. member for Comox-Powell River to speak at this point?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

July 26, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act


Raymond John Skelly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I certainly would like to thank my colleagues for allowing me this opportunity to slip through the door and make some comments. I would also like to offer my thanks for the somewhat off-centre support of the previous speaker.
1 recognize the job which was done in this sphere by the former minister of state for marine transportation and the former Conservative government, it is unfortunate that when a government is hanged, for whatever reasons, we generally lose some good programs with the bad. I was certainly a strong supporter of the previous government's efforts with regard to this particular matter, and 1 hope when this amendment is put that the Conservatives, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the Liberal Party support it.
In my speech at second reading of this bill I mentioned that it was extremely important that we provide direction in this legislation to the administrators of ports so that they can begin to develop and enhance linkages with other functions in addition to direct port functions. When there are spin-offs from actions taken by administrators of ports, we should attempt to capture those spin-offs. In the bill we should provide policy guidance for administrators so that they can develop and enhance a marine industrial strategy. If we were to do that, I think we would be moving in a very positive direction.
There should also be policy statements in other legislative initiatives so that there can be linkage between one body and another. I suggest there may well be an opportunity to make that kind of statement in the Canagrex bill. However, suffice it to say that I would like to have an indication from the Minister of Transport that he is willing to accept the basic concept within this amendment.
1 would like to cite four examples of why administrative guidance in the bill is necessary. It basically would help to capture tens of thousands of jobs and enormous revenues associated with related or complementary marine industrial activities.
What really brought on this amendment was the recent announcement by Dome Petroleum that it would become involved in shipyard development on the west coast. While seeking support for the Rim gas project, Dome went up and down the west coast telling a number of communities that there would be a shipyard developed and that it would be used to build two of four proposed LNG carriers to carry natural gas to Japan from British Columbia. A year later, last Friday we saw in the newspapers that Dome Petroleum had been given the go ahead by the province of British Columbia, and Dome announced that the marine industrial activities related to this project would accrue to Japan. It was announced that not four carriers would be built, but five, and that all of them would likely be built in Japan. Each of those LNG carriers represents 2.5 million hours of employment. Just the containment system on one of those vessels would put 400 individuals to work for two and a half years. We are giving up an enormous number of jobs, about 2,000, for two and a half years on just that one order.
We must understand that a drydock is part of a port facility. It is part of the interplay and the organic growth between ports and other allied functions. Dome Petroleum decided last year that it wanted to build a drydock for the Beaufort Sea. That project was bid on by a Vancouver company, but Dome decided it would be better built in Japan and those jobs were created offshore. Dome Petroleum is an example of a company into which the federal government is putting tremendous amounts of taxpayers' money, yet Dome is selling off resources at fire sale prices. The industrial spin-offs are going to Japan, basically, and that is wrong.
In the administration and development of ports it is imperative that the administrators be given policy guidance and that benefits be captured for Canadians in the placement and development of other marine activities which enhance or relate to a certain port.
The second example I would like to cite is the case of the port at Prince Rupert. That port involves Federal Commerce and Navigation and the National Harbours Board. Federal Commerce and Navigation will be shipping coal to Japan in four large bulk carriers. Federal Commerce and Navigation, a Canadian company, in conjunction with the National Harbours Board and a number of others, will be developing this project and receiving government funds and assistance. However, on the other side of the coin, two of those four large bulk carriers will be built in Korea and the other two in Belgium. That is absolutely ridiculous in terms of an economic strategy. What has happened, basically, is that the government has given up, or given away by default, tens of thousands of jobs associated with this, plus the revenue which would accrue.
Today in the House and every day for the past week statements have been made by hon. members on all sides of the House which have indicated a sincere commitment. These statements have not been Johnny-come-lately statements. There is tremendous potential in the marine industrial development field and the government must act on it.
CP Ships has to be the most blatant example of contempt for Canadians. Today there was a rather crude attempt to bootleg a question into this House. I wonder how the government can explain the appointment of Ian Sinclair, the chief executive officer of Canadian Pacific, to lead the Canadian economy out of the Liberal wilderness. One of the subsidiaries of CP has 40 ships which it will not register in Canada. These ships carry Canadian goods to and from many parts of the world. About 1,500 to 2,000 jobs are directly associated with those ships. They have British officers and foreign crews. The money they earn from transporting goods is deposited in Bermuda to avoid the payment of tax. To my way of thinking that is absolutely unscrupulous, and to appoint Ian Sinclair as economic adviser lacks any wisdom whatsoever.
We have the same problem with Federal Commerce and Navigation. That company will be involved with Dome in the Arctic Pilot Project. There will be four LNG carriers which will have state of the art equipment. They will have cold-temperature steel and ice-hardened hulls, and they will be working in Arctic areas. If that project goes ahead with those
July 26, 1982

two companies, because of their very poor track records and the absolute vacuum in government policy in this area, the result will be that those four carriers will probably be built in Finland or some other European country.
Just to recap, it is imperative that this government get off its hands and begin to shape and develop a marine industrial strategy. It seems that the government is absolutely oblivious to the fact that important benefits are being given away. The Department of Finance, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the Department of Transport are all involved. The Department of Fisheries and Oceans is involved, as is the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. All these departments seem to be working at cross-purposes. There does not seem to be a sense of policy direction. Each department has its own goals and, unfortunately, in the competitive building of their empires we wind up with the chaos in the marine industries we have today. We are selling off resources at fire sale prices. Ships to carry Canadian goods are being built in foreign countries.
The proposal we have put forward is a needed change. The previous speaker spoke of the initiatives his government took. This government has taken no taken initiatives, and because of the latest insult by Dome Petroleum to the people of the west coast, we have written to every municipality on the coast of British Columbia asking that they pass resolutions and send telegrams to this government deploring its failure to fill this policy vacuum. We have written to every marine industrial union, every marine operating union and every shipbuilder asking them to pass the same kinds of resolutions and to send them to the Premier of British Columbia and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). We have asked them to appoint representatives who can come together in a meeting to develop a steering committee. We have asked them to form a common front lobbying organization to meet face to face with the Premier of British Columbia and his ministers and bureaucrats-who are in competition within the same government- and to demand action on this issue. Once that is resolved provincially, they should come to Ottawa and confront the Prime Minister with the problem of the loss of jobs in British Columbia and confront these ministers and bureaucrats as well. They will come, because tens of thousands of British Columbians are out of work. They need that employment, Mr. Speaker. The province is roughly $1 billion in the hole. It virtually amounts to negligence to give away those sources of revenue, without even taking into account the revenue that would accrue to Canada as a whole.
It is vitally important to develop a marine industrial strategy to capture those benefits. It is unfortunate that the people who are working and who are busy must expend their resources on such massive efforts to convince governments of what is obvious.
This should be happening in other regions of the country as well. The Atlantic region should be forming a common front
Canada Ports Corporation Act
organization to lobby the provinces and the federal government. In Quebec by 1983 two shipyards will lay off 2,000 people because the order books are empty beyond that time and they will lose jobs to foreigners. In Ontario there is the same kind of problem. In the House the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) has appealed to the government for action on many occasions. Unfortunately, members on the government side continue to tell us about the office of industrial benefits. The last time they told us about this grand initiative they compared it to the offshore supply office in Great Britain in which thousands of people are involved. And the last time we were told about Canada's initiative, 24 people were involved in projecting this two or three decades into the next century.
The Canada Oil and Gas Act was held up because it is pitifully weak. The manpower procurement section was hopeless, as was the provision to capture the industrial spin-off. Eventually, in order to resolve the impasse, when we realized that the ministers would not strengthen the provisions in the legislation, we settled for their appearing before the committee, in camera, to explain the mechanisms they would use to develop and capture those industrial benefits. They came up with the invention of the office of industrial benefits, but it does not have any direct authority, nor the human or financial resources to carry out a mandate such as is before us today.
If the government chooses to respond to this, I would plead with it not to use those ludicrous examples of government initiative. I implore the government to present a marine industrial strategy, a mechanism by which we can capture the benefits which we are literally giving away by default to the Asians and Europeans.
1 urge members of the House to accept the amendment that I have put forward, Mr. Speaker. It does not in any way hamper the thrust of the bill but simply asks the administrators of Canadian ports, whenever possible, to enhance other benefits that result from their activities and to make a slight effort to capture them.
There is another example we could use in order to bring to shore ships owned by Canadian companies but registered in foreign countries and sailed by foreign crews. The United Nations commission on trade and development advocated the adoptions of a resolution by all member nations that would provide for 40 per cent of the exports and imports of a country being carried in its own flagships. The trading partner would carry the other 40 per cent and 20 per cent would be available to itinerant carriers.
If we were to adopt that resolution and insist that our 40 per cent be carried in Canadian bottoms and, if there were no Canadian hulls available, that our trading partners be given our share of the trade for future consideration, then an opportunity would exist to allow those Canadian-owned foreign registered vessels one year's grace to be registered in Canada and carry Canadian crews. After that year of grace, they would then forever hold their peace. They would then be on the lowest priority for any Canadian cargo coming or going to

July 26, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
this country. They would have to wait until Canadian registered ships were filled, then the ships of our trading partners, then any others and then their vessels would be eligible.
Unfortunately, the government has not put that policy in position. But if the government would adopt the UNCTAD resolution and insist on a one-year grace period with no taxation benefits and no incentives-either bring the Canadian ships to shore or do not carry Canadian cargoes-there would be a stampede to develop a Canadian merchant fleet.
[ Translation]


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to say a few words to thank the members of the Committee on Transport and Communications who worked very hard on Bill C-92, and had quite a few meetings in addition to their regular schedule. I therefore wish to express my gratitude.

In the committee report amendments have been made to nine clauses and sometimes there was more than one amendment per clause. These amendments are often of a technical nature and a few are of a substantive or quasi-substantive nature. For example, the contributions made by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) and the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) to Clause 13(32) with respect to the tabling of the annual report and its automatic reference to the standing committee and the automatic reference of ministerial directives to the standing committee are of a rather substantive nature.
1 might underline that there are not only government amendments but two are from the New Democratic Party, from the hon. member for Regina West and the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), three are from the Progressive Conservative Party, one from the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, and two from the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook).
The government has already indicated that it is prepared to accept the committee report in its entirety as well as a number of amendments which will be introduced at this stage of the proceedings this afternoon.
Nevertheless, I should like to reject the first one, not that the motion is not worthwhile in its attempt to "complement the development of a Canadian marine industrial strategy". That is a very good idea. There is no doubt that any industrial strategy in any sector needs to be complemented. One agrees with that almost from the point of departure-


Raymond John Skelly: Then why don't you do it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I don't think we should spend the afternoon talking only about a deep sea fleet for Canada, which is only one aspect of a marine industrial strategy. I do not think we should become obsessed with this single issue which, though important, is not the main purpose of this afternoon's debate.
As the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) knows, an industrial strategy is not to be found in a single bill; it is to be found in a body of laws, regulations and practices
which together constitutes an industrial strategy. This afternoon we are attending to the ports' aspect of this marine industrial strategy. Another day we will deal with coastal trade, another day with customs and another day with other aspects.


Raymond John Skelly: We will both be in the Senate by then!


Jean-Luc Pepin: I do not intend to go. This intention is a good one but, as my friend from Dartmouth-Halifax East has said, this is neither the time nor the place for it. I think we should concentrate on the bill at hand.
Another point I want to make is that the debate, which has taken place now over almost ten years, and particularly in the last two years, and the extensive consultations which have taken place, have not been on the deep sea fleet; they have been on ports policy. So my hon. friend is sort of sidetracking the main issue when he brings in this amendment on deep sea shipping. As my hon. friend knows, and he knows a good number of things, some of the ideas he has introduced this afternoon do not enjoy a very wide consensus in Canada today. There is quite a lot of division, particularly in his province, over these matters. So to come in now and introduce this as a major objective of Bill C-92 would be, in my view, divisive. As of now, most of the bill we have in front of us has been received in a mood of conciliation, so I think we should keep it that way. Consequently we on this side, Mr. Speaker, will vote against the motion.


Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself on the horns of a dilemma with this particular amendment, because if there is anything I dislike doing it is to encourage the "Liberal Party West", the NDP, when they come up with a good idea, because it does encourage them in other socialist thinking. However, the basic wording of the motion is something almost like motherhood, and nobody can disagree with that.
Then I have the dilemma of finding myself almost in agreement with the minister when he says the motion does not belong in the ports bill. I certainly do not want to encourage him either. However, when I look at this amendment and see that it is really one of those motherhood statements to the effect that we should have a marine policy in Canada, I do not think anyone disagrees with that. It is the right idea but is certainly in the wrong place. It has no business whatsoever being in the ports bill.
This bill deals with the administration of a port, but it does lead into any number of things. One of them, of course, is the terrible lack of action by this Liberal government in terms of an over-all ports transportation policy.
As an example, Mr. Speaker, why does the province of British Columbia find it necessary to import all of its liquor stocks for the Liquor Control Board of British Columbia through ports in Texas? I think part of the answer, of course, is perhaps a bit of shrinkage, if I may use that word, which
July 26, 1982

may take place on the docks. Nevertheless, that is legitimate business for the port of Vancouver or Prince Rupert.
Another example: why does a considerable amount of imports bound for Ontario come through the port of Oakland? Very simply, because the American railways have better transportation policies than this government has, and as a result it is cheaper to do it that way than to bring it into Vancouver, employ Canadians and use the Canadian rail system.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) has made a nice statement, but it does not go far enough because it does not deal with the total transportation complex in Canada. For that matter, neither does the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). He is so worried about the flak he is getting over VIA Rail, so worried about trying to maintain his power in terms of the control and operation of the ports in this country, that he really does not have the time to sit down and say, hey, how come this great nation at one point had one of the largest merchant fleets in the world, the fourth largest navy, but today we have difficulty getting a couple of corvettes ready to go to sea? The merchant marine has totally disappeared, at a cost of literally hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The hon. member is absolutely correct when he talks about $6 billion worth of wheat shipped out of Canada in foreign bottoms. 1 am not suggesting that we do not sell wheat unless it is shipped in a Canadian bottom, but I am suggesting that he is quite correct when he talks about percentages. We are probably the only major exporter in the world which does not have some kind of firm policy and legislation which says: "If you want our wheat, we are delighted to sell it to you, but a percentage"-whether it is 30 per cent, 40 per cent or 60 per cent-"must be transported in Canadian ships." The same thing applies to all other exports from this country. The same thing applies to the vast amount of material we import. A percentage must be in Canadian bottoms. This would revitalize the whole industry right off the bat.
As far as shipbuilding is concerned, when I look at the losses this government has suffered at the expense of the Canadian people in any number of wild schemes-Atomic Energy of Canada for one, where they lose money even if they sell something-surely to goodness there is absolutely no excuse for the literally thousands and thousands of shipyard workers being out of jobs with no hope of getting them. I have seen the shipbuilding ways on the west coast; they are empty and they should not be empty. There is no reason why something should not be built there. There is no reason why shipbuilding in Canada could not become a major industry. The answer I generally get to the question of shipbuilding in Canada is that the Koreans work cheaper, that the Japanese are more efficient with different and better technology in shipbuilding. Whatever happened to Canadian inventiveness, Mr. Speaker? Whatever happened to Canadian gumption? We did it for a lot of years and very efficiently, but we are not doing it now. We should be doing it.
I have talked to any number of sailors who would like to sail on a Canadian ship. The hon. member mentioned the CPR and
Canada Ports Corporation Act
their 40 ships under flags of convenience. The flag of convenience ships flying the flag of Liberia or Panama are really a blot on Canadian shipping and they deprive Canadians of jobs unnecessarily. I say unnecessarily because, again, although something is just slightly cheaper if done some other way, if you had to do it in the way we are suggesting, through a Canadian ship, then of course you might just have to be considerably more efficient.
I support the hon. member for Comox-Powell River on the thrust of his amendment, but 1 do not think it belongs in the ports bill. It belongs in a real transportation policy statement, which should also include the railways and their utilization in shipping goods from the ports to their destination. It should include the Great Lakes, and should include an over-all industrial plan of one kind or another. We do not have any such thing. I wonder if there is anyone in the Department of Transport who even thinks about it once in a while. The minister nods his head; he says they think about it once in a while. Get some of their thoughts on paper and bring them back to the House so we can have a good look at them and perhaps develop something, so that eventually we can get these things unified to work in the best interests of all Canadians.
I am supporting the hon. member for Comox-Powell River. I think it is the right idea in the wrong place, but why not? Does it really make any difference? The proposed amendment is meaningless, but why not?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker,
I do not want to belabour the House, I just want to make a few comments on the use of the word "strategy". This word is in common usage by members of the New Democratic Party in calling for a national industrial strategy and in calling for, as the present amendment provides, a Canadian marine industrial strategy. I would like to remind the House that the term "strategy" has to do with the things that are done in the tents of generals. It has not to do with the orderly laying out of a long-range plan which identifies goals, alternative means to reach those goals and the financial and physical wherewithal in order to carry out the pursuit of those objectives.
I am trying to submit that the use of the term "industrial strategy", which many have come to regard as a buzzword because the term appears in every speech made by the New Democratic Party, really creates a picture of conspiring behind closed doors and adapting strategy or plan of attack in order to take the best advantage of your opponent or competitor.
If that is what the NDP is trying to urge by its constant reference to the development of an industrial strategy, then its members are aiding and abetting the government which with every change of cabinet and with every change of economic conditions is creating new strategies. Often they are failed strategies, as we have seen by recent budgets.
What I am about to suggest to the NDP is that its members consider using a term that evokes a positive notion about what we are trying to achieve. In this present amendment, the wording could have been "Canadian marine development
19684

July 26, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
plan" rather than an "industrial strategy". We might get much further with that wording because we could then talk about an open public dialogue, with the co-operation of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the government, as to what the ingredients and essential elements of that plan might be. We could deal with issues like the recent decision of Dome Petroleum to build an LNG plant near Prince Rupert and trade off deals with the Japanese and others that that would entail. We could talk about whether or not in letting contracts for the development of the new port at Ridley Island we would award contracts for piling pipe to a Japanese company, for the car dumpers to a British company or for the stacker reclaimer equipment to another Japanese company. Both in this House and in committee we could debate the essential ingredients for an industrial development plan and stop playing games and talking about strategizing.
We have heard the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray), ever since he was part of a conspiracy group that brought down the former Conservative government, talk about bringing in an industrial development strategy for Canada, but all we have seen is this document put out with the November 12 budget called "Economic Development for the Eighties". We have no specific delineation of objectives, targets and goals. We have not seen a critical and structural analysis of the alternative paths to achieving those goals, or a recommendation as to which would be the favourite path, how those goals could be achieved in terms of financial resources and in terms of the joint role of the private and public sector in pursuing those goals.
I am saying though that we should have a Canadian industrial plan and we should have a marine industrial plan which encompasses the ingredients of port policy. But for the life of me I cannot see how the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) feels that he can goad the government into developing this elusive Canadian industrial strategy by writing it into a piece of legislation. It has to be the consequence of sustained political pressure in this House both in question period and in committee. It will not achieve anything in terms of the goals which the hon. member is seeking by merely writing the words into a piece of legislation.
If the hon. member for Comox-Powell River reads subclauses (a) through (e) of Section 2(3), he will find that they do express the objectives of the national ports policy. We find these subclauses read:
(a)	is an effective instrument of support for the achievement of Canadian international trade objectives and of national, regional and local economic and social objectives;
(b)	is efficient;
(c)	provides accessibility and equitable treatment in the movement of goods and persons to users of Canadian ports;
(d)	provides local port corporations with a high degree of autonomy-
Some of the elements of an industrial plan for marine development are already there, and merely adding the words of his motion at the end of the subclause does not add anything of substance to Bill C-92 as presently presented.
If we had a Canadian marine industrial development plan within the context of a larger Canadian industrial development plan, then we would not have to deal with such a situation as the immature tactics of the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Lumley) have created by frustrating the import of Japanese automobiles. We would have long ago negotiated a Canada-Japan trade agreement parallel to the Canada-U.S. auto pact. We would not be playing these childish games with our very important trading partners in Japan and other Pacific countries. We would not have had to bring the Minister of Transport to a dead halt a year ago when he and his officials were dead-set to award contracts for the dredging at Roberts Bank to offshore, foreign firms when, in the final analysis, there was a reputable Canadian dredging company which won the bid after sustained representation by some members of British Columbia before the transport committee.
If we had a Canadian marine industrial development plan we would not have had the situation in 1974 or 1975 when representatives of the NDP government in British Columbia, with which the hon. member for Comox-Powell River enjoys some relationship, went to Stockholm, Sweden to buy a ferry because that government did not have the foresight to provide assistance to the west coast shipbuilding industry to build a ferry in British Columbia. We have hypocritical members in the New Democratic Party talking about Canada first and about an industrial development strategy favouring our shipbuilding industry, but their own friends in British Columbia went to Stockholm, Sweden to buy a large ferry which could have been manufactured in British Columbia using British Columbia labour.
We have had enough of this nonsense of people talking about strategy. Strategizing is exactly what we have been getting for far too long from the government opposite. Everything is done behind closed doors like a coterie of generals in their tents trying to decide how to stand off the enemy hordes. We should start planning out front with the public. We should take a logical and realistic approach to our trade relations with other countries, to our taxation policies, to our Canada first initiatives. We should do that in the context of an open public discussion through a standing committee, together with all Canadians across the country.
I suggest the words of the motion are wrong. The intent is admirable and commendable but the use of the term "strategy" is dead wrong.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I notice in the dictionary that the words "strategy" and "plan" mean the same thing. Might I have unanimous consent to change my motion, if it will remove the commi-pinko connotation of the word "strategy" and thus make my motion appealing to the Conservatives, by using the word "plan" in its place?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Yes, I will agree with that.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I will not take much time in the House to speak on this bill, but coming from the city of Victoria I should point out to the House how people feel about this bill.
First, 1 might say that we are quite concerned about the power that is going to flow to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) after this bill is passed. He has sufficient powers at the present time and to add to them seems to us unnecessary.
The port of Victoria being a public port, it will under the bill be entitled to a public harbour advisory committee whose role it will be to advise the minister. When the bill was published 1 wrote and asked the minister about this. Victoria does not have an ordinary harbour. Its harbour is scenic. Victoria's inner harbour is undergoing a lengthy and expensive process of removing a tank farm from the harbour shore. We did that solely because it was unsightly and we did not wish to have it in our harbour. When I think of what we might get in the way of a ministerially-appointed advisory committee, I would worry about it as much as the people around Peggy's Cove would worry if they found out that they were to have a refinery built there or were to start offloading LNG.
However, we have moved, by constant watchfulness of our own interests in Victoria, toward continued beautification of the harbour. For instance, it now has a walkaway around the entire inner harbour on the city side. As I say, this is not an ordinary kind of harbour. The rules made for Vancouver harbour or for Montreal harbour would not apply in Victoria at all. This is of great concern to us. For instance, they wanted to move the coast guard buildings to bring them together on the inner harbour or partly on the outer harbour, I suppose it was. The structure which they planned for that function was simply not acceptable to the people of Victoria. There was so much public outcry against it that the department had to look at it again and eventually come in, with a set of buildings which were acceptable. This is the kind of public participation in port planning which the city of Victoria wants. We know what we want there, but it seems to us that no one else seems to know.
In line with that, I wrote to the minister on March 25. I ended up by writing:
Your co-operation in ensuring a high level of municipal involvement would be appreciated.
I put that in after I had expressed my concern about the people who would be appointed to the harbour advisory committee.
The answer I received from the minister was not the one I had hoped for, by any means. I would respectfully submit that it may well have been part of a form letter which went to other members with harbours in their constituencies. He wrote:
Public harbour advisory councils will be made of three to five members, representative of local interests, and selected on the basis of their experience and capacity in port activities. The members shall be appointed by the Minister of Transport, to whom the council will provide its recommendations. Before appointing members, the advice of community leaders and port officials will be sought to ensure an effective council.
We have not had that kind of seeking out of advice from community leaders in Victoria. As far as I know to date, there
Canada Ports Corporation Act
has been a trip made to Victoria by some officials of the department, but we must have a continuing dialogue between the department and officials in Victoria, that is the municipal council, and the council of Esquimalt. It would be quite likely to cause a great deal of harm if the minister were to appoint people who were not in sympathy with the aims of the city fathers of the city of Victoria and the other municipalities involved.
I had hoped the minister would realize this, carry on negotiations out there and give us some intimation of who he was planning to appoint. If it is to be a bunch of Liberal hacks left over from some of the 78 constituencies which they lost in the west in the last election, then we would be better off without them. If we get that kind of personnel on the committee, believe me, there will be extreme difficulty in the ports bill operating in that particular city.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak for a few moments in connection with the port and harbour of St. John's Newfoundland, while we are considering this bill. First of all, I want to point out that St. John's is one of the ports which comes under the old legislation that is being replaced by the present legislation. There are 14 ports, of which St. John's, Newfoundland, is one. Presumably St. John's, Newfoundland will be expected to become a local ports corporation at some future date if the legislation which we are considering now is passed by the House.
Also I want to point out to the minister that the port of St. John's, Newfoundland, which is a major port in that capital city, has had no major capital expenditures in connection with that facility since 1965. Of course, the expenditures in 1965 were a result of a program commenced by the Diefenbaker administration to improve the harbour facilities in St. John's. If we look at St. John's and then look at other ports in Canada, by comparison huge sums have been spent in these other ports. I am not saying that the spending on these other ports is improper or not needed, but just let me point out that in the port of Saint John, New Brunswick, for example, over the period of the last ten years at least S80 to $90 million has been spent on capital projects.
I could look at all kinds of other ports across the country where I could point to tens and tens of millions of dollars being spent. I could point out the unfairness of what happened with respect to the synchrolift facility in the dockyard of St. John's, Newfoundland where the federal Government of Canada, which owns the dockyard, would not spend $21 million to instal a synchrolift that would make the dockyard viable, a dockyard which it was given free, gratis, in 1949. At the same time it spent double that amount in Halifax to assist in its new shipyard facilities and, of course, the same occurred in Vancouver and other ports. I will skip all that, but the harbour facilities in St. John's have not been improved since 1965.
There was an order in council on January 15, 1981 under which the government assumed responsibility for the long-term debt of the National Harbours Board. I believe it was about

July 26, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
$300 million, but the government assumed responsibility for that debt. It relieved the National Harbours Board of interest charges of something like $18.4 million as a result of taking over the debt. Those interest charges and that debt were incurred in other major ports which now have major capital improvements but are debt free.
The result of this action by the government was that these ports are debt free. They had major capital costs which they no longer have. There was no assistance to ports such as St. John's, Newfoundland, that did not have any capital expenditure debt which could be written off at that particular time. The port of St. John's has an operating deficit of about $2 million.
I want to ask the minister whether it is the plan to have the government assume the debts of ports such as St. John's which were not included or received no benefit from the assumption of the debt by order in council on January 15, 1981. For example, what is to happen to the debt of the port of St. John's Newfoundland?
Also I want to ask the minister whether it is the intention to have the port of St. John's, Newfoundland, become a local ports corporation. The legislation suggests that a port cannot become a local ports corporation unless it is found to be financially viable. As I understand it, at the present time the port of St. John's, Newfoundland with the facilities which it now has is not financially viable. Therefore, what is to happen? Is that port to be left in limbo and run directly from Ottawa, from the headquarters of the new ports corporation with its local advisory board, or will it be given the right to a local management and some assistance to obtain the facilities which will enable it to become financially self-supporting?
When the minister has a chance, I would like him to enlighten me on that particular area. The whole justification for this new act is that it will allow for decentralized authority, local port management and operation, rather than the highly centralized control under the present act. For example, St. John's has a purely advisory body at the moment. I think it is called the St. John's port authority board. It is purely advisory.
I do not think there is any statutory authority for their offices. Mr. Robert Innes is the chairman of that advisory body, but as far as I know there is no legal basis for his position at all. In any event, they only advise central headquarters. The other members are Mr. Humphries, regional director of the Canadian Coast Guard, Newfoundland region; Michael Walsh, general chairman of the Brotherhood and Railway Clerks Union-there are political appointments-Gerald Tilley, general manager of Carling O'Keefe Breweries of Canada Ltd.; and two others who are well-known Liberals. That does not mean to say that they do not have a contribution to make, but William Callahan was a former Liberal member of the House of Assembly and cabinet minister, and Mr. George Stockley was certainly a Liberal supporter in the past. Mr. Innes himself was a Liberal candidate in my byelection of 1976. God, how long have 1 been here? It has been too long!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Innes ran against me in the byelection of October 18, 1976, but I was returned on that occasion. It was the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) birthday. I was glad to be the birthday present they returned from St. John's West. I hope to be here when we finally give him the coup de grace when the next election comes.
In any event, Bob Innes was a Liberal candidate. That is not to say that he is not a fine gentleman and not doing a good job, because as far as I know, he is. Even a Liberal can have some virtue. There are some around who have something to be said for them. I do not know what has happened to me today! The spirit of kindliness and consideration has just swept over me. We have been here too long; it is time for this place to adjourn.
In any event, it is an illustration of the weakness of this system that patronage is so much a part of it. Of this six-man advisory council, at least three are certainly publicly identified Liberals, two are ex-candidates and, unfortunately, that does not give the right tone to such an important body. The port of St. John's harbour is very important to our whole economy, and to have the public feel that you must be a Liberal to be appointed to this advisory board and that is the only way you will get there unless we obtain power in the next election- when we do, we will certainly reverse that and put in the merit system. You will have to be a Conservative to merit any appointment then.
But that is a weakness of this system. I would prefer a system where certain bodies have to nominate representatives-and I think this is included in one of the amendments we are coming to-where at least half of the members would be nominated from various users of the port facilities, and the municipality. As I said, I have nothing against these gentlemen and they are doing their best against very high odds.
I also want to suggest to the minister that it is essential when this legislation is passed that the minor ports of Canada, of which St. John's is one in the context of Vancouver, and giant ports like Halifax and Toronto, have representatives on the national board of directors of this new corporation that we are setting up.
It is my understanding that of the 11 directors who will be on the board of this new corporation, three will be port authority chairmen. If this is the case and if I have my facts correct, then I suggest to the minister that he should make sure that these chairmen do not just come from Montreal, Vancouver and Halifax or from the three largest ports, and that, if at all possible, we have at least one from every province. There certainly should be a representative from Newfoundland-I suggest from the Port of St. John's-on the new board of directors of this authority. We have a Newfoundland representative on the board of Air Canada, another good Liberal. He raised funds and did his best to have me defeated in the 1976 byelection. I will do my best to see that he is transferred from Air Canada when we take our rightful place in office. But we do have a representative on the board of Air Canada
July 26, 1982

and a representative on the board of the CNR, and therefore I suggest that it is very important-even more important-for us to have a representative of the province on the new Canada Ports Corporation.
Another point I wanted to make to the minister is that all of the transportation spending in Newfoundland in the last few years has been on modes other than the port of St. John's, which badly needs new facilities. St. John's has been trying to get new container facilities since 1976. It has been seeking $19.6 million, the cost some years ago of contructing the container facilities that are needed, which was turned down by the Treasury Board after my election in the byelection of 1976.
1 do not know if there is any connection between those two events. In any event, St. John's has been trying since then to obtain funding for this very necessary facility and there has not been any funding.
As the minister knows, there has been a major revitalization program for the railway; I believe it is $77 million. The harbour needs funds as well or it will fall into disuse. The minister has also announced spending of $70 million; $48 million for highways and $20 million for new airstrips on the Labrador coast. All this is necessary but 1 want to point out to him that it is necessary to spend some money on the port of St. John's, particularly now with the new set-up that is envisaged in this legislation.
I know that we do not have too much time, but while speaking about St. John's, it is extremely important that a freezer facility be constructed at the west end finger pier that would enable the transshipment of fish which are unloaded from one vessel to be stored in the freezer facility and then transferred to another vessel for shipment. This would give the longshoremen at St. John's very badly needed employment. This freezer facility would also enable ships to store cargo when they had to go on the synchrolift to be repaired. This freezer facility is an important issue in St. John's. I hope the minister or this new corporation will see that the necessary steps are taken.
One final point 1 would like to make while talking about the port of St. John's is that we have 276 registered fishermen in the port of St. John's. Anyone who travels through the narrows, as we call them, through that majestic entrance into St. John's harbour, with Cabot Tower located on Signal Hill and where the first telegraph message was sent across the Atlantic by Marconi at the beginning of the century, will see as they look down below at The Battery the residences of a number of fishermen perched on the rocks of The Battery. When one looks at the other side of the port in the district of St. John's West, Fort Amherst, one will see the homes of other fishermen who are constituents of mine. St. John's is also a fishing port. It is not just a port but a fishing port where we have a major fish plant of National Sea Products Limited. Of course, it is supplied largely by trawlers but they also take inshore fish. There are also other smaller fishing operations in that port.
These fishermen are, at the moment, dispossessed. They do not have any proper facilities in the port of St. John's for landing their fish, and the place where they formerly landed their fish is now being dredged and construction has begun for
Canada Ports Corporation Act
the new synchrolift. These fishermen do not have proper landing facilities, haul-out equipment and storage facilities, all of which they badly need.
There is now a plan by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans to construct a facility at Prosser's Rock, but that even will take two or three years. It will be some time before it comes, a three-year period starting in 1983-84, we are told. The cost will be $4 million to $7 million for wharves and fish landing facilities. In the meantime we have 100 boats, 157 fishermen, 12.5 million pounds of fish that were caught last year from the port of St. John's which has a landed value of $2.5 million. We have workers there who are operating the two fish plants. The facilities for fishermen are badly needed.
We did propose a breakwater and facilities at The Battery but unfortunately the government, when it took over in 1980, stopped the plan that would see this carried out.
We have a number of users in the port of St. John's who have to be looked after. The fishermen are the most neglected of all of those users. 1 would like the minister, or the new port corporation, to see what they can do to help the Department of Fisheries and Oceans obtain some funds to instal proper facilities for these several hundred Newfoundland fishermen who are so important to the local economy.
Those are my remarks with reference to the port of St. John's. I would like to turn to another subject when we come to a relevant amendment, or to third reading, which I think is of great gravity and importance. It concerns a most deplorable situation in the port of Goose Bay, Labrador. It cannot be allowed to go any further without complete public ventilation.
I am not satisfied at all with any steps which the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has taken to rectify a situation of gouging the consumers of the Happy Valley-Labrador area of Newfoundland. I will expand on this subject at my next opportunity. If the minister can give me any information on these points, I would appreciate it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, most of the answers my hon. friend asks for are in the committee proceeding. Indeed, St. John's did not have many debts to be forgiven and consequently did not benefit as much as others did. A certain amount of debt was kept in the books for most of the ports, if not all. With respect to St. John's, it is $1.7 million but in Saint John, New Brunswick, it is $7.2 million. Montreal is $9,470 million, which gives some indication of the principle that was implemented in this situation.
I just want to emphasize the fact that should the port of St. John's ever have needs greater than its financial self-sufficiency can take, all ports, including St. John's, will be entitled to grants from the Canadian government. So, the concept of selfsufficiency, which is an important one, does not mean that if the needs are beyond the financial capacity of the ports for particular projects, the Government of Canada will stay idle.
With regard to the local port corporation, my information is that St. John's is eligible to become one. With regard to the composition of the Canada Ports Corporation, it will be

July 26, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
balanced by representation from all regions of Canada, in fairly equal numbers. These were some of the points which were raised.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to have the attention of the House. The minister had previously spoken. I assume it was with the unanimous consent of the House that he was recognized a second time.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion 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.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Skelly) negatived.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-92, An Act to amend the National Harbours Board Act, the Government Harbours and Piers Act, the Harbour Commissions Act, the Canada Shipping Act and the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out lines 24 and 25 at page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"the management thereof,"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Following the decision made earlier this day by the Speaker, motions Nos. 2 and 4 are to be grouped for debate. The Speaker ruled that because both motions are concerned with the principle of financial selfsufficiency, a vote on motion No. 2 would dispose of motion No. 4. Accordingly, I will also put motion No. 4 at this time, for purposes of debate.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Motion No. 4
That Bill C-92, An Act to amend the National Harbours Board Act, the Government Harbours and Piers Act, the Harbour Commissions Act, the Canada Shipping Act and the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 8 and 9 at page 11.
She said: Mr. Speaker, the subject of these amendments is economic, financial self-sufficiency in the case of local port corporations, better known as the Liberal policy of "user-pay" which, of course, is a policy which is fully supported by the Conservatives to my right. We are very concerned about these two clauses. I would just like to read for the record how Clause
2, under the objectives of the new port legislation, would read if amended as we propose:
(2) It is further declared that achievement of the objective of the national ports policy requires
(a) the establishment at ports of national or regional significance at which
there is demonstrated local interest in the management thereof and that are
expected to be financially self-sufficient-
That is the part of the bill with which we are concerned. We are fully in favour of local autonomy for as many ports in Canada as possible. We really do not agree that the whole criterion of financial self-sufficiency should be a prohibition to ports having a decentralized form of administration, having power within the regions to make their own decisions to the greatest possible degree and having their own board which is hopefully representative of the various levels of the region, the local levels of government and so on.
We are also concerned with the rather insidious wording of this clause. I wonder what is meant by "ports that are expected to be financially self-sufficient". Just what does that mean? If we take a look at the 15 ports which are listed as ports which may be eligible to become local port corporations, we find that quite a few of them have not been economically and financially self-sufficient in the past. For the record, I would like to list those 15 ports.
We heard about St. John's, Newfoundland from the hon. member who spoke quite eloquently. I am sure he knows it is not likely to be always financially self-sufficient, yet why should it not have local autonomy under good administrative practices, even if it occasionally does need some form of federal subsidy?
Halifax, Nova Scotia, is another port which I do not believe has been traditionally self-sufficient.
Then there is the port at Saint John, New Brunswick. In committee we heard of the great concern of one of the members, which we would share, that although the federal government has written off the debts of most ports, there is still a considerable debt in that case, and although it came through the province, there should certainly be fair treatment of that port. If it wants to become a local port corporation in the future, why should it not have that right, even if it may require some subsidization at some future time?
Belledune, New Brunswick, is another port. There are also Sept-Iles and Chicoutimi in Quebec. I do not believe those three ports have always been financially self-sufficient in the past. Baie des Ha! Ha! in Quebec has shown a profit, as has Trois Rivieres. These two ports have shown a profit and would probably qualify under this specific criterion. The port at Quebec City has not shown a profit, nor has the port at Montreal, which are both very important ports.
Prescott elevator, which handles mostly grain, has shown a profit, and so has Colborne elevator in Ontario, another grain elevator. So those are two which have some source of income.
The port of Churchill, Manitoba is one of the best examples of a very essential port, both from a regional and a national
July 26, 1982

point of view. It operates only part of the year, due to its location, but should certainly have the right to be a real port corporation with local autonomy, under its own local board, even though we know that it will probably not always continue to be financially self-sufficient.
The port of Vancouver is also financially self-sufficient. It has not found that it has had very much power over the funds it has taken in. It has not been ale to reinvest the funds into the kinds of development that are very much needed to upgrade the port, and it has only been allowed up to $50,000 in expenditures, which is not even enough for the improvement of wharfs. However, that port does show a surplus and would be eligible under this legislation, I assume.
In the past Prince Rupert has not always shown a surplus, nor has it always been financially independent. There have been many new developments in Prince Rupert which will undoubtedly increase its income and make it a part of the major development in the northern part of British Columbia.
I wanted to name those 15 ports for the record to show that this legislation is really very unfair. Will ports which cannot become financially self-sufficient be able to qualify under this legislation? We have heard that these 15 ports may be candidates for local port corporations. Of course, we know that one of the reasons at this time which may make them eligible is that the accumulated debt of all 15 national ports was written off by the federal government in 1980. It was approved by order in council on January 15, 1981. This accumulated debt was $742 million. Approximately $500 million went toward principal and $242 million went toward interest.
That is why we are pleased to hear at this particular time that the ports of Canada are in very good condition. It was a very good move to write off outstanding debts so they could have a fresh start as autonomous ports. But what will happen, as shown by our past history? While all 15 ports made a profit last year because of this write-off, it should be pointed out that 10 of the 15 ports ran up deficits over the last two years. This is an indication that these ports will face financial difficulty in the next decade. They cannot be expected to be financially independent all the time. The only ports which did not run a deficit over the two years were Baie des Ha! Ha!, Trois Rivieres, Prescott elevator, Col borne elevator and Vancouver, not very many of the 15 ports. This does not even include the larger ports. Some ports may start off in the black. In a particularly bad year or bad economic era, they may end up with a deficit and require a subsidy from the federal government. Would they lose their status as local port corporations or not be judged reliable enough to get in in the first place?
We object to this policy because it is the user-pay policy. My colleague will speak to this later. The principle of user-pay, in other words financial self-sufficiency, means that ports should be able to finance their operations totally from collected fees and tariffs. This would include any capital expenditures that may be required. 1 am most familiar with the port of Vancouver. However, most ports require modernization and updating
Canada Ports Corporation Act
with modern equipment in order to be competitive with each other and the American ports. This will require capital expenditures. A port which must borrow in order to expand will have to pay market interest rates on loans. This could force a port to increase its charges to a level where it is no longer competitive, forcing an undue hardship on any shipper using the port.
The port of Churchill is a good example. How could that port be expected to make up any deficit of its operational cost over income by charging higher rates to users of that port? We must have a port in northern Canada, an outlet to our northern waters. The few users of that northern port should not be expected to bear the additional financial costs of its being in the Arctic region.
Our ports must remain competitive and continue to serve the national interest as well as the interest of our exporters and importers. In order to do this, they should be eligible for some form of federal assistance when it is required. This should be carried out under a strict business arrangement. We fully agree that the port must have efficient and competent management.
If the federal government is putting extra money into a port, perhaps there could be some form of federal supervision. However, that port should not lose all power. In fact, the goal of this bill, which is to make the ports more efficient, would be undermined if we removed the local administration of a port. They cannot be treated like a child and told that they have to come back to big daddy in Ottawa to be looked after, even though there are all kinds of bureaucratic roadblocks, it would cost more money and does not add to efficiency.
Clause 2(a) requires that ports be financially self-sufficient. If this is a required objective, ten of the 15 national ports may not qualify to become local port corporations. The same can hold true of our amendment which is on page 11 and combined in this amendment. It states that the Canada ports corporation can petition for local port corporation status for any port which in the opinion of the Canada Ports Corporation will likely be self-sufficient.
It is not likely over the long term that many ports will be self-sufficient. Does that mean those ports cannot become local port corporations? I am going to be very interested in hearing the Conservative members speak to this. Those members, particularly those from the Vancouver area, have been very quiet about the needs of the less affluent ports in Canada. Those of us from Vancouver fight hard for more financial autonomy for Vancouver. As Members of Parliament we must be equally concerned with a national transportation and marine strategy for ports in other parts of the country.
Smaller ports with limited revenues will not always be able to raise the amount they need to cover their costs through tariffs and fees. If they did that, they would likely lose business. They would have to charge too much. It would not be financially feasible from the customer's point of view. Those ports would find it hard to survive. We need efficient management based on sound regional considerations and a sound

July 26, 1982
Adjournment Motion
national policy for each local port. Efficient management should be the criterion for a port becoming more administratively autonomous.
Efficiency requires a centralized administration. This is best suited to the regional situation. The National Harbours Board has not worked effectively because most decisions were made in Ottawa. Who in Ottawa really knows the immediate needs of ports on our east and west coasts? Rather than central control, there should be local autonomy for the ports, even those not financially independent. However, the federal government should be very concerned about the efficient management of those ports once they become local port corporations.
We object to the term "financial self-sufficiency", which is a requirement for a port to become a local port corporation. This whole bill is supposedly aimed at greater autonomy. It is contradictory. Only four or five ports will be eligible to remain as local port corporations. Also, those ports that have more expenditures than income must not increase their fees and tariffs to the point that it is a user-pay philosophy that is unrealistic. Where the market can accept it, the users should pay. However, that is not the case with all ports in Canada.
That objective is not feasible for certain smaller ports in Canada. We believe the criterion for achieving local port autonomy should be demonstrated efficiency. A port which is essential to the regional and national economy should be eligible for local port corporation status, even if it cannot always be financially self-sufficient. It should not be forced to raise rates beyond what is financially feasible for the region.
I will be very interested to hear from the other parties. We did not have support or consensus in committee on this matter. In a country as large and diverse as Canada and in the context of a national ports policy, it is essential that we be very concerned about smaller ports which cannot always be financially self-sufficient.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon)- Mines and mining-(a) Request for assistance, (b) Labour relations; the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens)- Export Development Corporation-Funds lent to New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority; the hon. member for
Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly)-The Constitution-Status of native women-(a) Attendance at constitutional conference, (b) Request that native women be represented.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-92, to amend the National Harbours Board Act, the Government Harbours and Piers Act, the Harbour Commissions Act, the Canada Shipping Act and the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport, and Motions Nos. 2 and 4 (Mrs. Mitchell).
Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, I think the oration-if I can call it that-of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) demonstrates the complete poverty of ideas in the minds of New Democratic Party members. I have heard nothing more off the point or which indicated more lack of understanding of what the bill is all about than what I heard from the hon. member. I am utterly amazed.
At one point in her speech the hon. member made a statement to the effect that "By golly, these little harbours should be allowed to become local port corporations". The hon. member said that if they had to be financially viable, they could not become local port corporations. With the greatest of respect, I remind the hon. member that there is a Harbour Commissions Act, and if she is suggesting that the Fraser River people or the New Westminster people would like to be local port corporations, I think she should do a little more homework on the subject because, quite frankly, as harbour commissions they have more autonomy than local port corporations and would not want to change. If anything, they should be going the other way.
The hon. member for Vancouver East also referred to the port of Churchill. She says it is going to lose money but should keep operating nonetheless. She said that any harbour in Canada which is losing money should be kept in operation. Surely to goodness the Canadian taxpayer is burdened enough without having to pay taxes to support totally uneconomic operations. I would trust even this government to evaluate any port which is losing money as to how valuable it is to the region or area it serves, and as to what alternatives there are, and perhaps to decide that a port should cease operations if it is losing taxpayers' money when another port can handle the job better, more efficiently and at a profit.
The whole philosophy of members of the NDP that they want to make profitability at ports their fourth or fifth concern disturbs me. Is that not really part of the problem with this country today? Is it not that kind of philosophy which really is
July 26, 1982

the problem with this government? We have a $20 billion deficit. When we study the cause of that deficit, we find that there is money wasted in a number of areas. If a port is not profitable, obviously it is being operated improperly. By that I mean it is trying to do too many things it cannot do because other ports are doing them.
I think this applies more to maritime ports than to west coast ports, but there is some rivalry between Nanaimo, Victoria, Prince Rupert, Vancouver, New Westminster and the Fraser ports. Each of them does what it can do best. Each uses its competitive advantage for whatever business it can attract. These ports do not lose money. However, if one of those small ports were to attempt to attract business which would lose money, according to what I have just heard from the hon. member for Vancouver East, that would be great and should be subsidized by the Canadian taxpayer. I am afraid I cannot accept that philosophy. I see no reason why the Saskatchewan wheat farmer or the Winnipeg shoe store clerk should be paying tax dollars to keep a port operating in a manner by which it does not even break even.


James Ross Fulton: Name the ones you would close, big shot.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I think the real answer is that this amendment must be defeated, because if there is anything a port should be doing, it should at least be trying to make a profit. It should try.


James Ross Fulton: You phony.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: The port of Churchill on Hudson Bay, which is at the end of a long railway, has been a viable port since the thirties. A great deal of grain has been shipped through that port.


James Ross Fulton: Tell us Tory policy, not this malarkey.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Could we have a little quiet in the rump down there, Mr. Speaker? It is difficult-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby has the floor.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Ask them to be civil.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: With all due respect, I am sure the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) will concede the floor to his colleague.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Yes, sir.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I want to say a couple of things about the port of Churchill in relation to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Vancouver East. If at this moment in time the port of Churchill cannot ship grain on an economic basis and if it cannot take the crops of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, or that portion of them which has always gone through Churchill, and ship them out at a cost which makes sense so that the port can operate at least at the break-even point, then we should close down the port of Churchill and let that grain go through the Great Lakes, where the bulk of it goes anyway. I do not believe
Canada Ports Corporation Act
the Canadian people are prepared to pay their tax dollars to keep something of that nature going if it has become a totally unviable enterprise. If we could only shut down a good many other government-operated enterprises which do not make profits, we might have-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if my friend would entertain a question at this point. I think it is quite important.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, when I am finished I will entertain a question. It will always be then. When we are finished our comments, we will take questions.
I believe the hon. member's question relates to the port of Churchill. If that port is not viable as an enterprise, it should be shut down because I do not believe the taxpayers of all Canada should pay for it. That is straightforward.
Some of the ports in the maritimes compete with each other. Sometimes they do so quite successfully and at other times not so successfully. With the involvement of local port corporations and the Canada Ports Corporation, those ports surely can come to a meeting of minds in terms of doing what they do best and most profitably. This could be done without becoming engaged in hard-nosed competition between, for example, Saint John and Halifax. That would cause them both to lose money. If they compete and both of them make money, we should by all means let them compete; but to suggest that profitability should be about the fifth or six priority for a port in Canada indicates to me a socialist way of thinking whereby profit should never be considered, regardless of the cost to the public.
I will take the hon. member's question now, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is about the port of Churchill. If I heard the hon. member correctly, he said that if the port of Churchill cannot ship grain at a profit or break even, it should be closed down. The port of Churchill is a very important port to my part of the country because we ship grain through that port. I wonder if the hon. member was speaking on behalf of the Conservative Party. Is that the philosophy of his party, or it the opinion of the hon. member?


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, the very obvious answer to that is that I am speaking for myself as a representative of all the taxpayers of Canada who would have to subsidize that port. Obviously, there are Conservatives in other parts of Canada who might feel differently about it, but that is a key factor about the Conservative Party: we at least are allowed to speak our minds as individuals with our own viewpoints.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a supplementary question, if I may, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon).


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I will try to be somewhat more gentle than my colleague. In

July 26, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
looking at the two amendments proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs Mitchell), motions Nos. 2 and 4, 1 note that motion No. 2 would strike from page 3 of the bill the phrase "and that are expected to be financially self-sufficient" and subsequently that Motion No. 4 would delete the phrase on page 11 of the bill "the port will likely be financially selfsufficient".
Once again the NDP is getting into a great panic about something of little consequence. The wording in the bill does not say that a local port operating as a local port corporation "shall be self-sufficient". Neither on page 3 nor on page 11 does the bill say a local port "shall be". It does not say anywhere in the bill that local ports which run in the red "shall be closed down" or "shall be expected to earn profits or balance their books". It does not say that anywhere. All it says in the bill is that ports will likely be financially self-sufficient or that ports are expected to be financially self-sufficient.
The point is that we have to provide some goals for the local port corporations to pursue. I am sure that the minister and members of the government would agree with that. We are at a time in our history when we have almost $120 billion in gross public debt, $20 billion of additional debt this year and a $17 billion cash requirement which the government supplements by dipping into the pension fund of public service employees for the extra $2 or $3 billion. We are facing a horrendous situation where young people cannot afford mortgages for homes, where businesses are going bankrupt and our industries cannot compete internationally. We have been living too long in a dream world, believing that we could socialize, nationalize and subsidize everything that cannot operate by itself.
If we could restore a degree of local autonomy to the financial management and long-range planning of our ports, they would become more productive. There would be less interference by layers of bureaucracy in Ottawa and the layer that this legislation envisages. If the ports were given a higher degree of local autonomy, they could get on with making decisions, making long-range plans, making investments without being delayed by a lot of the factors that are initiated supposedly in the national interest, but which in fact pull the country down. If our ports were in a more healthy state of competition one with the other, the would produce more volume and more tax revenue to be shared by all Canadians. I think it is high time we recognized that.
The situation is rather like that of a class of 20 students where, instead of the incentive system operating where they would be urged to generate grades in proportion to their ability and effort, at the end of the year the marks of the individual students would be combined and then averaged. Each student would obtain the same average mark, so the achiever who would otherwise have obtained a 85 or 90 per cent grade would receive 64.5 per cent and the sluggard who would have received 48 or 28 per cent, would also get 64.5 per cent. Pretty soon there would be a demoralized class of low achievers or non-achievers.
That is what we are producing in this country. By distributing the benefits, so-called, of effort equally among all, we destroy the basic incentive system that allows our society to prosper and grow.
I submit that if you followed the students in that class of 20 for two or three years, you would find that the average would slip from 64 per cent to 54 per cent to 48 per cent. Pretty soon it would be a failing class and would require a subsidy. Teachers who find that the class average is lower than 50 per cent-I have been a teacher and I know-would say that the incentive system had been destroyed so the marks should be augmented and all pushed above 50 per cent.
That is an exact analogy to the kind of subsidies our colleagues on the left are forever advocating and which destroy the spirit of this country, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is one of the worst offenders. In committee he showed righteous indignation, wailing and raving that if we asked the ports to be self-sufficient, that was an evil thing. He well knows that our young people cannot find jobs or afford homes today because we are borrowing too heavily. He knows that the CBC is subsidized to the tune of $650 million per year, that Air Canada got a $500 to $600 million transfusion three years ago and now Claude Taylor says they will need another one within a year. The CNR has come back to committee looking for another major subsidy and Petro-Canada is continually dipping into the Canadian taxpayer's pocket to subsidize the so-called initiative that was designed to pursue the national objectives of equity and fairness.
In fact, what we are doing is what the teacher would do to that class of achievers, and that is destroying the desire to achieve. Sooner or later it will be a class of failing students which will have to be subsidized by jacking the marks up so that they can obtain a passable grade. The achiever would be dispirited, and the sluggard would ask why bother as they will pass anyway.
That is exactly the situation in this country today. We are destroying the basic competitive, incentive system. I submit that the present wording of the bill before us incorporates that competitive opportunity for individual ports by encouraging them to operate on a self-sufficient basis. We are not heartless or cold and ruthless in this party. There is no one here who would say we are not in favour of helping where such help would be of benefit to the national interest. But we have seen too much of the slovenly, wasteful extravagance of an ever-diminishing pool of revenue which is only the measure of the over-all effort of individuals operating in a free society. That must be brought to a halt.
I commend the minister for including these clauses in the bill and I am totally against the suggestion that we should put all our national ports on the welfare rolls, as we have put so many Canadians on the welfare rolls.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to reply to the hon. member except to suggest that if
July 26, 1982

he wants a first rate example of vacuous remarks he should read his own speech tomorrow.
The hon. gentleman and the member who preceded him have not looked at the realities of operating transportation facilities in this country. In the history of the country they have never been self-sufficient nor will they become selfsufficient in the long term.
My colleague the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) mentioned the write-offs of debts. Back in 1936, $173 million was written off for local port authorities.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: That was a great year.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, the Tories had just finished being in power. In 1977-78 they wrote off another $252 million which was put into equity ownership by the Government of Canada, and a further $475 million was converted to an interest-free loan. Halifax had $54 million written off, Saint John $66 million, Chicoutimi $8.4 million, Quebec $104 million. Three Rivers $4 million-all those were total write-offs, transferred to equity. Interest free loans totalled $475 million, $100 million of which is owed by the port of Vancouver. I do not think any government that was in power would ever call in those debts; if it did, the port of Vancouver would go belly up the next month.
Like other transportation sectors, ports are capital intensive sectors of the economy; they require massive amounts of capital. To follow the user-pay principle to its logical conclusion, you would need cost recovery just to break even. I suspect what would happen is what happened before-the smaller ports would go broke and the bigger ports would run into rate wars with ports in the United States. Then they would be the first to run to the federal government asking to be bailed out, as has happened repeatedly over the decades.
A port, like a street, a sidewalk, a sewer and water system or highway, is a facility that everyone has to use, directly or indirectly; it is a public utility. If user-pay were followed to its logical conclusion, toll booths would be put up every four or five blocks and pedestrians would be charged two bits for walking on the sidewalk. Pedestrians do not pay anything toward the cement; the people who own the property on the street pay taxes. Followed to its logical conclusion you see how ridiculous it is. You can go back to the feudal ages of toll roads where the kings and dukes and the lords charged the peasants to walk, ride a horse or haul their produce down a road which belonged to the king or the lord.
These kings, dukes and lords over here see things like they did in the middle ages: if the port of Churchill cannot break even or make a profit, close it down. I hope the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) is invited to speak to the Churchill chamber of commerce, because I would like him to tell that to them. We will not have to bother, although we are going to tell them anyway.
In a country, Mr. Speaker, of three million square miles and only 25 million people, these birds over here want to compete
Canada Ports Corporation Act
in a champagne league with a beer operation. There is no way that individual ports, totally autonomous and on their own, can compete with the ports of our neighbour to the south. If you think the U.S. government is going to hold still for any kind of rate cutting or anything like that in Vancouver, you are dreaming in technicolour. If the government thinks that ports on the eastern seaboard of the United States are going to hold still while Halifax, St. John's and Montreal are siphoning off business from them, again it is dreaming. Part of co-operative federalism is that we share in a reasonable and equitable way the cost of providing services which all of us depend on directly and indirectly. That is more true of transportation than almost any other sector of our economy.
For those reasons, running our ports with a so-called businesslike user-pay policy will not succeed. I hope I turn out to be wrong, but I never thought I would live to see the day when Tories would support the user-pay policy of Otto Lang. I did not think the present minister would subscribe to it but he obviously is.
In converting all these debts, Mr. Speaker, we are now hopefully starting off most, if not all, of these ports with a clean slate. There are still some things wrong, and I sympathize a bit with the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), a port which I do not think was treated fairly in the debt rearrangement. That port has to pay interest on 86 per cent of its long-term debt structure compared to 4 per cent for Montreal and zero for Quebec and Vancouver. I hope the hon. member will talk to his friends in North Vancouver-Burnaby about that one.
Let us consider, Mr. Speaker, the unfortunate remarks of the hon. member about Churchill. It is funny that countries with less resources than we have, financial or economic, are able to operate Arctic ports for six to nine months of the year. I am thinking of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Russia, and even some of the ports in the northern islands of Japan. Churchill should be able to operate six or seven months of the year and then it might become a break-even operation. It might even make a buck the odd year. That requires a large capital investment, but the benefits of that investment mean lower grain and potash shipping costs and higher exports through that port will repay the investment. The question is, should that cost be paid only by our export customers? Because if it is, they are not going to buy from us. When the cost of transportation goes up for those kinds of products, you cannot pass it on to your customers. We found that out from bitter experience in the grain trade. But out of the port of Churchill the shipping rates are lower. We get hit in the head sometimes on marine insurance rates, but that port could be and should be at least a six or seven-month-a-year operation.
Just because we buried the old debts, Mr. Speaker, and thereby gave the federal government that much equity in the ports does not mean we can apply user-pay in the future, because ports are so capital intensive. They will be required to be competitive with U.S. ports. Our ports earned only a 2.5 per

July 26, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
cent return in 1980, and it is perfectly obvious they will not be able to raise enough capital in the future or they will lose money trying to pay the interest even if interest rates go down. Therefore the requirement in the bill that port corporations be totally self-sufficient is completely unrealistic. It has never worked before and it will not work in the future.
I would like someone to give me a list of ports around the world which are self-sufficient and have had no public investment or government subsidies. 1 do not care whether it is New York City, Seattle, San Francisco, New Orleans, Galveston or wherever, they have all been heavily subsidized, and you cannot expect one port in Canada to compete with the treasury of the United States or any other country. It will not work and it never has. As I said before, I hope I turn out to be wrong.
This bill is some kind of a compromise. I appreciate that it is an attempt by the government to come up somewhere between complete local autonomy and total government control of the operation. That is what the government is endeavouring to do. Typical of a Liberal government, because Liberals call themselves middle of the road, but that is where all the accidents happen. I do not think it is going to work, and I predict it will not work.
If I am lucky enough to be honoured by my voters to be here four or five years down the road, I predict that whoever is in government will be coming to Parliament with some refinancing or interest-free loans for a number of ports in this country. It is inevitable. If my hon. friend from North Vancou-ver-Burnaby and my hon. friend from Richmond-South Delta think that Vancouver can, forever and a day, operate on its own, again they are dreaming in technicolour. In fact, if they are so good I presume the new local port authority for Vancouver will want to pay back the $100 million that it owes to the government. I presume they will rush forward with a cheque the next day.
Without public input on behalf of all the people of Canada, Mr. Speaker, the ports I have listed could never have survived let alone grow. That is the reality of transportation in this country, the reality of ports. I suppose I have to give the minister credit; it is an honest attempt to arrive at something in between what was done earlier and what is done now. I wish him well. I hope it succeeds, but I predict it will not.


Jean-Luc Pepin: You are a pessimist.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The bill does provide for something I presume the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby does not agree with. It provides an opportunity for cross-subsidization within the ports system. This was not possible under the existing National Harbours Board Act which requires special parliamentary approval for each individual port. The Canada Ports Corporation has access to surpluses of profitable ports with which to finance or assist in financing unprofitable ones.
In spite of what the two hon. gentlemen from Vancouver have said I do not think that the people in Vancouver or anyone connected with the Vancouver port want to run the
port of Prince Rupert into the ground. In spite of the actions of Liberal governments, I think the people in Montreal really do not want to starve and bankrupt the ports of Churchill, Saint John or Halifax. The nation as a whole has to share in the costs of operating efficient and well run ports with local authorities and with the total national backing in the interests of a whole nation. This must not be done in the interests of some local board of trade or in the interests of one shipper or user, but in the interests of the nation as a whole.
From the list of ports I have in front of me I cannot see any of them that are not in the national interest, whether it is Belledune, Sept-Iles, Prescott, Colbourne, Prince Rupert or Roberts Bank. They are all in the national interest. They all play an important role in the commerce of this nation. But none of them, and I include Vancouver and Montreal, can operate entirely on its own and say to hell with the rest of the country.
In the name of some kind of co-operative federalism-a name that used to be popular some years ago and should be revived-whether it is between governments, whether it is among ports or any other sectors of our economy, I have had enough of this. "Beggar thy neighbour; as long as we are doing all right, to hell with the other guy" is the kind of philosophy we have been getting from these gentlemen to my right and south of the 49th parallel.
User-pay cannot work. In a nation of three million square miles with only 24 million people and dozens of ports, it cannot work. To suggest that the people in a community of one or more different ports, whether it be Churchill or any other are to be told, presumably by a Conservative government, that their port is not making the bucks or breaking even and now they have to get up and walk away from it, throwing the taxpayer's investment out of the window as well as their own, is just not right. It is like a previous minister of transport and the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) abandoning branch lines and telling the farmers who own all the grain elevators that they are supposed to get up and walk away from their investment. User-pay does not work and it will not work.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Out of courtesey to the hon. member I did not want to interrupt his tirade at the time, but at least five times he got the name of my riding incorrectly. I would not want any other member in the immediate area to be confused with the hon. member to whom he was directing his tirade. The correct name of my riding is North Vancouver-Burnaby. If I can bootleg, I would be delighted to go to Churchill to speak to the chamber of commerce or the board of trade.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has already been recognized. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to the people in the galleries that they have just witnessed a debate by the
July 26, 1982

Conservatives and by the New Democratic Party. I would now like to demonstrate a typical Liberal solution to this impasse.
I think what the hon. member from the New Democratic Party wants to achieve by her amendment is already in the bill. The purpose of the whole bill is to give a greater degree of autonomy to the National Elarbours Board system. The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) identified himself as a teacher. I do not know if I should be following him because my experience has been that of a school principal. However, he made very good arguments and he must have been an excellent teacher in his time. In my view, though, he was a little harsh in his interpretation of the bill.
I think he was correct when he said the hon. member proposes to remove in two places "expected to be financially self-sufficient". Specifically her amendment would remove these words from Clause 2, subclause 2(a). The bill clearly states that the local port corporations are only expected-I underline the word expected, not required-to be self-sufficient. There is this room for flexibility.
The bill contains numerous provisions for assistance, if needed. For example, the Canadian Ports Corporation may transfer money to the local port corporation. The Canadian Ports Corporation may loan money to the local port corporation, an excellent amendment which the committee brought into this bill. The local port corporation may borrow from the government or from outside if this local port corporation after maturing receives Schedule D status. The government may make grants to the local port corporation.
The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) in her speech asked whether the ports that cannot become financially self-sufficient will be eligible to qualify for local ports status. The answer clearly is yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member listed ten ports which may not qualify for the status, but that is not true; they all qualify. Maybe not immediately, but they all qualify when the people in the local community, the businessmen, the residents, the municipalities and the users demonstrate a genuine interest, a will, a commitment, and maybe some prognosis that eventually the port will become selfsufficient. There may be a need beyond the capacity to pay now, but the projection would have to show that the port could become self-sufficient. However, achieving local port corporation status is already in the bill. I think if the hon. member studies the bill carefully she may even want to withdraw her amendment.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am not sure whether you are Mr. Chairman or Mr. Speaker, but whatever you are I am obedient to your wishes. 1 see that you are Mr. Speaker. I wish to speak for just a couple of moments on the question of whether a port is self-supporting. I have no argument with my colleagues from Vancouver, British Columbia, as to the necessity, if at all possible, of having a port operate to make money, break even or whatever. But when we take a look at what ports are making money, breaking even, doing well or doing less well, then I would like to ensure that they are all being looked at on the same basis.
Canada Ports Corporation Act
1 can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if the port of St. John's, Newfoundland had the same advantages given to it, the same kind of financial assistance and benefits that are given to the port of Quebec City, the port of Montreal, the port of Halifax or the port of Saint John, New Brunswick-I am not too familiar with the Port of Vancouver-then the port of St. John's, Newfoundland, would be making as much money as those ports, breaking even or whatever.
I am supportive of this bill on the understanding that ports such as St. John's, Newfoundland, which the accountants tell us are not making money, are not breaking even and have to be subsidized, will be treated fairly and put in a position where they can run their own affairs after being put on an equal basis with the other ports of Canada. At the present time, the port of St. John's, Newfoundland, has not been put in that position.
I can give, although I do not want to bore the House or delay the bill, a dozen instances where the port of St. John's, Newfoundland, has not been treated in a manner comparable to other places.
I remember looking at a press release issued by one of the government departments which told us that three or four cabinet ministers had been down to Quebec City and that tens of millions of dollars were going to be spent on the port of Quebec City restoring the old dockside, old sheds, or old warehouses. In other words, doing wonderful things for the historic trust kind of thing in the city of Quebec. I say that that is great and that I am all for it. I am glad this is being done for Quebec City, but I have not seen any cabinet ministers crawling around the port of St. John's, Newfoundland lashing out the tens of millions to restore the historic sites.
As a matter of fact, next year in St. John's we are having the four hundredth anniversary of the taking of possession of Newfoundland by Sir Humphrey Gilbert on behalf of the British Crown in 1583. It will be 400 years ago next year that the British empire had its commencement in the port of St. John's, Newfoundland. The war memorial is on Duckworth Street facing the harbour. A plan has been developed and there was a competition award. The plan which was approved was done by a young landscape architect from Newfoundland who was just back from university a year or two ago. This young chap, Fred Hann, has done a first-class job. He won this award for the celebrations next year, and now we have to spend certain moneys to develop a proper park. Sir Humphrey Gilbert Park, where Sir Humphrey originally took possession of Newfoundland and began the process which led to the British empire.
It is very hard for the committee to come by any funds. It is awaiting funds from the federal government. We are not talking about millions. We are talking about some hundreds of thousands; certainly not the tens of millions which were lashed into Quebec City. 1 am all for lashing it into Quebec City as long as it is lashed elsewhere. The committee is waiting to hear from the provincial government as well. The whole cost of the
Canada Ports Corporation Act
project-and 1 am going from memory now-is not much above $1 million or $1.5 million to put a proper park and memorial right on the St. John's waterfront in front of the war memorial.
We do not see any great enthusiasm from the government opposite. Perhaps it is because there are two Conservative members representing the city of St. John's, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) and myself. We are going to be here for donkeys' years yet. They would not move us with a crowbar. It does not matter whether they starve the city of St. John's and refuse to spend money. Those people will send us back, and if we do not run they will send other Conservatives back. They will add another five in the next election anyway. Newfoundland will return 100 per cent Tories when the next election comes.
Newfoundland cannot wait to get after those four who flew in the other day, the four messengers who went down there to try to get the public to accept the budget. They went to the Holiday Inn and spent $4,700. They wasted Liberal Party funds because the 250 people who were there came out shocked and dumbfounded by such a waste of funds by anybody practising restraint. Their glazed salmon and their glazed ministers had to be flown back to Ottawa half-baked, not only glazed, for a vote on Friday afternoon. They were not even there past 1.45 p.m.
I am getting diverted, but my point is that 1 have some sympathy for the amendment which has been suggested by the New Democratic Party. On listening to my own colleagues here, of course, they are a great deal sounder and have a hell of a lot more on the ball than NDP speakers. On listening to the parliamentary assistant, I am prepared to accept the assurance that the ports which are not now supposedly making money will be treated fairly and allowed to operate with a great deal of local independence.
The minister is not all that bad a fellow. He does not listen to most of what I tell him. He ignores my correspondence. It takes him months to get back to me. He does not do what I think he should be doing. But over-all he has a huge department with lots of problems. I ask him to keep an eye on ports like St. John's. They have been discriminated against in the past. I want him to know all the details of my synchrolift. My pet peeve is my synchrolift, which was bludgeoned to death by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) who will be bludgeoned himself in Windsor, I hope, when the next election comes.
Anyway, this being summertime and in the spirit of friendship, I do not want to be partisan today. I just want to make sure that the ports that do not have $100 million of debt-and my hon. friend told me that the Vancouver port had $100 million put aside-will be put on the same basis. Let St. John's owe $100 million and put it aside; put them all on the same basis.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
July 26, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on motion No. 2 (Mrs. Mitchell). I remind the House that the earlier ruling of the Speaker was that a vote upon motion No. 2 would also dispose of motion No. 4.
All those in favour of the motion 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.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On division.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 2 (Mrs. Mitchell) negatived.
Motion No. 4 (Mrs. Mitchell) negatived.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-92, an act to amend the National Harbours Board Act, the Government Harbours and Piers Act, the Harbour Commissions Act, the Canada Shipping Act and the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 8 at page 8 and substituting the following therefor:
"not exceeding seven years."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief on this one. I started out in committee fighting for four years because the government had included ten years in the bill. Unfortunately we could not get it down to four years, but I believe the government may be inclined to look upon seven years with some favour as a compromise between the ten years and the four years I would have much preferred.
The purpose of my amendment is that nothing concentrates an executive mind more than the thought of his contract running out and perhaps being replaced, if he has not done a job. I found ten years offensive for the simple reason that it is far too long a time. It is almost a sinecure for somebody to sit in a job for ten years. In addition, I have found that the best business brains or the best executives in North America normally suffer from what is known as the five-year syndrome. If they have worked five years in a particular job, they have normally accomplished everything good that they are going to accomplish, and after that period of time they are on the downhill slant.
I think seven years is too long, but I propose my amendment and hope that it will be agreeable, simply again in order that whoever is heading up the ports corporation can at least be gotten rid of in seven years rather than in ten years if they are not effective.
I might also add that there is nothing in the amendment which means a first-rate man could not be reappointed for an additional seven years.

July 26, 1982


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I have just a very brief comment in support of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook). If we read the wording of the bill with respect to the appointment of the chairman of the board of the Canada Ports Corporation, we find that that appointment shall be at the pleasure of the governor in council. Earlier in committee there was some discussion as to what the term "at pleasure" would be interpreted to mean. Our understanding now is that that means a new cabinet could make a change in the person appointed to that position if valid cause were found.
The only problem which was raised in committee was that in most cases a subsidiary contract is entered into between the government or the governor in council and the particular individual selected to manage the corporation, and that that contract could bind the government to keeping that person for the full seven-year term, even if political circumstances, health factors or matters bearing on the competence of that person suggest that he should be removed.
I recommend very strongly to the minister and to the House that the practice of entering into subsidiary contracts makes it possible, albeit undesirable in some cases, for an incompetent administrator to remain in place by pointing to the letter of the law as spelled out in the contract or, conversely, expecting a major severance allowance if the governor in council in its wisdom decides that the person should be removed,
I suggest that the government look carefully at some of the major costs to the taxpayers of Canada which have accrued in the past where it has attempted to remove for one reason or another senior people who have been the beneficiaries of subsidiary contracts. By shortening the term of the appointment to seven years as my hon. colleague is recommending, I think we can help to diminish the adverse aspects of prolonged appointments, but we do not eliminate the problems created by these subsidiary contracts.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I will not speak at any length on this motion. We do not disagree with it. Certainly a seven-year term seems appropriate. I do not entirely disagree with a ten-year term provided that there would be a way for making a reappointment. Certainly the operation of a huge system such as our national ports in Canada requires a good deal of experience.
However, my intention in rising was to point out some of the events which took place in this process. I believe it is rather interesting to note that the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) was adamant in committee about this bill, and if you read his speech which he gave in the House you will find he said that he thought that this was the worst bill which could possibly have been presented. Suddenly, from behind the scenes, we have the Liberals and the Conservatives getting into these little backroom deals. We see a little compromise, which was drafted up by the government, shown to the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby, who is a dear
Canada Ports Corporation Act
friend of the government, and then presented to the House. I just wanted to point out that all is not as it seems. There are a few bedfellows around here who might be crossing the door.
I must also mention the fact, which is very typical of some hon. members and particularly true of the hon. member who spoke before the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby, that whenever there is a senior position being discussed it is always referred to as "he". The hon. member repeated this throughout our committee experience. Whenever he referred to any of the senior positions in this ports system, it was always "he". Of course, I challenged him several times and said that we needed an affirmative action program in the ports system and a cleansing of the attitude of certain members in the House.
I would also mention that this approach is reinforced in the language of this bill. I know that we cannot deal with that matter today, but we must deal with it at some point because when the language of all these bills is always drafted so that reference is always made to the masculine gender, it reinforces these prejudices and sexist attitudes which assume that a male will always be appointed to these positions. That is all 1 have to say on this amendment.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, this is an amusing little debate. I do not think it is earth-shattering but nevertheless it is interesting.
The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) mentioned the expenditures which the government must incur when it wants to remove a person, male or female, appointed for a ten-year period. That was the point he was concerned about. This could very well happen. It could happen, indeed, that someone does not perform as he was expected to.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Or she.


Jean-Luc Pepin: He or she was expected to. Thank you.
One could also look at it from the other point of view, with respect to the expenditures a government would have to make in order to appoint a person to a senior office which involved only a short period, such as four or five years in this instance. People who accept those jobs do so at the best time of their lives, generally speaking, and if the job does not give them security for a fairly long period of time the government would have to pay them much more than if it were appointing them for a longer period. This is why a compromise was reached "in the backroom", as the NDP implies, because we thought that a ten-year period might be too long and, hopefully, the opposition realized that four or five years might be too short a time. This is how we arrived at seven years. The reason the government accepted seven years was that, interestingly enough, the most recent trend is toward a seven-year tenure as opposed to a ten-year one. There are two or three recent instances where the government has appointed a chairman and presidents for seven years as opposed to the traditional period.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.

July 26, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Cook) agreed to.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Motion No. 5
That Bill C-92, An act to amend the National Harbours Board Act, the Government Harbours and Piers Act, the Harbour Commissions Act, the Canada Shipping Act and the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, be amended in Clause 13 by striking out lines 13 to 25 at page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"34.(1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), the revenues of a local port corporation may, after providing for
(a)	the cost of collecting such revenues,
(b)	the expenses, incurred by the local port corporation in operating and maintaining the port and works and property owned, controlled, administered or managed by the local port corporation under this act,
(c)	the principal, interest and other charges incurred in connection with debentures issued or money borrowed by the local port corporation under this act,
(d)	any other expenses lawfully incurred by the local port corporation in carrying out its duties and functions under this act; and
(e)	such amounts as may be approved by the minister for capital projects be retained by the local port corporation.
(2)	The Corporation may borrow, for a period agreed upon by it and a local port corporation, so much of the money administered by the local port corporation as the local port corporation and the corporation, taking into account the capital expenditure program of the local port corporation, consider to be in excess of the amount required for the purposes of the local port corporation.
(3)	The Corporation shall, if the Minis-".


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: According to the interpretation given by the Speaker earlier this day, motion No. 6 is also to be presented for debate at this time, but the two motions will be voted on separately.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Motion No. 6
That Bill C-92, An act to amend the National Harbours Board Act, the Government Harbours and Piers Act, the Harbour Commissions Act, the Canada Shipping Act and the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, be amended in Clause 13 by striking out lines 45 to 50 at page 22 and lines 1 to 3 at page 23.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Did you say, perhaps inadvertently, that motion No. 6 was also moved by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook), seconded by "Mr. Siddon"?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: According to the documents in my hand, I have read correctly. However, the intention is that Mr. Siddon should move, seconded by Mr. Cook. Is that right?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, that would conform with the Order Paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The necessary corrections will be made on the record.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, I still find the Canada ports bill disastrous. It is a terrible bill which gives the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) absolute and total control of the ports. However, through this
amendment, if we can possibly pass it, there will at least be one small shred of local autonomy. I repeat that there will be one minute piece of local autonomy. The key portion, which is in this amendment but which was not in the act, states that a local port corporation will determine its own surplus as a result of this amendment. In the act previous to this amendment everything was determined by either the Canada ports corporation, the senior body or the minister.
It is terribly offensive when there is that kind of absolute power residing in Ottawa and in the hands of the minister. Despite all the government's assurances as to how it will give local autonomy to all the ports, where is it written? It is not written in the act, except in this amendment. At least we cut of the Canada Ports Corporation at the pass. It cannot declare a surplus for a local port corporation by itself. It must have the agreement of the local port corporation for it to be declared a surplus. That is exceedingly important, certainly to the port of Vancouver, and I suspect to many of the other ports. It does give them that little bit more control over their own money which was not in the legislation before this amendment. I wish it could have gone much further.
I still find it offensive that the minister can do any ruddy thing he wants to in terms of a local port corporation or the Canada Ports Corporation. I find it offensive that the minister has the total and absolute authority for all appointments to the boards. It would have been far better had it been set up in such a way that there was local input into these appointments, where the minister had to listen and had to select from people chosen from the local areas. But, no, there is none of that in this bill, either. If one looks at the powers of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) under this Canada ports bill, one will find that he actually has all the local ports corporations and the Canada Ports Corporation under his heel, to do with as he pleases. That is terribly unfortunate for a couple of reasons. One is that if there is a cabinet shuffle this summer, which I would suggest is a possibility, then we will no longer have this Minister of Transport. He will go on to his reward, or to a greater function.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What could that be?


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: That means that when a new minister of transport decides to do something, we will not be able to question him and say, "But you said-" because all that becomes irrelevant because if he is no longer the minister of transport, the new minister of transport will not have to pay attention to any of his great policies.


Jean-Luc Pepin: To please you, I am willing to stay around.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I might also add that I now find the marine administrator is switching over as soon as he can get rid of this bill. He will leave as well, and will look after airlines and airports rather than being the marine administrator. So, all the
July 26, 1982

promises and statements that he made will no longer be relevant to this legislation.
I am very suspicious as to what is taking place. The men who make the promises, who have done all the lobbying across the country and who have made such grandiose statements about all the local autonomy which is not written in the bill, will no longer be there if the legislation is passed and comes into force. However, if this amendment is accepted, it will mean one small bit of local autonomy for the ports of this nation in terms of a local port corporation determining whether or not it has a surplus. The Canada Ports Corporation will not be able to say it is a surplus, if this amendment passes, and rip it away from the local port corporation. The two corporations will have to agree that there is a surplus. That, mind you, is still only half the war, because the minister will still have the power, as a minister, to declare some of the funds to the local port corporation as surplus and take them. But that would be a much more dangerous political act than it would have been had the Canada Ports Corporation been empowered simply to decide that the money was surplus.
With this amendment, I have at least attempted to gain that small bit of autonomy for the various local ports corporations across the country, and I sincerely hope they appreciate it.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I do not believe my hon. friend, the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook), meant to be quite as hard on the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) as he perhaps was, because I know how anxious he is to see this particular amendment adopted. We hope that the government, having given full regard to the deliberations in committee, and the strong concerns that several members of the opposition have brought to committee on this particular issue, will have the wisdom to see that this amendment is desirable and positive and should be supported by the government.
There was much emphasis in committee on subclauses 34 and 36 of Clause 13, those subclauses being amendments to the National Harbours Board Act 1936. There were some rather wild statements, notably coming from my colleagues to the left, that all that the Conservative members from Vancouver wanted was to prop up the port of Vancouver and strip away the revenues and profits from all the neighbouring ports which, in fact, was a total mistruth. We are as concerned as anyone about seeing that the ports of Canada are placed on an economically sound basis and that they succeed and prosper individually and collectively, so that in total their surplus revenues can be contributed to a central fund and redisbursed at a fair market rate on the approval of the local port corporation, redisbursed to help with the development of other ports where additional revenues are needed for their capital purposes.
In speaking to the amendment of the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby, which appears as motion No. 5 on the Order Paper, I should just like to point out that there is considerable difference in the wording of this amendment. Even though, perhaps, some might argue that the mechanics are not all that different, the wording is such as to eliminate what I consider to be a red flag waved at people in areas such
Canada Ports Corporation Act
as we come from, where there is far too much of this government holding the line and totally disregarding the views of opposition members, whether they be NDP or Conservative. The people we represent resent this terribly, and if Liberal members opposite really want to understand why it is that western Canadians have virtually totally rejected them in recent years, let me tell them that it is because of this notion that no good ideas could ever come from opposition members, from western Canada, from Atlantic Canada or from north of 60d. In fact, we come to the Parliament and to committee to express legitimate views on behalf of those who sent us here. A legitimate view we have expressed with regard to this particular clause is that, given the present wording, it says that the corporation may, with the approval of the minister, require a local port corporation to make a loan. That wording is essentially a red flag, an aggravation to the persons charged with managing the port of Vancouver and doing business with that port and the general populace who benefits by the very welcome presence of that port, as do their counterpart citizens in other parts of the country.
The hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby suggested that the mandatory nature of Subclause 13(34) be somewhat restrained-in fact, removed-whereby the local port corporation would have the final say as to what should or should not be deemed surplus to its requirements. The amendment provides that the revenues of a local port corporation, after meeting local expenses, interest payments and any other expenses, may be retained by the local port corporation. That is in direct contrast to the wording of subclause 34(1), as written, and I am suggesting that if the government really wants the people of the Vancouver area in British Columbia to feel a little better disposed toward it, this would be the kind of amendment which would certainly go a long way toward helping and resolving some of these deep regional differences. We will be prepared to give the government credit where credit is due, if it is prepared to accept the amendment.
To backtrack slightly, I should say that I, too, am philosophically opposed to the creation of more Crown corporations, particularly a double-layered system where there is a parent corporation and a limitless number of subsidiary Crown corporations, as this bill provides, for a number of reasons which will be brought forward in third reading debate. But, to put it in a nutshell, I think we have Crown corporationitis in this country. We have a number of Crown corporations now growing toward 500. There is a definite lack of accountability in many cases. There are no clear-cut terms of reference as to which ones shall have a public interest mandate and be subsidized and which ones shall be expected to operate on a pay-as-you-go basis. There have been all kinds of scandals involving Crown corporations and refuge to the arm's length provision which allows a minister to deny Parliament the kind of detailed scrutiny that it requires of Crown corporations.
In general 1 find this bill unacceptable, feeling that it can solve all of the problems of the various port authorities by

July 26, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
creating, as it tried to do with the Canada Post Corporation, yet another series or family of Crown corporations to facilitate our national harbours. The ports I know best are Vancouver, Roberts Bank and Prince Rupert. I am told by the local officials that the major objective of bringing forward this legislation at this time is to increase the spending limit to allow officials at the local level to make purchases in response to bids received in the tendering process and to increase the ceiling from $50,000 per item to as much as $10 million. That would go a long way toward facilitating some of the management and long-range planning problems of our local ports.
To be fair, this bill provides for a maximum $10 million spending limit where there are competitive Canadian bids for any single item purchased through the Canada Ports Corporation. That is a step in the right direction. It provides that local ports shall have some proportion of that $10 million spending accorded to them on an individual basis.
We have not had confirmed what the actual ceiling will be. Perhaps in his concluding remarks the minister might indicate what, for example in the case of the ports of Vancouver or St. John's, the actual ceiling spending limit will be at this time according to the guidelines and the criteria which the governor in council is presently preparing.
Second, we were told by officials at the port of Vancouver that they wanted to be able to award leases to tenants on National Harbours Board property. Under the provisions of the present act, they had to have those decisions vetted and finally authorized in Ottawa by the minister, in some cases in consultation with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). That created a lot of delays. It held up the ports in maintaining the momentum they needed to remain competitive with their United States counterparts on the west coast of North America and, I am sure, equally on the east coast.
I want to say in that regard that those measures alone could have been accommodated by a straightforward amendment to the National Harbours Act 1936. I am sure members of this House would have facilitated the passage of such simple amendments very quickly.
If that were the only objective of this legislation, there would have been no difficulty with members of this party in ensuring that those spending ceilings and the decision-making authority with respect to leases was properly and fully delegated to the local level of port management. In fact, the wording in subclauses 34 and 36 of Clause 13 in the printed version of the bill suggests a consolidation of power and financial control in Ottawa.
The purpose of the amendment put forward by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby and the separate amendment I put forward as motion No. 6, which would delete entirely subclause 36 is to make it clear that there will in fact be the high degree of local autonomy accorded to the local port corporations, which we heard so much about in committee from the minister and the officials. If it is their intention to
accord this degree of financial sovereignty to the local ports, I urge the government to consider seriously the amendments before them.
At second reading debate, the Minister of Transport confirmed to me, as recorded at page 18825 of Hansard, that the surplus funding which is earned at a particular port, the port of Vancouver in that case, will be available on a first-call basis for the development of the port. That was the wording I used. The minister rose in his place and said it will. I repeated the request for confirmation, and the minister said, "Sure".
We had some fun in committee trying to get the minister's officials to agree that he had in fact committed the government to providing surplus funds to the local ports which earns them a first-call basis, within the framework of the central banking function of the nation, and the notion that in the national interest there may be certain cases where loans should be legitimately extended to other ports through the Canada Ports Corporation.
The amendment put forward by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby provides the final out to the governor in council that subclause 3, which ensures that if a port is really and truly selfish and decides it is going to prevent the government from drawing that surplus for other purposes, the minister and the governor in council can intervene and ensure that that does not happen. I think the objectives of the government have been accomplished and the concerns we expressed in committee have been satisfied.
Although it is rare to compliment members of the House, it is a fact that the views of the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby are consistent with the requests of many groups in the Vancouver region, in particular the principals of Vancouver Wharves Limited who have written in support of his initiatives to ensure a higher degree of local autonomy and to fight for these amendments to subclauses 34 and 36.
A subsequent telegram was received from the North Vancouver Chamber of Commerce. It states that it is in support of increased autonomy for the port of Vancouver. In the past it had supported Bill C-92, believing it to be a step in the right direction. However, they stated a number of serious reservations and urged the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby to continue to push forcefully for the amendments which culminate in the amendment he has put forward today as motion No. 5.
I know there is a desire to make an announcement momentarily. I would just like to say in conclusion that the most important request of the city of Vancouver has been for an amendment deleting subclause 36, which is provided for in my motion No. 6. That will take away another red flag where the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the governor in council might be able to threaten expropriation of surplus funds. I urge upon the minister and the government that these two amendments put forward as motions Nos. 5 and 6 be adopted.

July 26, 1982


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I have had discussions with the House leaders of both opposition parties. It seems there is unanimous consent to the following motion that is related to Bill C-109. Of course, we take for granted that Bill C-92 will be completed tonight after third reading. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs be empowered to consider urea formaldehyde foam insulation including:
1.	The process used to approve the material for use in Canadian homes;
2.	The questions raised on the health effects and the nature of the research being conducted or contemplated on these questions;
3.	The questions raised on remedial action and the nature of the research being conducted or considered;
4.	The question of the number of homes affected, specifically attempting to identify the reasons for the discrepancy between the number of homes estimated and the number registered;
5.	The question of use of the foam in schools, public buildings and rental accommodation and recommendations of possible courses of action where remedial action is required;
6.	The identification of home owner groups with special needs and recommendations on how these special needs could be met;
7.	The report of the Hazardous Products Board of Review on the aforementioned matters;
8.	Any changes or additions to the regulations deemed advisable with regard to the aforementioned matters.
That the committee be instructed to report on the aforementioned matters no later than December 1, 1982; and
That notwithstanding any Standing Order or other order, after second reading of Bill C-109, to provide for payments to persons in respect of dwellings insulated with urea formaldehyde foam insulation, the said bill shall be referred to a committee of the whole and, not later than 9:45 p.m. on Tuesday, July 27, 1982, all questions necessary for the disposal of all remaining stages of the said bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.
If you seek unanimous consent for this motion, Mr. Speaker, I think you will obtain it, and therefore the order of the day for tomorrow would be Bill C-109.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the minister to propose this motion at this point?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered.
Canada Ports Corporation Act




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-92, to amend the National Harbours Board Act, the Government Harbours and Piers Act, the Harbour Commissions Act, the Canada Shipping Act and the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Transport, and Motion No. 5 (Mr. Cook) and Motion No. 6 (Mr. Siddon).
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before calling it six o'clock, the Chair recognizes the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain).
It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6.01 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the House rose at six o'clock, the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) was recognized.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this bill and its amendments will bring to the attention of Canada the total lack of long-term, co-ordinated national planning for a transportation policy. That is the situation in which we find ourselves today. As I said when the bill was debated on second reading, it will depend entirely on the policies and principles of the government that administers it if the ports are to benefit. And as was pointed out by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook), the present minister will probably administer the bill for some time. I am confident that he will honour his commitment, but I am equally confident that any change in policy reflected by a different minister will negate his present intentions.
We should not lose sight of the fact that this is enabling legislation which leaves control of the ports in the hands of the Department of Transport and the edict of the minister and the policy of the government of the day. That is the basis on which some people in Canada have supported the bill, that is also the weakness which many Canadians fear, and I am amongst that number. We must consider our future potential with regard to our rail system, we are debating how much money should be spent in the long term to transport grain over the Rockies to the markets of the Far East or perhaps even through the Panama canal. In any case it is a long-term and very expensive proposition to put the policy in place.

July 26, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
Should we then relegate some ports, such as Churchill, to a relatively insignificant role under this bill? Unless the government offers some initiatives, the port of Churchill will not play a significant role in the export of grain in the years ahead. The reason for this is that we are at present enchanted with the proposition that ports should make a profit, and if they do not, then as far as this government is concerned, they will be left in the doldrums.
I cite Churchill as an example because as an easterner 1 see it as a kindred spirit of the ports of eastern Canada. I see it as a port which can be useful, but unless government policy supports it, that use will be minimal. It needs the support of rail transportation and improved handling facilities if a great deal of western grain shipments are to be diverted through it.
Some statements have been made in the House to the effect that if a port cannot pay its way it should be closed. We have to look at the cost to Canada of operating ports under the present policy. Perhaps it would be cheaper to spend a little money to increase Churchill's handling capability for grain than to double track or double tunnel the Rocky mountains in order to push more of that grain westward, along with the sulphur, oil and other raw materials which pass over that range. We need a transportation policy to deal with this.
As I have said in the House over the years, we should be looking for multi-purpose cars, and not solely at the idea of unit trains, to move grain westward. We should look at the possibility of unit trains moving grain eastward to the Atlantic ports and examining what a multi-purpose car could do to reduce the necessity for double tracking through the Rockies. It might be cheaper to move 10 million tonnes of grain through the port of Saint John, the port of Halifax or the port of Churchill than to accommodate the double tracking necessary to move additional amounts of raw materials, both grain and natural resources, through the west. This act has totally overlooked the necessity of a national policy and the net cost of transportation to the Canadian people.
Getting down to the individual ports, we have converted from debt to equity a total of approximately $475,342,000. About $231 million of that applies to the port of Montreal, and $99 million to the port of Vancouver. The others have a miscellaneous amount of debt forgiven, such as St. John's at $382,000. That is not very much, and I do not blame the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) for complaining about the treatment of that port. When we pick up the principal, which is still unpaid and which is the responsibility of the ports, we find that the port of Saint John has a balance of $7,281,000 which it will have to pay. The port of Montreal will have to pay $9,470,000. The port of Montreal has a net income of $18,624,000, which will take care of that $9.5 million it owes presently. But the net income of the port of Saint John is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $2 million, with $7 million outstanding. Again, the fairness and equity of the treatment of these two ports is not particularly satisfactory. The port of
Vancouver has a net operating income of $17,687,000, with other income of $7,959,000. With that income, the port of Vancouver is in pretty good shape under most circumstances. Then there is the port of Montreal with an operating income of $10,685,000 and other income of $7,939,000, for a net income of $18,624,000. Those ports are very well looked after.
Let us then, Mr. Speaker, take a look at the indebtedness of the port of Halifax and the port of Saint John and compare them with their means. We find that in both ports the balance is not there. I am sorry the minister has left the House, and I appreciate he cannot be here all the time, but the port of Saint John has an operating income of $1,522,000 and other income of $637,000, for a total of $2,159,000 as its operating revenue. That means that the port of Montreal has more cash flow than all the other ports in Eastern Canada and less debt to pay back than the port of Saint John.
Therefore, I am going to repeat my request to the House and the minister to reconsider the position they have taken. The port of Saint John happens to be the only one with debt other than what it owes to the National Harbours Board and the Government of Canada.
I want to read a wire forwarded by the mayor of Saint John to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) at 3.55 p.m., July 8, 1982. It reads as follows:
Strongly suggest that remaining $22 million loan by Province of New Brunswick to construct Rodney Terminal in Saint John be forgiven and thus allow Port of Saint John to operate the same as other ports under National Harbours Board jurisdiction, prior to new ports policy becoming law.
When I raised this in committee I was told by the minister, that, well, we might have a trade-off. New Brunswick owes us, we owe New Brunswick, let us cancel our debts. Mr. Speaker,
I do not accept that and I never proposed that as a way in which $22 million could be paid on behalf of the port of Saint John. That is because when I pick up the report of the National Harbours Board as it relates to the St. Lawrence area I find that they spent, in a single year in the port of Montreal, $16 million on one structure, $19.7 million on another, $3 million on another-


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is money provided by the port of Montreal itself.


Fred Alward McCain: Well now, this seems to be under the auspices of the National Harbours Board.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is it.


Fred Alward McCain: The money which comes from the NHB, until the passage of this act, has been money which belonged to the people of Canada, and they had to vote to spend that money.


Jean-Luc Pepin: But of course the money comes from the port of Montreal, that is a fact.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that is really a fair interjection by the minister, and he has been abundantly fair over the years. That remark ignores the fact that the Port of Montreal has received two or three parcels of land as a gift
July 26, 1982

or for the nominal sum of $1, and that land is generating revenue approaching $8 million a year which goes into the cash flow of the port of Montreal. When you compare that with the cash flow of other ports in Eastern Canada, those ports are in a position of disadvantage. When you compare the fact that we are talking about user pay and we have the St. Lawrence Seaway which does not pay its way, and a St. Lawrence River which cannot function without icebreakers, and that is not charged to the port of Montreal or other ports on the St. Lawrence River, and then you add to that the additional pilotage charges which take place over a much more extended area in the St. Lawrence than in any other area in Canada, I submit to you that the port of Montreal and those other ports in the St. Lawrence Valley are getting advantages that no other ports anywhere in Canada get.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: All I ask for, Mr. Speaker, is fair play. And as the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Leblanc) sits in his seat and smiles at me, I submit that he and the other members from Atlantic Canada should take up the cudgel because there should be no indebtedness on the part of any port anywhere in Canada to any government in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. LeBlanc:: I did not smile at you, don't kid yourself. I was smiling at the hon. minister.


Fred Alward McCain: You would smile at him because he has really not dealt fairly with the ports of Atlantic Canada. You are a minister and you are a party to it. Along with the other six Liberal members from New Brunswick you have forgotten about New Brunswick, whether it be over Via Rail or the ports of Canada; whether it be the fishing ports or the NHB ports. That member, Mr. Speaker, was associated with the Liberal Party when the port of Saint John had to go begging to the province to get its piers. If it had not got the money from the province, there would be no container terminal and no forest terminal because this government was not prepared to vote the money to put them there.


Roméo LeBlanc: Don't rewrite history.


Fred Alward McCain: I am not jealous of the port of Montreal; I am just concerned about the inequity. The government forgives $211 million of debt for Montreal and only peanuts, relatively speaking, to the rest of the ports in Canada. You talk about user pay and how the ports must operate on their own cash flow. The port of Montreal has nearly $19 million in cash flow and the port of Saint John has so much less that it is not even funny. In addition, it has a provincial debt which it has to liquidate over a period of time at a rate to be negotiated.
That is not the way it ought to be. The Government of Canada has to take a look at the assorted needs of Canada. It should take a look at the requirements of Newfoundland, of
Canada Ports Corporation Act
Prince Edward Island, of New Brunswick and at its commitment to the tuna plant in Saint John, New Brunswick. The government's commitment was to extend the harbour if the plant were expanded. We now find that the expansion of the harbour at the Champlain industrial park is under consultation and all the ports of eastern Canada are to be studied by some unknown consultant. The decision as to whether or not the government will keep its word to the tuna plant in St. Andrews depends upon a report of a consultant.
The tuna plant acted in good faith and undertook its expansion which required additional port facilities. I raised this matter in the proceedings of the committee, but I got no answer. I had to find out from external sources, from occasional appointments of mine, who said "1 am working on a consulting plan to determine whether money will be spent on the ports" I asked whether the one in the Champlain industrial park was included, and the answer given to me was yes. I mentioned that a commitment had been made by the Government of Canada that if the tuna plant expanded, the harbour facility would be expanded. The answer I received was, "It is under my jurisdiction in a study".
Why the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans supports this bill and this government is beyond my comprehension. I say this as a New Brunswicker. 1 challenge the minister to be one. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that if he is a good, solid and loyal New Brunswicker the Government of Canada will send a cheque to the port of Saint John to send to the province of New Brunswick so as to put that port at least on a comparable basis of indebtedness. There will not be a search for a change of liabilities. There will be a cheque to relieve that indebtedness which is unique in the ports of Canada. I plead with you as a New Brunswicker, Mr. Minister, to get a cheque for the port of Saint John to pay the province of New Brunswick. You have bullwhipped the province into making the money because you would not spend it in the first place. You have now left the port in a position of indebtedness that is comparable to no other port anywhere in Canada. Let us get equality for New Brunswick and the port of Saint John.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) entertain a question?


Fred Alward McCain: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I must say that both in committee and in the House my colleagues and I have been very impressed with the statements made by the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte. We are most impressed with his sincerity and concern about ports in New Brunswick and in the Maritimes provinces. But when he spoke earlier about the port of Churchill, I wondered, being quite sympathetic to its financial needs, does he agree with the statement made by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) earlier today when he said, "if Churchill cannot be financially self-sufficient, it should be shut down"?


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, having entertained the question I must have permission to answer it. I have to say that if the

July 26, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
hon. member would interpret the remark in the spirit in which it was given in relation to the idea that the ports of Canada have to be self-sustaining, he was challenging the government to close it. He was not saying close the port of Churchill. He wast just challenging the government to close if if it did not pay its way. God knows, we need the port of Churchill as well as the Atlantic ports.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make some comments with respect to the amendment before us. This is an amendment that we can support very strongly. It is one that both opposition parties were repeatedly advocating in committee. It is of particular concern as outlined in a number of documents from the port of Vancouver, but I am sure the matter is of concern to other ports as well, namely that local port corporations to be really autonomous must have control over their own funds to the greatest degree possible.
It is interesting that this motion actually presented by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) replaces six of his previous amendments presented in committee, many of which we would have supported here, and all of which concern local port autonomy. We do feel that the amendment before us fulfils the concerns we had expressed in committee that local port corporations should control their revenues to the greatest degree possible for operating costs, for the cost of borrowing if that should be needed, and for capital projects. I think when we talk about capital projects we have to talk about the short term, the five and six-year plans which have to be budgeted very specifically. We also have to talk about the long-range plans. The port of Vancouver's master plan is one example. We agree that surplus funds which are generated by the port over and above operating costs should be retained by that port for any capital costs. We agree also with the central banking concept. In fact, we had an amendment in committee which spelled this out. Instead of the parent corporation, the Canada Ports Corporation would be able to cream off the excess funds, which it perhaps thought were surplus, for use in the general port system. This should be done only in consulation and with complex approval of the local port corporation.
We would like to see the central banking concept spelled out a little more. We certainly need to see more of the bylaws as well for capital funds that we were told in committee would be available over and above the surplus funds generated by any one port.
Although we support this motion, we do not have complete confidence that we have full information. We will look with great interest at the bylaws when they are ready.
I would like to spend a minute on the first section as it applies to the port of Vancouver. The port of Vancouver has specifically requested a change in the procedure for control of local funds. On June 30, 1982, the mayor of Vancouver forwarded to the committee a statement as follows:
*-Any funds transferred from a local port corporation to the parent Corporation would be treated as if they were deposited in a bank, to earn interest and to be subject to withdrawal by the local port depositor when they are required.
This requirement was achieved. We are very pleased also with the concern that was expressed in a telex just a few days ago. That concern surrounded subclause 36 which reads:
The Minister and the Minister of Finance may, with the approval of the Governor in Council, require the corporation to pay to the Receiver General as revenues of Canada so much of the money administered by it as the Minister and the Minister of Finance consider to be in excess of the amount required for the purposes of the corporation.
This is of particular concern because surplus funds are needed not only for a five-year plan but also for a 30-year major master plan which is being developed in co-operation with all municipalities and community groups concerned with this port. We feel those two concerns have been dealt with in this amendment. We also agree with subclause 2 that the corporation may borrow excess funds from the local port corporation, excess in this case being defined more specifically as excess funds being determined by mutual agreement between the local port and the Canada Ports Corporation. In previous statements it was really left to the parent corporation to decide this.
I might also say that the Vancouver city council requested an appeal procedure in this bill which has not been included. Perhaps it is not needed now that the local port corporation has been given more say. As I said before, we are not completely convinced. All of this may not be in writing but certainly in principle it appears to be there, along with the central banking concept, with which we agree, provided the moneys are lent and are still designated as being available to the local port corporation.
We were concerned in committee, and are still as concerned as the Official Opposition, about what rate of interest funds would gather when they are borrowed from the local ports corporation for revenues for the total port system of Canada. We advocate the market interest rate as being fair.
Under the second subpoint of this amendment, we believe it is only fair that when ports have income in excess of their immediate needs, these funds should be available to the port system as a whole. This makes sense, just as when a local port needs additional funding from the parent corporation, they should also be able to get this kind of help.
Fairness means that a national ports policy requires sharing and that the funds should be available in a sensible way for reasonable modernization of ports, which is certainly needed in most instances where there is income over and above operating costs.
In short, we would agree with this amendment, but in closing I would mention just for reference purposes some of the things that are being proposed. Again I will use my own riding port, the port of Vancouver, as an example. From the point of view of the short-term port plan, a $51 million program was just approved by the minister for the port of Vancouver. This includes something over $35 million for dredging contracts for expansion of the Roberts Bank coal port. A total of over $ 11
July 26, 1982

million will be spent at Vanterm over three years to improve its container crane capacity. At the Lynnterm facility another $3.3 million will be spent to expand and modernize that development. Also it includes a new Burrard Street viaduct to which the federal government contributed over $1 million. Of course we can see that modern and large international ports have many expenditures which have to be covered with funds in excess of those they can generate from their own income.
As to the long-term development of the port, the master plan of Vancouver already highlights the following findings. I will just skim over them to put on the record the very broad kinds of development which will have to be funded over the next 30 years for major development of a very important international port. Air transportation will need to be expanded by the provision of an additional helicopter landing and take-off area. There will have to be an expansion of coal handling facilities within the port area by the provision of additional terminal capability. In the area of coastal shipping, current traffic volumes are expected to level off. This is of increasing significance to all the problems of British Columbia. Continued growth is predicted in commercial fishing for various firms in the port of Vancouver. There will be significant growth in the demand for container handling within the port area. I am sure that this is the case in other major ports of Canada. New cruise ship facilities will replace the temporary facilities, and federal government funds are needed for this development. I think members from my area will admit that additional federal grants are needed for this.
Also it will cost money to provide environmental statutes applicable to the port area. Physical improvements are needed in the areas of excursion boating, forest products handling, general cargo handling and grain products handling. Physical improvements are also needed to expand greatly the grain terminal facilities and railroad capabilities. In the area of hydrocarbons handling, current terminal facilities have significant potential for increased volumes. Substantial growth is predicted in terms of potash handling.
In the area of public recreation, we need major changes in land use around the port. Some community groups are very concerned about this. There must be more access to the port for communities, and there must be a change in some of the present lease arrangements over the next period of long-term planning. There must be upgrading and expansion of the rail system. There are considerable hasards in the port which I have personally witnessed driving around it. Additional marinas are proposed for recreational boating facilities. In terms of road access it is important to have municipal and regional input into planning for the port.
Also I wish to mention sulphur handling and support activities such as those to which my colleague referred when he spoke about the entire marine industrial strategy or plan for marine industrial development, whichever term one chooses to use.
All these things are extremely important in the development of our ports. In the case of the port of Vancouver, they will not only take considerable planning, but will certainly need long-
Canada Ports Corporation Act
term allocation of funds from those funds generated by the port as well as perhaps from additional loans through the parent corporation. We support this amendment, as I say, and we support it particularly because of the needs of the port of Vancouver.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I want to address myself to the subject of the management of some of our ports in Canada because that, of course, is the topic of the motion now before the House. In particular I refer to the situation at the port of Happy Valley in Goose Bay, Labrador, in my own province. This situation cries out for correction and improvement. I am referring to a port which is administered directly by the Department of Transport. In that port the Government of Canada and its agency, CN Marine, have allowed a situation to arise that cries for correction, a situation which permits a monopoly on all freight going into Goose Bay and on all freight or cargo moving out of Goose Bay by a person who is a well-connected friend of the government.
Let me explain some of the background of this situation. The person 1 am talking about is Mr. Melvin Woodward who was a Liberal member of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland for the Goose Bay-Happy Valley area for a number of years. He was defeated in 1975. He ran again as the Liberal candidate in the June 1979 election and again in the April 1982 election, and was defeated both times. He is a close political associate of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey). He has been made director of the Bank of Canada appointed by the government opposite. He has been made chairman of the Enterprise Development Board for Newfoundland and Labrador by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray). That is just his background.
Until 1980 this same gentleman was the wharfinger at Goose Bay appointed by the Government of Canada. While he was a wharfinger there, he was also in business for himself. One of his businesses was the operation of an oil tanker which delivered oil along the Labrador coast. Since 1973 he has controlled all the stevedoring facilities and services in the Goose Bay-Happy Valley area of Labrador. He was given by the Department of Transport all the sheds and wharfs owned by that department in Goose Bay under a management agreement of 1973. No tenders were called, no lease proposals were called. This particular individual was simply given by the Department of Transport all available sheds and wharfs in the Goose Bay area to use for his own business. In other words, publicly-owned facilities were given to him. For example, Department of Transport shed No. 4 went to Woodward's Limited and sheds Nos. 1, 2 and 5 went to Coastal Shipping Limited. Both companies were owned by the same Melvin Woodward without any tenders being called. In addition, from the year 1969 onward, without any tenders ever being called, this same Melvin Woodward was given the job to do all of the stevedoring for CN Marine in Goose Bay-Happy Valley. The main shipping service to Goose Bay-Happy Valley-not the only service but the main essential one-is CN Marine. This

July 26, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
government agency, also without calling tenders, also without calling proposals, has had Mr. Woodward act as its stevedore in the Goose Bay-Happy Valley area and as its agent in that area since 1969.
In addition to this, he controls all of the facilities, he controls the wharves, he controls the sheds. No one has put in a proposal as stevedore because they cannot get the sheds and the use of the wharves which are controlled by Woodward. When you make a complaint that this is the situation, CN Marine will say that it has to deal with Woodward. Nobody else can have access to the wharves or the sheds. When you complain to the Department of Transport it says that it has to deal with Woodward. He is the stevedore for CN Marine. The man is safely covered on all sides.
What is the point I am coming to in connection with all of these arrangements made with this Liberal agent, Mr. Woodward? I wrote to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) about this situation on November 26, 1981, bringing all of this to his attention. The reason I brought this to his attention was that it had been brought to my attention that Mr. Woodward, in addition to being paid by CN Marine for all of these stevedoring services in the Goose Bay-Happy Valley area, was also charging a terminal fee, as he called it, to everyone who receives cargo in the Goose Bay-Happy Valley area. All inbound cargo was subject to this terminal fee for a terminal that is owned by the public, paid for by the public money. This private individual was charging a terminal fee last year of S5.20 for every tonne of cargo that he unloaded as CN Marine's stevedore at Goose Bay. He then charged everyone in the Goose Bay area who shipped cargo out of the area a terminal charge of $5.20 a tonne to put it on board the CN ships he stevedored for, or any other ships.
He does this without any right whatsoever. He does not own the wharves and he does not own the sheds. He has been given them by the government without any tenders ever being called. This Mr. Woodward and his companies are charging this terminal fee of $5.20 a tonne.
Last year, approximately 40,000 tonnes of cargo went into Goose Bay and out during the shipping season, which lasts only some six months because of the ice problems during the period from November until late May each year. In other words, the consumers of the Goose Bay-Happy Valley area were forced to pay over $200,000 unnecessarily in terminal charges to this Liberal agent. The government has put him in a position, with the help of CN Marine, to have a monopoly. He has improperly charged over $200,000 last year in terminal charges made possible by his cozy arrangements with the Liberal Party represented in the Government of Canada and under the instructions-with his background with CN Marine-of the government agency.
Last year, the terminal charge was $5.20 a tonne. This year, the man has the audacity to charge $5.85 a tonne for a terminal fee because of present inflation. In other words, the unjustified fee is up to $5.85 a tonne for every tonne of cargo moved by this gentleman. This year he will charge the consumers of that area in excess of $240,000, to which he is not entitled.
Dealing with the administration of ports, as long as this kind of blatant political partisanship, patronage and corruption is to rule in our courts, we can pass whatever kind of legislation we want because the situation will never be improved. I wrote to the minister on November 26, 1981, and brought this to his attention. I wrote to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) and brought this monopoly situation to his attention. I also wrote to the president of CN and the president of CN Marine to bring it to their attention. After a period of several months I had a reply from the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Of course, his reply would only make one laugh if it did not make one cry. He had to concede that there was a monopoly but could not concede that the monopoly is damaging the public for very specious reasons which I do not have time to go into in detail. I would refer to his letter of February 1, 1982, where he said that one of the reasons that the sheds did not go to public tender was that Woodward had the stevedoring contract in Goose Bay and they were consequently leased to Woodward because he was the most likely one to use the sheds for freight distribution. That was the reason the minister gave for giving Mr. Woodward all of those sheds. He should have the sheds because he is going to be doing the stevedoring.
When I went after CN Marine, I had a meeting with Mr. Tingley on May 5, 1981, about this situation. He gave me a different version. He said that CN Marine had to give Woodward the stevedoring contract because he controlled the sheds. Here we have the Government of Canada, through the minister's colleague, saying that it has to give Woodward the sheds and it is not a monopoly because he has the stevedoring contract. Then we have CN Marine saying that it has to give this man stevedoring because he has the sheds. Why can the Department of Transport and CN Marine not get together and call tenders on both of these contracts so that Mr. Woodward is not in a position to be a monopolist and charge what he likes to the consumers of the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area?
Of course, I also got a reply from the minister himself. I believe the reply was dated March 15 and in it he gave all kinds of reasons why this was quite proper and nothing could be done about it. Everything was above board, and of course he did not answer any of the points I made in my letter to him.
Incidentally, I also had a response from CN Marine on January 29, 1982, telling me that CN Marine's responsibility ends when the load is placed on the wharf. CN Marine said, "We are not involved in the setting or collection of terminal and/or delivery charges." In other words, CN Marine does not care how much this man bilks the consumers of the Happy Valley-Goose Bay area. Their responsibility ends when he, their stevedore, takes the cargo from their vessel and puts it on the wharf. Do you know something else? It is not their vessel. It is a vessel supplied by the very same Mr. Woodward. The vessel is called the MV Astron. CN Marine allegedly called for tenders in January of 1981-very short notice to everyone but Mr. Woodward-and manoeuvred the situation so that Mr. July 26, 1982

Woodward won the tender to supply the roll-on roll-off vessel that now carries cargo and freight from St. John's to Louis-porte to Happy Valley-Goose Bay. Therefore, Mr. Woodward, goes to his own vessel, takes the cargo off his own vessel provided to him through CN Marine, lands it through his own stevedoring services on public wharves which he controls, puts them in public sheds which he has been given control of by the Liberal Party of Canada and then charges a terminal charge of $5.85 a tonne when he delivers it to a consumer or when the consumer comes to get this cargo.
This is a situation that cries for correction. A 20-tonne container landed in St. John's, Newfoundland, will be delivered in any area within a 25 mile radius of the port for $75. That fee covers delivery, picking up the container and returning it to the wharf. But at Goose Bay where Mr. Woodward does all of his work and where no one else can do it since he has the monopoly, if you have your container moved several miles you have to pay $200 plus the terminal charge of $5.85 per tonne to have that container moved. That is three times the fee charged in St. John's and you must pay a terminal charge on top of that. I have been corresponding with the Minister of Transport and other ministers for over a year now but they do nothing about this situation. It is a situation that stinks and cries for correction.
Finally, the people of the Goose Bay-Happy Valley area have caught on. On December 1, 1981, a Goose Bay sales company wrote to Mr. Woodward refusing to pay the terminal fee and asked him how he could justify the charge. They have never heard back from him. On May 12, 1982, 20 business firms in the Goose Bay area wired the Minister of Transport about this situation. They have not heard back from him, as far as I know. At the same time, the minister of northern affairs in the Government of Newfoundland, who is the member for that district, wrote to the minister on May 25, and on January 3, 1982, this year, I wrote to the minister again bringing this whole matter to his attention.
We can pass all the legislation we like in the House, but if this kind of conniving, corruption, patronage and trickery is to go ahead, and if no one will do anything about it, then all the legislation we pass in the House does not matter a tinker's damn. The people of the Goose Bay-Happy Valley area are being skinned alive. They already have a very high cost of living. They are living in the north and in a situation where, for six months a year, they get nothing brought in except by air, and then, when the ice goes and the port opens up, we find this Liberal manufactured monopolist putting the boots to them, charging everything under the sun, using his own vessel, chartered by CN Marine, providing the stevedoring services, using a public service, for which he pays little or no rent, and then charging, on top of everything else, a terminal fee of $5.85 a tonne.
I am putting this on public record and asking for a commission of investigation, an inquiry into this corrupt situation in Goose Bay-Happy Valley. I am asking for that inquiry to go on and to inquire into the whole situation with respect to CN Marine, which is out of the control of this government or of
Canada Ports Corporation Act
any government. It had never had a public audit until 1979, all its deficits until then being met by the Government of Canada, and the matter now cries out for public investigation. I understand that the Auditor General is taking special pains this year to attempt to find out what is going on with CN Marine and the cozy arrangements into which CN Marine is entering.
What is some other evidence of favouritism for this Mr. Woodward, this director of the Bank of Canada, this chairman of the Enterprise Development Board, this ex-Liberal candidate, this ex-Liberal member of the House of Assembly in Newfoundland, this buddy, this friend, this campaign manager of the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey)? They are heart to heart, soul to soul.
What else is going on with Mr. Woodward? He has had the stevedore contracts from 1968, not just from 1969. There was a building, No. S-1291, which was supposed to be removed from the site and the site restored in 1969. Mr. Woodward was given the building and given permission to leave the building on site when another well-known Newfoundlander was minister of transport, so that building is still there on the site. He is supposed to be paying rental of $177.60 a year for land 40 feet by 148 feet from June 1, 1971. He is actually using land measuring 270 feet by 280 feet and should be paying at least $2,268 per annum, which is another act of favouritism shown to this gentleman.
In September, 1974, a 12,000-barrel fuel tank was placed below high water mark adjacent to the main dock. It was supposed to be cut up and removed by the same Mr. Woodward. It is still there. It has not been cut up and it has not been removed. The storage area to the rear of all those sheds are on a Woodward scrapyard. He pays nothing to the government for that privilege. He has stored it, free, on federal property, since August 7, 1980, whenever he wished, despite the fact that in a memo dated November 10, 1978, it is forbidden for scrap to be stored on federal wharves or approaches. The ordinary federal rules of the Department of Transport do not apply to this self-same Mr. Woodward. Why? Because he is a Liberal. Why? Because he is friend, companion and campaign manager for the Minister of National Revenue. So if he piles the scrap on federally-owned land, on approaches to the wharves and behind the sheds, it does not matter.
There is another major aspect, the Astron. I would need much more time to go into the details of this vessel, the Astron, and how Mr. Woodward got the Astron chartered by CN Marine. That vessel is getting the highest charter hire of any vessel of CN at sea, $4,868 a day on a five-year charter, the most generous charter that CN Marine ever gave, supposedly the result of a tender call, but the tender call laid down certain conditions that all others thought applied, or that Woodward knew did not apply. Therefore, he was the only one to tender the kind of vessel which they afterwards said they wanted. Not only is he getting $4,868 a day for charter hire but he is also getting escalation. Last year he received $4,800 a day. This year he receives a daily charter hire of $4,800 a day

July 26, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
plus 60.1 per cent of the 1982 cost of living index increase. In other words, the cost of living rose 12 per cent, so he will now receive 60.1 per cent of 12 per cent added on to the $4,800 a day. CN guarantees to use his vessel at least 183 days a year. If it cancels the charter during this five-year period, it must purchase the vessel. Therefore, the vessel in the tender call has said, "Canadian-owned and registered vessel preferred". The vessel is bid and registered in Bermuda. It is foreign-owned. It is not a Canadian vessel. But it does not have to pay pilotage fees. It is given a special arrangement with respect to pilotage fees. Mr. Woodward does not hire CBRT or union crews on this vessel. No, he has his own crews on his vessel, permitted by CN Marine, and he paid his seamen $4.10 an hour last year. That is what the Woodward seamen on this vessel received.
I wrote the minister about all this. I know that my time is up, Mr. Speaker, so I will conclude now. I will never conclude with this issue, though, until it is resolved and investigated and a proper report is made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 wrote the minister about all this, and he sloughed me off. He apparently believed the people whom he sent out to look into this. He told me there was insufficient evidence of improper practices to warrant instructing CN Marine not to go forward with the charter of the vessel, the Astron. The minister took no action to stop that deal going forward. Mr. Minister, this situation cries out for rectification. I do not care if it concerns a Liberal, a Conservative or whoever it is. No person in Canada should be put in this position, to monopolize everything, and then to give the consumers and the ordinary people of Labrador a drubbing and a screwing as this man has been giving them for a number of years, imposing charges that are unwarranted and which have been made possible by the inactivity, if not the active misfeasance, of the government which sits opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief because most of the remarks I wanted to make have already been made by others. I wanted to note that one of the eminent predecessors of the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), the late C. D. Howe, was responsible in 1936 for the National Harbours Act that we have today. At that time, the argument in favour of centralization was that the autonomous harbours were riddled with political patronage. I see now that the idea is to go back or revert to the pre-1936 arrangements. We have just seen an illustration of some of the patronage that still exists within the operation of Canadian harbours.
I wanted to endorse the remarks of the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) with respect to the port of Churchill. It seems ludicrous to me that we do not develop that port, instead of allowing the harbour to silt up, and that we do not adequately maintain the railway track. It is a thousand miles shorter, from the Canadian prairies to Europe through the port of Churchill, than it is through the Lakehead and the
St. Lawrence. That port should be used to a much greater extent than it is at present.
But the point I really wanted the Minister of Transport to hear was with respect to the possible development of a national harbour. Somewhere along the Arctic coast, facing the Beaufort Sea we should develop a national harbour since a number of vessels are operating in that area and the development is dislocated. One company will go in there and do a little bit of dredging and make temporary harbour facilities in one location. A couple of years later they will move over to another place. Do we not have one central location in that area where we might make a national harbour at some time in the future?
What I am suggesting to the minister is that he request his officials to examine that area, 500 or 600 miles of coast from the Alaskan boundary over to the Paulatuk area and locate potential sites for national harbours in that region. They are very limited. Most of the shore of the Beaufort Sea is very shallow way out into the water. There are only one or two limited sites which would make a good national harbour. I suggest we examine those potential sites and have the lands set aside at this time for the development of a national harbour. I hope that can be done. Those are the few comments I want to make. I will not delay the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) any longer.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a few comments on motions Nos. 5 and 6. Before I comment on motion No. 5, let me say that before the dinner hour the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) referred to the role that Gordon Sinclair, the marine administrator, had played with regard to this bill. 1 agree with my hon. friend and I emphasize that the role played by Mr. Sinclair was considerable, if not enormous, in the preparation of this bill.
I also want to praise the four musketeers-as usual, there were five-Messrs. McPherson, Boyer, Innes, Simmons and Biron, chairmen respecting the port authorities at Vancouver, Montreal, St. John's, Halifax and Quebec, who served as advisers in the preparation of this bill.
Back to work, the government is willing to accept motion No. 5. There is nothing here that is very different from what was intended. I agree that the final text, which had many authors, is more clear than the one we started with. Subclause 34 of Clause 13 deals with the so-called banker concept. That is the capacity of the Canada Ports Corporation, the maxi corporation, to act as banker for the local port corporation with respect to their excess or surplus funds. This received considerable interest in the committee, I would say excessive. I doubt whether it will be one of the main sources of financing for ports in the future simply because the concept of surplus or excess funds comes in only after the port corporation has foreseen expenditure for the six-year capital budget.
That is a long time. They will need a lot of money to do that. I would think that a port which finds itself in this position
July 26, 1982

might think of reducing its rates or tariffs in order to attract more customers. Therefore, I do not see it as a major feature of this bill. Be that as it may, it has been substantially improved.
I repeat, Motion No. 5 makes it clearer. The first subclause states the principle very well after providing for five items that the local port corporation has to provide for. The key words are, "Be retained by the local port corporation". That is, the funds will be retained by the local port corporation which, as the hon. member said, is the principle. The first call is for the local port corporation. The words that apply in this amendment are taken from Bill C-50 of 1979.
Subclause 2 makes it clear that the loan from the local port corporation to the Canada Ports Corporation is by agreement between the two entities, the national and the local. I grant to my hon. friend that that is an improvement. It is much friendlier in that fashion than in the previous version. In this instance the minister is left out. The minister comes back in in subclause (3). He can require a local port corporation to loan to the Canada Ports Corporation as usual, taking into account the demands of a six-year budget and after consultation with the local port corporation. That is a better draft. Therefore, we will pass it as an interesting improvement of the bill.
It is a similar situation with Motion No. 6, which deals with subclause (36) of Clause 13. Here the right of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Finance is affirmed to require the corporation to make a contribution to the Receiver General. Members on the other side did not like that. Because it is not essential to this bill, for the simple reason that that clause is found in the Financial Administration Act, I am not unwilling to depart from it, if such is the wish of the House. However, I want to be very emphatic. There is no change to the reality of it. It is a matter of perception. It is one of the residual powers of the Crown that it can grab money wherever it can grab it. That is expressed in the Financial Administration Act.
The same clause plus is also found in the Harbour Commissions Act. It has never been used. Therefore, this is no great change, and I would not like to present it as such.
As I said in committee, that clause was in the bill because we wanted to accommodate the possibility that the Canada Ports Corporation and local port corporation might move from Schedule C under the Financial Administration Act to Schedule D and then, like CN and Air Canada, they would have to make a contribution to the government by way of dividends. This is the clause in the Financial Administration Act that permits the minister and the government to extract dividends from Schedule D Crown corporations. That was one of the reasons it was there.
I repeat, this is not being taken out. It is found in Section 71(4) of the Financial Administration Act. If I had time I would read it. This is no great change. It is a perception only, as some of my friends opposite have said.
I would like to spend a lot of time on this but I will not do that. I am not entitled to speak for a long time, as is the hon.
Canada Ports Corporation Act
member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). If I did that, I would be considered uncouth, uncivilized and unfriendly. Therefore, I will not. I want to give everyone a chance to speak, including the chairman of the Transport Committee of this House who did such a good job on this bill. I want everyone to have a chance to speak.
I want to say a few words only in reply to the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain). He talked about the need for money in Saint John, New Brunswick. It was interesting to observe that members did not resist the temptation to go regional, an unfortunate characteristic in this country. That does not apply to the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) who is an exception in everything he does.
One of the members from Vancouver talked about the large expenditures in the port of Vancouver. That is all from savings from funds originating in the port of Vancouver. Similarly, expenditures in the port of Montreal are all from savings made in that port. In Halifax, for example, the federal government recently invested $20-some million dollars in Fairview Cove. Similarly, in Saint John it was $29 million. There is a distinction to be drawn between funds originating from the revenues of the local ports and funds originating from federal contributions. Be that as it may, with respect to Saint John I said in the committee that it is not easy for me to forgive that particular debt. First of all, this is not a money bill, and I could not do it in this bill. Second, that debt is the result of a loan by the Government of New Brunswick to the port. In other instances the contributions of the provinces have come to ports by way of grants, so that if we were going to compensate the province of New Brunswick for a loan contribution to the port of Saint John, all the other provinces-and there are many which have made grant contributions to their ports-would come and say, "What the heck; are we going to be penalized because we were more generous, possibly, than the Government of New Brunswick?" My hon. friend should realize that there is a problem here. In the committee I extended myself fully in relation to the concept about which he smiles now, which is an arrangement by which Peter might pay Paul. We are still working at that, even if we do not have the gratitude of the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte.
With respect to the contribution of the hon. member for St. John's West about the Goose Bay terminal, I could go on almost as long as he did.


John Carnell Crosbie: I was getting started.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I hesitate to do that, for very good reasons. This is really the equivalent of a vendetta between the Montagues and the Capulets, and I hesitate to put my finger between the tree and the bark. It seems that one of the mistakes Mr. Woodward has made has been to challenge the strength and power of the Crosbies in that particular area, and presumably that is his punishment.

July 26, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act


John Carnell Crosbie: That is complete junk. It is the public being screwed up there; it has nothing to do with the Crosbies. You are going to regret that.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The information I have is that Coastal Shipping has a bona fide contract with CN Marine, and with respect to the Department of Transport, since 1980-I do not know about the time before that; my hon. friend is possibly right about that-Transport Canada has applied the principle of tendering in renting property. The famous shed 1, shed 2, shed 3 and shed 5-


John Carnell Crosbie: They haven't called tenders.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Coastal has a three-year lease now.


John Carnell Crosbie: But they have never called tenders for it. They were given it.


Jean-Luc Pepin: The information I have is that this was done on a tendering basis.


John Carnell Crosbie: Ten years before that what happened?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1 am not talking about ten years before. I am just saying that, contrary-


John Carnell Crosbie: No tenders have ever been called.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -to what my hon. friend says, since 1980 the lease has been on a tender basis with Coastal Shipping. In any event, it is slightly different from what the hon. member said on this particular matter. The rental was based on market value as determined by the Department of Public Works.


John Carnell Crosbie: Market value? Junk. Tell us what the rent is.


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is one opinion. I do not have the detail of what the rent is.


John Carnell Crosbie: Of course you don't.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have written to the hon. member before. My hon. friend referred to that. I will be writing him again after another inquiry, which has been conducted, is completed. 1 understand that the president of CN Marine, Mr. Armstrong, has already written to the hon. member on this subject. This is what I know on this matter. I am very concerned that justice should be done and justice should be seen to be done, and I will continue my research so that my hon. friend will not have reasons for grievance the way he had tonight.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the minister would entertain a question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister why, in the absence of intelligent ports policy historically, he should now use the Old Testament biblical policy that the sins of the fathers should be visited upon the sons and that the debt should remain the debt of the port of Saint John. If the
minister feels that conscience dictates that other provinces should be reimbursed, why not reimburse them all? That is my question.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained well why it is difficult to forgive the loan made to the port. I explained that well, I thought.


Fred Alward McCain: Why ask the sons to bear the sins of the fathers in the old biblical sense?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Again, I will repeat that one of the main reasons is that in this particular instance the province of New Brunswick made a loan to the port. In other instances-for example, in Nova Scotia with respect to Fairview Cove-it was a grant or gift. In British Columbia, at Prince Rupert, similarly, it was a gift. We cannot easily pay back New Brunswick for a loan because those provinces which made grants-gifts-would come back and say they deserve the same repayment. I think this is not illogical.


Fred Alward McCain: You did not answer the question. That's all.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I thought I had, but I will try again next time.


Fred Alward McCain: Why should the sins of the fathers be visited on the sons on the Old Testament biblical "eye for an eye" basis?


Jean-Luc Pepin: That is not really the intent. In addition to that, the port of Saint John has done rather well. The potash development which has taken place is sponsored by the federal government at the level of $29 million, which is not chicken feed.


Fred Alward McCain: On a user pay-back basis.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: There was some discussion in the House earlier as to whether motion No. 5 stands in the name of the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) seconded by the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) or vice versa.


Thomas Edward Siddon: If I might clarify, Mr. Speaker, motion No. 5 stands in the name of the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) as printed in the Order Paper. Motion No. 6 stands in my name, also as printed in the Order Paper.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I thank the hon. member. The question is on motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 5 (Mr. Cook) agreed to.
July 26, 1982


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is now on Motion No. 6. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Siddon) agreed to.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-92, to amend the National Harbours Board Act, the Government Harbours and Piers Act, the Harbour Commissions Act, the Canada Shipping Act and the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, be amended in Clause 14 by striking out line 14 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
"cases.
40. The Minister, the Corporation or a local port corporation shall not, by virtue of anything provided by or under this Act, be deemed to have the administration, management or control of any scheduled harbour as defined in section 2 of the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act." "
He said: Mr. Speaker, 1 will abbreviate my explanation of this motion. Clause 7 of the bill as printed provides:
"9. (1) The Governor in Council may, by order, at any time, on the recommendation of the Minister,
(a)	transfer to the Corporation for administration, management and control
any harbour, work or property of Canada-
That clause provides a substantial expropriation power to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to enlarge the boundaries and jurisdiction of the Canada Ports Corporation to encompass other ports which are owned by Her Majesty and operated in the name of the Government of Canada. I had hoped-this is reflected in a motion printed on the Order Paper last week-to find a way to exempt harbours that are operating under the Harbour Commissions Act or the Government Harbours and Piers Act, former acts governing the management of these other types of harbours owned by Her Majesty, from any overriding power or expropriation threat by the provisions of Bill C-92. I have been led to believe that the government will find the present motion acceptable. It would exempt harbours operating under the provisions of small craft harbours legislation from any possible threat of expropriation by way of enlarging the head line of ports operated by the Canada Ports Corporation. I only regret that the minister had not seen fit also to provide similar guarantees to protect harbour commission ports because, as we determined through our long committee deliberations, it has been an objective from the outset that if a local port corporation sought to establish harbour commission status or Class D Crown corporation status, that would be permitted. I am afraid that, given the very powerful expropriation provision in Clause 7(9) the minister, in his judgment, could at some time in the future reacquire a harbour commission port and take it into the family of ports operating under the Canada Ports Corporation.
Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I am led to believe that the government will find this amendment acceptable. It will protect all the small craft harbours in Canada, including the
Canada Ports Corporation Act
two in my riding, at Ladner and Steveston, from possible acquisition by the Canada Ports Corporation.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the amendment is to establish symmetry between the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act and the Canada Ports Corporation Act so that one cannot infringe upon the other. It is a search for symmetry and we thought it was implied in the spirit of the bill. If my hon. friend wants to spell it out, that is all right.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: All those opposed will please say nay.
The motion is carried unanimously.
Motion No. 7 (Mr. Siddon) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on Motion No. 8 in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell).


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-92, An Act to amend the National Harbours Board Act, the Government Harbours and Piers Act, the Harbour Commissions Act, the Canada Shipping Act and the Fishing and Recreational Harbours Act, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 20 to 28 at page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
"chairman, a vice-chairman and five other directors.
2.(1) Subject to this section, three of the directors of a local port corporation
shall be appointed by the Governor in Council and the remainder shall be
appointed by the Governor in Council based on recommendations as follows:
(a)	one by the Lieutenant Governor in Council of the province in which the local port corporation is located;
(b)	one director by agreement among the councils of all municipalities adjoining the port for which the local port corporation is established;
(c)	one by the provincial federation of labour in consultation with the marine and maritime unions; and
{d) one by the agreement of the commercial tenants of the local port corporation."
She said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to this motion so that we know the context in which we are discussing it. In our view this is probably the most important amendment to the bill. Unless we can have the whole concept of local autonomy included in port management, it means nothing. There must be a board that is accountable to the local community as well as able to carry out the responsibility of the national port objectives. We believe it is very important to have a local board for local port corporations. It is important that we not have a

July 26, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
patronage board, as was mentioned by a member from Newfoundland, but a sound, democratic board that will be efficient and have expertise in a number of areas.
Our amendment proposes a seven-person board composed of a chairman, a vice-chairperson and five directors. Three of the directors would be appointed by the federal government and, in addition, four members would be appointed by the minister, but the four names could be submitted in four different areas of interest. We feel, for example, that the government of the province in which the port is located should be able to propose one or more names to the minister representing the regional planning interests, the industrial and economic development interests which are of major concern to the province. In a province with coastal regions, the total industry of the province is tied into the port system, so it only makes sense that it should have some say in appointments to the board.
We also propose that municipalities surrounding the particular port should have the right to propose names to the minister. Several names could be suggested of persons expert in port and regional matters and the concerns of the municipalities-not in a vested interest way, because they would represent all municipalities, but in a practical, planning way. They would know the environmental and other concerns of the surrounding municipalities.
We also propose that port users-domestic port users, should be able to name nominees for the consideration of the minister; perhaps one representative from that group. Surely the users of the port should have a voice. They would have a certain expertise to contribute to the board. We also propose a representative from labour-not a representative of one particular union but a representative of labour generally. Names could be submitted through the Canadian Federation of Labour in consultation with the marine unions.
This seemed to us to be a way of conforming to certain structures that are required for Crown corporations but still achieving a balanced approach to the composition of local port boards.
1 should like to refer to the objectives that were established and that have been spoken to already. How can we possibly achieve Canadian international trade objectives and represent the concerns of all provinces using a port unless one member of the board has this kind of expertise? In the port of Vancouver, for example, I could see the need for someone tied in with the prairie provinces, with the lumber industry-someone who is knowledgeable about the Pacific rim trade interests.
In our objectives we said that there should be efficiency. That is one criteria of a sound local port corporations policy. This means there should be members on the board with business expertise. We know that the minister will think of these people first. In committee he automatically thought of the chamber of commerce, as did the Conservative Party which would automatically go to that group first. That is fine, let us have a member from the chamber of commerce, but let us also have persons expert in labour relations or who have knowledge of transportation or shipping and of the problems of dock workers.
We said in our objectives that there should be equitable treatment, in the movement of goods and persons, of users of the port. Domestic users should have a voice on the board. They could make a valuable contribution, speaking for all users of the port and for the business community, providing useful advice for policy making as well as the day-to-day operations of the port.
We said in our objectives that the port policy should provide local port corporations with a high degree of autonomy for management and operation of the port. It seems to me just common sense that persons nominated for the board should include some who know something about the surrounding municipalities and communities, as well as the provincial economic development concerns. The official opposition stated in one of its amendments, and we agree, that these should not be elected politicians but persons who have expertise in port matters and in planning in the areas I have mentioned.
It is important that there be co-ordination with other marine activities and with multi-mode types of transportation.
This would no be political patronage of appointees made by the minister in the typical Liberal way that we want. If we are to have autonomy in the local port corporations, the boards must have a broad composition with input from the groups that I have described.
We feel that the process of appointment to the board could be carried out through a procedure that would allow the minister to name the appointees. The minister did not seem to comprehend this is committee. I understand this idea was taken to cabinet and vetoed there. That is not an unexpected action by a Liberal cabinet, of course. The minister would still have certain veto rights, as would cabinet, but he would be able to choose three of the appointees in addition to the four groups that 1 have mentioned.
I do not really grasp the rationale of his argument when he said that special interests would dominate this kind of board structure. If ever we had special interests, it is under the present and proposed situation where the minister will appoint all the representatives to the board. Why does he think that one provincial representative, for example, would be able to out-vote six others? That is not special interest, that is just one out of seven who would express an interest that the province might have but who would be concerned as well with the port operation generally. The same thing applies to labour. The minister has given lip service to labour in that two local port authorities of the NHB have labour representatives, but there is no assurance that this would be part of the regular structure. If he agrees with it for two local port authorities, why could he not put it in writing as the criterion for the appointment of all boards across the country?
I was interested in a number of amendments proposed by the Conservatives, and we did agree with some of them as I said earlier. We believe the local port board, for example, should be able to elect its own chairperson. Why should that have to be done by the minister and approved by cabinet? In
July 26, 1982

addition, surely a local board would be responsible and competent enough to nominate replacements and have them approved by the minister on their recommendation. It is interesting to note that the Conservatives proposed a system similar to the Harbours Commission when they were talking about the composition of the local advisory board. They wanted to have municipal representation, but I did not see it stated anywhere in their amendments that the province should have the right to some representation on the local board. I was very interested in that inasmuch as it was the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) who pressed very hard in committee to have witnesses come forward. We received a telegram from the Government of British Columbia saying that they do not agree with this bill at all and they wanted to have a B.C. port authority, a whole new authority for the province. We do not agree with that but 1 think it would make great sense to have the provinces, particularly in the larger ports, have a say and be able to propose at least one person to the board. I was curious as to why the Conservatives did not include this in their amendment.
In the case of the refusal by the minister and the government to consider our amendment, or even to modify it, I can only conclude that it confirms our major concern that the Liberal government still wants to maintain patronage appointments to these new local port boards. If this is the case- certainly there is nothing to indicate that it is not-it seems to me that it undermines the whole concept of autonomy, supposedly the main purpose of this bill. We know the appointees are going to be friends of the Liberals, if not actual party members. We have heard about former Liberal candidates appointed to boards under the present system. As soon as you get a board which is largely a patronage type of board, we will also have them deciding on leases. Certainly a lot of us have concerns about how leases are approved and about the granting of important financial advantages to persons receiving leases of port property.
I do not want to take any more time on this amendment, Mr. Speaker, but it is really a very important one, and 1 wish the minister would reconsider. I believe that in principle the opposition parties supported this in committee as well, and unless there is a more sound and representative local port board the proposed autonomy will simply not take place.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, just a few brief comments in connection with this particular amendment. It deals basically with the same material for which my party fought very hard in committee and in bargaining with the parliamentary secretary to get some kind of amendment of this nature. I mention in passing that this is not unique. The government will obviously turn down this amendment, not that the minister is opposed that much to it but because his cabinet colleagues booted him out of the room when he tried to suggest it might be reasonable to allow various ports to nominate two or three people from various segments of the population involved with that port. He would then still have the option of making his selection from that group. The minister, of course, was personally totally opposed to having any provincial input, and in the hopes of getting
Canada Ports Corporation Act
something through which might make sense we dropped it from our amendment. Finally, when we realized the hopelessness of the whole thing, we withdrew our amendment.
I am delighted to see that the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) has at least brought this to the attention of the House, even though it was a futile effort. I support this amendment, and I would support a far better one, but seeing that it is not going to happen anyway I would only warn the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that his appointments to local port corporations and the Canada Ports Corporation are going to be watched very carefully by all port people throughout Canada. The minister is going to be watched very carefully to see whether he has gone the usual Liberal route of pure patronage, or whether he has attempted to find people from the port community, the labour unions or the municipalities, in other words, whether there is a balanced board and one that knows its stuff, or whether it is going to be another group of Liberal party hacks. Rest assured, Sir, that I will be the first one screaming if you appoint the kind of board which you have the absolute dictatorial power to do. That is what we are objecting to and that is why we want this type of amendment. I compliment the hon. member for Vancouver East on bringing this forward so that it can be discussed, at least very briefly.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be short because many of us will not be speaking on third reading if things go as it appears they will this evening.
One of the two very strongly held concerns of members of this party is with respect to providing local autonomy. The other concern has to do with providing a degree of financial independence to the local port corporation, and the minister has graciously accommodated that. I would go so far as to say, Mr. Speaker, that if the minister were prepared to accept at least an undertaking to consult with the regional advisory council, which he will appoint under the provisions of this bill and which was the nature of amendments presented in committee and in fact listed on the Order Paper last week, then I could support this bill, even though I am not terribly happy about creating another family of Crown corporations. I am sure other members may feel that way also because it is like a slap in the face to our constituents to see rehashed, retired or defeated liberal candidates appointed to responsible positions. I recall asking the administrator in committee how these lists were prepared. Was it at departmental level and sent to the minister for selection and decision, or were the lists submitted to the administrator by the political structure for comment? I could gauge by the twindle in the administrator's eye that it was the latter course which was followed. I must say that is a sad commentary on the way we select people for responsible positions where they are entrusted with policy decisions and the over-all management of major Crown corporations such as the proposed Canada Ports Corporation. I cannot support the bill as written, largely because of this remaining deficiency which I would like to have seen rectified. I hope in these final moments the minister might agree to accept the amendment

July 26, 1982
Canada Ports Corporation Act
proposed by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell). It reflects the concerns of the people in my province and of the government of British Columbia to some degree because they have made it quite clear that they cannot accept the bill in its present form.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few comments so that it will not be said that I did not answer the last question. With respect to Motion No. 8, I disagree with the principle that is introduced which is group representation as opposed to representation by individuals. The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) gave us four groups that she would like to see represented: the provinces, the municipalities, labour and tenants. I could name other groups. For instance users-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: I said users.


Jean-Luc Pepin: -carriers, women, academics and environmental groups. Immediately you have a problem having to decide which groups are going to be selected. There are ten or 15 different groups that can relate to the objectives of a port. I have answered questions in committee as to provincial representation in these matters. But I should underline the fact that there is a new element in that bill. It sets the qualifications of those who will become members of the board. Proven experience and capacity is one of the criteria. As a member said, they have to know their stuff, which is one of the conditions for appointment. They have to be representative of local interests. Generally they have to have residence in the area of the port itself.
In committee I said that I would be looking forward to recommendations and suggestions made by different groups in society. I do not think it would be wise to appoint people to these boards on the basis that they represent this or that particular group.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The question is on Motion No. 8 in the name of the member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 8 (Mrs Mitchell) negatived.


Jean-Luc Pepin: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When shall the bill be read a third time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.


Jean-Luc Pepin: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, I have spent a good many years of my life on this bill. I want to take a few miniutes to speak briefly on third reading. I could discuss many of the claims made in committee and here today but I will resist that temptation. Simply in my opinion, this bill is long past due. It has the support of the vast majority of the people involved in the ports community of Canada. A fair number of amendments have been accepted by the government, some of which in my own opinion make the bill weaker and some make it stronger, but that is the nature of the give and take and compromise of debate.
I believe it is now time to get on with Bill C-92 as amended and have passage of it today. I want to pay tribute to the committee, of which I had the honour to be chairman, for the diligence and the hard work which its member showed. There was a fair amount of partisanship, which one expected in a parliamentary democracy, but there was a maximum sense of public duty displayed by members who served on that committee.
I would like to pay particular tribute to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) who is probably more knowledgeable than any other member in this House on ports policy in Canada. I want to pay tribute also to the member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger). He was the ViceChairman of the committee. He chaired several sessions of the committee in my absence due to the death of a member of my family. In addition, I want to pay tribute to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) for his diligence in ensuring that we were all well-informed on the various points in the bill.
The minister attended the committee and gave full and frank answers to the questions presented to him. Finally, I would like to mention the administrator of the Canadian Marine Transportation Administration who spent quite some time in the committee. He was the chief witness. He, with his officials, deserve the commendation of the committee and the gratitude of the people of Canada for the fine job they are doing in administering the marine division.
July 26, 1982

Having said that, I express the hope that this bill will pass without further delay and that we will have in this country not independent ports but autonomous ports still responsible to the Government of Canada for their actions and, through the Government of Canada, to the people of Canada. I hope that we will have a very healthy and active port community as a result of the passage of Bill C-92 as amended.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. It has taken a long time to push this bill through. I think everyone who served on the committee worked very hard.
I want to state flatly and get it on the record that I will be voting against this bill. I shall be saying no to this bill because of the absolute powers it gives to the minister in practically everything. Perhaps I am wrong. Perhaps I am wrong to distrust a Liberal government that has been riddled with patronage of various kinds. Perhaps I am wrong to distrust civil servants in Ottawa for fear of what they may do in terms of continuing to attempt to run anything out of this centre which is 4,000 miles from my port.
If we can believe what the minister says and if we can believe what the administrator has had to say this bill may work out. But every time I look at the actual document and I try to find where it is written that we have autonomy, I cannot because it is simply not there.
I warned my colleagues and the port users of Vancouver about this bill. Never has there been a time when a member representing the west coast hoped that he was wrong about a bill in Parliament. If I am wrong I will be delighted. If I am right, then this is a terrible bill. One of the first things we will do when we take over the government will be to change this legislation, if the minister uses his autocratic powers and if the minister handles the bill with the vast powers he has. I only hope that I am wrong. But for the record I say that I will be voting a strong and vehement no to this dictatorial piece of legislation with regard to the ports of Canada.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, one of the main objectives of-the national ports policy for Canada is to create a port system that is an effective instrument of support for the achievement of Canadian international trade objectives.
Canada is an active trading partner ranking eighth internationally in terms of the value of our exports. Merchandise exports are 25 per cent of our gross national product while our total external trade accounts for nearly one third of our GNP.
In the midst of today's world recession, competition for exports has become a battleground for economic survival. International competition in this environment of uncertainty will test severely Canada's ability to enhance or even maintain its existing trade position. As the battle for world trade advantage becomes fiercer, Canada must strive to have the best ports facilities in the world. Efficient ports can reduce the cost of our products significantly, making them more competitive on world markets.
Canada Ports Corporation Act
The ports policy which we are shaping in the House today must be sensitive and respond to changing trade patterns. For example, three years ago, for the first time, our trade across the Pacific exceeded that across the Atlantic. Export market opportunities are shifting away from North America and Europe to Southeast Asia, the Middle East and Latin America.
Last year the special parliamentary committee on a national trading corporation tabled in the House a report entitled, "Canada's Trade Challenge". The bill we are about to pass this evening will provide a very important component in helping Canadians meet Canada's trade challenge.
It became evident 12 years ago that Canada's ports policy was no longer adequate to meet the economic and social needs of the eighties and nineties. Attempts to change the existing legislation to make it more responsive in meeting the needs for greater local and regional involvement in the operations and development of the ports within the NHB system failed.
A special task force of industry representatives and government was formed eight years ago to review Canadian ports policy and make recommendations on changes. The task force laid the foundation of a new policy by developing a series of objectives for the ports system. These objectives are clearly spelled out in Clause 2, subclause 3(1) of the bill. Therefore I will not waste the time of the House by reading the objectives. Taking into account the task force recommendations, new legislation was prepared and brought before the chamber in 1977 as Bill C-61, then again in the same year as Bill C-6, and two years later as Bill C-50. All three bills died on the Order Paper without even reaching second reading.
After being three times a bridesmaid, it is time that Bill C-92 became a bride, led to the altar by the distinguished groom, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin). This bride, Bill C-92, is being given away tonight by her father, the administrator of Canadian marine transport administration, Mr. Gordon Sinclair.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jesse Philip Flis: If anyone deserves to claim the title of father of Bill C-92, the administrator certainly does. His many consultations with all interested parties across Canada on this bill, his information, advice and answers in committee, and his unlimited patience went a long way in bringing Bill C-92 to report stage.
In every wedding party there must be a best man. I would like to bestow this honour upon the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport. Bill C-92 could have received the same ill fate as past ports bills, but thanks to his fairness to every committee member, regardless of party affiliation, the bill received careful scrutiny and came out of committee a better bill.
As Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, I want to thank the ushers of this wedding party-the hon. members for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), for
19716

Canada Ports Corporation Act
Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook), for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon), for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), and others from the Official Opposition whose questions, clarifications and amendments have brought more clarity and strength to Bill C-92.
Of course, what would we have done without the bridesmaids? The hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) kept reminding the committee that there were two sexes in the world. She and her colleague, the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) stressed the importance of more decentralized administration-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 hate to take the time of the House, but I really object to the language just used by the parliamentary secretary.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry the hon. member objects to those words. I thought I was complimenting the hon. member. If she thinks they are offensive, I will withdraw them.
Also I would like to throw orchids to the hon. members of the Standing Committee on Transport from this side of the House for their dedication in attending committee meetings and for their defence of the bill. I must congratulate them for even voting against the government and with the opposition to pass the opposition motion on the appointment of auditors by local boards.
To complete the wedding party on this bill, I know that all hon. members of the House who served on the transport committee would want me to congratulate the mother of the bride, the clerk of the transport committee, Miss Santosh Sirpaul who was so helpful to all committee members in making certain that our amendments were in order and that the committee proceedings flowed as smoothly as possible.
After 12 years of attempts to improve our ports legislation, I am pleased and indeed honoured that I find myself standing in the House of Commons in the midst of parliamentarians who are providing outstanding leadership today for a better Canada tomorrow.


Ian Deans: We were going to support the bill until we heard
that speech.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, my colleague says that we were going to support the bill until we heard that speech. That is not true. We are not going to support the bill. We agree that Bill C-92 is long overdue. In my remarks on June 22 I reviewed the history of the many attempts from 1901 on to establish more local autonomy and more efficiency in the ports system.
The ports policy of Canada is basic to our economic development and to our international trade. It creates jobs. It is essential to industrial development. It affects the quality of our life. Indeed, it is very, very important to all regions of Canada which are located on the waters of our continent. We believe that the ports policy must be efficient and decentralized to reflect regional needs.
The aim of Bill C-92 was to establish local autonomy. We think it has provided more local decentralized administration.
July 26, 1982
There is more control over funds, particularly since the amendment passed today. However, we are not satisfied at all that there really is local autonomy in the true sense of the word. In particular, we are concerned that the board of directors of local port organizations will still be appointed by the minister. It is not a democratic board. There is no assurance that the objectives of Bill C-92 will be carried out because of it.
We in this party believe very strongly that we must also maintain a national ports policy which takes into consideration the needs of all regions-the prairies, to get their grain to port; northern areas, to get lumber and similar resources to port. We must be concerned about smaller ports which may need more federal support in the form of subsidies. Therefore we are concerned that this bill requires financial independence for a port to qualify to have local autonomy. Specifically we agree with the provision of regional advisory councils. It is a good move. It does not establish an authority at the provincial level, but we believe that it provides for the kind of planning that is needed.
There are positives in this bill, but unfortunately the negatives remain and are serious. Our amendment to link a Canadian marines strategy with the objectives was refused. The user-pay policy for ports which has now been established by the Liberals will be implicit in this policy. It could destroy some of the ports which are not able to be financially self-sufficient, and require them to charge fuller fees so that they would not be competitive and might lose customers.
Debts have been written off at this time, but there is no assurance in the future that there will not be ports operating in the red which will need help. Finally, we feel that the local autonomy is tokenism as long as there is central control in Ottawa. We agree with some of our colleagues to the right that there are many things in the bill which appear to be decentralized, but ultimately the control is in the hands of the minister and ultimately in the hands of cabinet.
I join in thanking all hon. members who participated in committee. I commend, particularly, the staff who spent many long hours and were most efficient in performing their duties.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to rise because it is now ten o'clock, but having remained silent all day in spite of many things, there are two comments which could be made, one of which I make without any hesitation whatsoever. There is no parent, no bride and no bridegroom in this. I agree with my colleague from Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell) that the sexism in this bill should disappear. However, that is another matter altogether.
If there is a real parentage to this that will measure up to his work and those who put together the National Harbours Board some 45 or 46 years ago, perhaps it is the process, because the process has been seen to work. In many respects I agree with
July 26, 1982

the forcefulness of the representations by my colleagues from Vancouver, and in some respects I disagree with them.
This is a bill that I can support and I agree that the port users in this country by and large can support it. It is a bill that I hope will serve our ports and serve the objectives that have been outlined by a variety of members under different guises and different amendments throughout today. I hope that the bill does in fact serve those ends. Autonomy is something that we can achieve.
When the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) was minister of transport, I believe he was bent in that direction. 1 pay some tribute to him for having brought the bill to its present state. Had the government moved with respect to Crown corporations, given an indication of where it was going in that area, a lot of the difficulty surrounding this bill might have been shortcircuited. On the other hand, I can only say to the House, to the minister and the marine administrator and his staff that 1 appreciate their tolerance, understanding and patience. I hope the work they have done in terms of passage of this bill to serve the needs of our importers and exporters is in fact there and can meet the challenge that lies in front of us. I appreciate having had the opportunity to be part of the debate which is now some 10 or 12 years old.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: On division.


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

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

Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, on June 2, 1982, as recorded at page 18018 of Hansard, 1 directed questions to the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the absence of the Minister of State for Mines (Mrs. Erola) relating to the serious and growing crisis of employment in Canada's mining industry. At that time I pointed out that the current inventory as of early June showed that more than 34,000 mine, mill and smelter workers would be unemployed this summer largely because of announced shut-downs and work curtailments which were announced through the early part of this year.
I point out that if we take into account the multiplier effect to the people in all of these very seriously impacted mining communities across Canada, the people whose livelihood is directly related to the mining industry, we would find more than 160,000 employees across Canada, mostly in towns that are very heavily dependent upon single industries, who will see a major portion of their income impaired for 1982. I asked the Prime Minister to tell us what specific initiatives the government was preparing to take in the face of this serious dilemma and, in fact, what recommendations the hon. Minister of State for Mines had presented to cabinet in order to provide some hope of recovery to Canada's mining industry in the months ahead.
It has often been said that the plight of the industry has resulted from international factors and circumstances. I want to take a few moments tonight to point out that many sectors of our mining industry in Canada are in very seriously devastating circumstances because of domestic factors which cannot be entirely ascribed to international conditions.
Let me refer to a speech by the incoming president of the Mining Association of Canada in late May, who said that the problem of the Canadian minerals industry is not that of a lack of demand for Canadian minerals in foreign markets. He said that the problem is essentially domestic. 1 would put a lot of credibility in such words from the new president of the mining association. He went on to say that what is needed is determination by the government to restore an environment that encourages mineral development in Canada.
If we look at other observations on the discussion paper put forward by the Minister of State for Mines a few months ago, particularly if we look at the reaction of the Mining Association of Canada under the signature of David Thomas, the previous president, who wrote to the minister on May 29,

July 26, 1982
Adjournment Debate
1982, we find that there is great alarm about the lopsided inferences on social priorities and the lack of recognition of the serious structural inadequacies in our taxation policy with respect to mining investment and development. Mr. Thomas also pointed out the regrettable fact, and I refer to his letter to the minister, that over the past few years Canada's share of the world market has not been maintained and it should be recognized that if slippage has occurred, it is due not only to changing international conditions of supply and demand of minerals, but also, in no small extent, to the fact that investor confidence in mineral development in Canada stagnated during the seventies as a result of taxation and disputes between the two levels of Canadian government and other related factors.
Since I asked these questions in the House of Commons on June 2, the situation has grown worse. If we do our sums now, we find something in excess of 42,000 mine workers stand to be unemployed by the end of this summer. We should consider that the current serious economic depression really did not gain momentum until after the Easter period. We are now to be forewarned that the lay-offs which were only to cover a period of six weeks or eight weeks through the summer months are now being extended.
If we read the headlines we see, for example, that Cyprus Anvil in the Yukon is in serious trouble, affecting some 1,000 miners and over 40 per cent of the Yukon economy. These unemployed miners are likely to remain unemployed through the winter months if the federal government does not take some action soon. Another headline states, that The NorthWest Territories exploration activity is down substantially. Another headline is to the effect that the potash mine reopenings are still in doubt. Another headline is to the effect that Hudsons Bay Mining is extending its shutdown and smelter workers may lose their jobs if the strike continues. Another one is to the effect that the investment lull could debilitate the economy well into 1984. Another is to the effect that Inco would reinstitute production halts even if workers returned, and they have returned. Another one states that Ontario uranium mines have shut down.
In conclusion, I would like to say that one of the most seriously impacted areas of our mining industry in northern Ontario is the Timiskaming area, where we have three mines, the Adams mine, the Griffiths mine and the Sherman mine, all supplying the total production to the Canadian steel industry. The other day we learned about the very unfortunate collapse or shutdown of the Defasco mill in Hamilton. The Stelco mill is also supplied from the Adams mine, and we have the serious problems involving the collapse of the northern gas pipeline, and Algoma Steel, which is cutting back severely on its demand for iron ore pellets. We should recognize that the iron ore economy of northern Ontario, in Kirkland Lake and in other areas in the Timiskaming region, is entirely dependent on iron ore production and that, in fact, the downturn is largely due to domestic factors and we cannot blame the world. We must blame the policies, the budgetary initiatives of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the government opposite. I would be very pleased to hear the Minister of State for Mines deny that that is the case.


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to reply to the statements by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) on the state of the Canadian mining industry. I only wish I had the next 40 minutes to tell him exactly how this government is responding. Unfortunately, I do not.
Since he has painted such a picture of doom and gloom, I believe it is my responsibility to point out to him some of the bright spots that are occurring in Canada. I refer him to the most recent issue of The Northern Miner which states that the Canadian uranium outsells others in the United States market. Canadian producers are winning a large share of the current United States demand for long-term or large quantity uranium contracts.
It goes on to say that during the first six months of this year several major reported sales contracts involved approximately 30 million pounds of uranium. Just over half of the contract, or approximately 15 million pounds, went to non-U.S. companies for uranium to be produced in Canada. The willingness to adjust to the realities of the market is the primary reason that Canadian sellers have been so successful in obtaining new sales commitments.
I would have the hon. member know that the uranium mines in northern Ontario are running at full production. I also refer him to another rather successful spot in the Canadian mining scene, and I refer to the statement that gold keeps glister for Quebec mines.
Let me refer to The Financial Post, which states that the long established gold mining industry of northwestern Quebec centred in this town, aptly named Valley of Gold, is reasonably stable despite the fall in gold prices. This 70-mile wide stretch of the Canadian shield accounts for about one-third of the country's gold production worth about $230 million a year at recent prices and keeps as many as 8,000 people employed directly and indirectly.
It goes on to say that of the ten operating mines visited recently, all but one are making cash profits at the mine site, in some cases quite handsome profits. These ten mines appear more than capable of producing about 520,000 ounces of gold this year, and they employ about 2,000 at their operation, and that is not counting the spin-off that mining generates in services, supplies and transportation industries, creating perhaps another 6,000 jobs. All is not doom and gloom. I would go on to say that the hon. member well knows and refuses to admit that the vast majority of lay-offs in the country is due to a worldwide recession.
He asks, and I am sorry my time is limited, what we are doing. We know how bad the situation is in some areas. Therefore we have in place safety nets such as the Unemployment Insurance Act to maintain income and keep the economy of the community reasonably stable. God knows we are grateful for it, particularly in the area from which I come. We
July 26, 1982

have, under Section 38, created quite a number of jobs. I suggest to the hon. member that he look at what has happened under Section 38.
I also suggest to the hon. member that he take his duties more seriously, as have some members of the New Democratic Party. They have taken the time to come to us to see just how Section 38 can be applied to those areas of the country from which they come. They are now making an intensive effort to see that it works so that miners who are skilled will retain their skills, their dignity and have a decent income to bring home to their families. I suggest to him that he have another look. He derides and laughs at Section 38. 1 suggest to him that those very mining companies and the presidents to whom he referred as not having much faith in which is happening are the very ones who have been sitting down at the table with me to make it happen. Therefore, 1 say to him that this government is very concerned and acting very decisively to make things happen in these mining communities.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION-FUNDS LENT TO NEW YORK METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the question 1 would like to have debated this evening arises from the deal signed between the government, through its agency, the Export Development Corporation, and the New York Transit Authority, wherein it is contemplated that over the next 15 years the Government of Canada, through that agency, EDC, will be financing the purchase of certain transit equipment for the city of New York. This will require total borrowing on the part of the Government of Canada of $563 million over 15 years, with a rate of interest of only 9.7 per cent as far as New York is concerned.
.
If I may, I would like to clarify that because most people can hardly believe we have a government that is so careless and so reckless with its financing for foreign entities that it would literally borrow money at a true cost of 16 per cent today and lend it to an agency such as the New York Transit Authority at 9.7 per cent.
When this deal was announced, the officials with the New York Transit Authority could not believe their good fortune. They could not believe there was a Santa Claus north of the border, in the form of the Government of Canada, which was willing to make a gift to them-it was not even Christmas at the time-of $300 million to be spread over the next 15 years. That is the hard-earned money of Canadians which is being routed by this government into the development of a transit system for the benefit of those who happen to live in New York.
The hon. member for Mississauga North (Mr. Fisher) is in the House this evening. I wish he would familiarize his constituents with the fact that while some of them are losing their homes as a result of 18 per cent, 19 per cent and 20 per cent financing, his government, which triggered the high interest
Adjournment Debate
structure in the country to begin with, has now found money to lend to the New York Transit Authority at 9.7 per cent.
The government alleges it will create 20,000 to 25,000 jobs, but let us bear in mind that those 20,000 to 25,000 jobs will be spread over five years, so that in total there will only be 5,000 jobs created per year. However, we then take a new look and find that 40 per cent of the jobs will be created in the United States, so the net number of Canadians who will be employed in an area where unemployment is very high, Quebec, is only 3,000 per year. Translated into job costs per year, that means it will cost the Canadian public $20,000 in interest costs alone to keep those 3,000 employees employed over the next five years.
That is only part of the problem. In making this move, I would say that the government has acted in open defiance of the agreement, to which it is a party, with the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development group of nations in which it was agreed that in future export credits would be limited so that rates would never go below 11.25 per cent. A recent agreement raised that to 12.5 per cent. In any event, it was agreed that in no event would there be loans to support exports of longer than eight and a half years. The government not only is favouring a foreign entity at the expense of Canadians but also violating the very OECD agreement to which it is a party.
If there is this money available to build transit equipment and services for foreign entities, why is it not available in Canada? Why does the Toronto transit authority not have access to 9.7 per cent money if it should decide-which it would love to do-to extend the subway system in Toronto? What about Montreal? Why are the people of Montreal second-class citizens in relation to those in New York? What about Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary or any other major urban area? And what about Ottawa? What is wrong with the citizens of these communities that this government, which loves to talk pompously about its resistance to Americanism, should turn around and favour a city like New York at the expense of comparable cities in Canada?
Is it Canadian technology we are talking about in relation to this wonderful coup-this wonderful contract-the government claims it has got itself into? No, it is Japanese technology. The research and development and the design of this equipment was all done on a licence from Japanese concerns. Not even there do we get any distinct benefit from this billion dollar financing-when interest is included-that the government has committed us to.
We could ask the government's spokesperson, whoever that is-I notice there is only one member left in the House to defend the government-if he was ever consulted about this contract before it was entered into. Was it ever made known to the various poor, unfortunate wretches who happen to be Liberal MPs from the Toronto area, that this is the type of shenanigan the government they so loyally support, intended to get into at the expense of millions of Canadian taxpayers?

Adjournment Debate
At a time when we are facing an estimated deficit of some $25 billion due to mismanagement by the government-a deficit that is, in relative terms, greater than that of any other industrialized nation in the world-the government is not out finding money at 9.7 per cent in order to help the residents of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Ottawa or wherever you like, but is finding 9.7 per cent money to help the residents of New York. Surely some explanation is due, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, we have the jobs, we have the money, we have the technology, we made the deal and the hon. member complains. He is supposed to be a financial wizard. It is a shame to see him take the polish off his reputation with the dumb argument he has put forward tonight.
Peel County is part of his riding, as it is part of mine. Perhaps we should have this discussion in our riding and not waste the time of this House. I wonder if we should hold a discussion in the head office of Northern Telecom, a company in our mutual municipality which benefits greatly from the kind of export support and export financing the government has given to Bombardier, in this particular instance. If the hon. member had done his homework and checked what was going on with companies in Peel, he would have known that Northern Telecom received export financing of exactly the same sort for jobs, for technology, for income, and for future investment. This kind of support for Northern Telecom was announced within the last couple of weeks.
Perhaps we could have this debate at McDonnell Douglas, a company that has lost deals as a result of predatory financing. Perhaps in our mutual municipality we could hold a debate in the head office of Wardair at Toronto airport, a company that has taken advantage of similar export financing, this time at the hands of the Government of France. In fact, if we were to get our act together, as the hon. member claims we should, then Wardair would have bought aircraft from McDonnell Douglas instead of going to Europe. Why did it go to Europe instead of just up the street to McDonnell Douglas? It was because the kind of financing involved saved Wardair $35 million per year. It bought its new aircraft from a French company, and jobs were lost to Canadian companies because of the kind of reasoning we have just heard from the financial wizard of York-Peel.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Why did you not give these jobs to Toronto?


Douglas Glenn Fisher: The hon. member asks why we did not put the jobs in Toronto? I suggest to him that we could walk into Northern Telecom in Peel County and speak to the president of the company and describe the program. This kind of financing offers us jobs, access to technology, financial security for the company and Canadians generally, an opportunity to expand our traditional export markets. This kind of dumb comment from a member, who knows better, who takes a good deal and tries to spoil it with this sort of innuendo and that
July 26, 1982
kind of comment, does not build up our industry or our job situation at all the way he claims.


THE CONSTITUTION-STATUS OF NATIVE WOMEN- ATTENDANCE AT CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE. (B) REQUEST THAT NATIVE WOMEN BE REPRESENTED
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, on July 16 I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) if he would invite representatives of the Native Women's Association of Canada to attend the coming constitutional conference. Because of the long-standing discrimination under the Indian Act against Indian women it is important that they should have direct representation at the conference when it deals with constitutional matters directly affecting aboriginal peoples. In response the Prime Minister said he was inviting representatives of the three national organizations representing the Indian, Inuit and Metis people. He tried to make the case that somehow I was uncomplimentary to these organizations when I said they all had their own legitimate concerns, in pursuit of which the unique problems of Indian women could very easily be overlooked.
The Indian people as a whole, Mr. Speaker, and in particular their leaders, are very nervous about the outcome of the constitutional conference. They are anxious about their rights and what might happen when the federal and provincial governments sit down to horse trade. I believe they have good reason to be concerned, although I still hope the outcome of the talks might be a very positive definition of aboriginal and treaty rights. The struggle to gain that definition will take all the time and energy of these organizations, and it is not insult to say that in doing so the three national organizations 1 mentioned will not give top priority to solving the problems of Indian women. The fact is that male Indian leaders are no better and no worse at representing women than other male leaders. However, the record of other male leaders in our society has not been good.
This past spring all women in Canada were shocked when they saw how some male parliamentarians joked about the question of violence against women. Many of them remember the shameful way in which the first ministers of the provinces, meeting with the Prime Minister last fall, jetisoned their rights in the constitutional accord. The first ministers threw women's guarantees of equality overboard at the same time as they ditched aboriginal rights. The rights of women and the rights of aboriginal people were discarded as being inconsequential. When we look at the record of some of the male Indian leaders we see that some are very supportive of Indian women and others are not.
But I ask what reason do Indian women have for confidence in the next first ministers' conference unless they have direct representation? As of this spring the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) indicated he had not even begun to sit down with the leaders of the Indian people to discuss how discrimination could be ended. It is true
July 26, 1982

that within three years the new Charter of Rights and Freedoms will not allow the discrimination involved in Section 12(1 )(b) of the Indian Act; that is, unless Section 33 of the Constitution Act is invoked and the government passed a bill saying that Section 12(1 )(b) of the Indian Act applied notwithstanding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. But even when Section 12(l)(b) of the Indian Act is declared unconstitutional, there is still the question of retroactivity. How are we going to do justice to the hundreds of Indian women and to their children who have already lost their status? There is a great need for all parties to this question-the federal government, the provinces, the Indian organizations and organizations representing Indian women-to sit down at a conference table and thresh out this problem to avoid a hasty or inadequate solution.
A cabinet document dated September 28, 1981, estimated the cost of reinstatement of women who have already lost their status to be in the neighborhood of half a billion dollars, in order that the re-entry of these women into Indian bands would not further impoverish those bands. In addition, there would have to be a program of land entitlement so that population pressures on the land base would not become worse than they already are.
Obviously the government sees some very important federal-provincial implications in this issue. If the matter is going to be discussed at a federal-provincial forum, Indian women should be directly involved. The Native Women's Association of Canada has a mandate to represent Indian, Metis and Inuit women from across Canada. Considering the history of discrimination Indian women have faced, they need to be represented directly at the first ministers' conference. Again I appeal to the government to invite representatives of the Native Women's Association of Canada to sit at that table, and I ask the parliamentary secretary if the government is willing to do so.


Douglas Glenn Fisher: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure to be able to take part in this debate with the hon. member and to provide him with some extra information. I know his concern about this issue is genuine, and I congratulate him for the effort and conscience he has used to bring this issue forward.
Adjournment Debate
Since funding to national and territorial organizations of aboriginal people began in 1980, the federal government has urged these organizations to develop more explicit positions with respect to constitutional issues of particular interest to aboriginal women.
On June 16 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated in this House that he would see whether aboriginal groups would have any suggestions regarding the representation of aboriginal women at the upcoming conference of First ministers on the Constitution. On June 22 the Prime Minister met with representatives of the three national aboriginal organizations. He was informed by one of the co-chair persons of the Inuit Committee on National Issues that their organization would be prepared to allow a spokesperson for aboriginal women to occupy, for part of the conference, one of the seats allocated to represent natives of the Inuit Committee on National Issues. This is a progressive step and hopefully one which will be followed by the Native Council of Canada, representing Metis and non-status Indians, and by the Assembly of First Nations representing status Indians.
The three national organizations are representative of their respective aboriginal peoples, and they should select from among themselves their own representatives at the constitutional conference. It would be inappropriate for the government to select these representatives and even more inappropriate to question whether the aboriginal organizations represent both sexes of their peoples. It is manifestly impossible for the Prime Minister to invite to the constitutional conference every aboriginal organizations with an interest in the Constitution, even though the government might sympathize with their concerns.
As I noted earlier, the Inuit Committee on National Issues has committed itself to allow some time for discussion on women's issues. Let us hope that aboriginal women in Canada can build on this success and obtain from every other aboriginal organization, whether national, provincial or territorial, their agreement to represent more specifically their own interests and concerns.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock in the afternoon.
At 10.35 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, July 27, 1982