1983-02-02

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
32 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, February 2, 1983

Madam Speaker:: 1 have been informed by the Whip of the Official Opposition that the Right Hon. Member for Yellow-head (Mr. Clark) will occupy seat No. 162 and that the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will occupy seat No. 161.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased with this opportunity to speak under the provisions of Standing Order 21. Yesterday, the Canadian Government announced a new grain transportation policy. Since that announcement, a lot has been said, but in fact, very little has been said, in Quebec. Many Quebec farmers are wondering about the policy and what the implications are going to be. As a Member from Quebec and as Chairman of the Caucus SubCommittee on Agriculture, we-and I personally-have always been ready to defend the interests of Quebecers as we did in the past for the dairy policy, pork price stabilization payments, the $33 million policy for the storage of grain and other areas between 1978 and 1983. We shall be going on a speaking tour through Quebec starting on Monday, at Saint-Raymond de Portneuf and Rimouski, to explain our position, to hear what our fellow citizens have to say about this policy and to explain the grain transportation policy to Quebecers and especially to Quebec farmers.



TRANSPORT


Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, under the same standing order, 1 would like to make a few comments on
behalf of millions of Quebecers who today are demonstrating their disappointment with respect to the proposals made yesterday by the Minister of Transport regarding this grain policy. Madam Speaker, as a representative of Quebec and on behalf of Quebec farmers, it is my duty to point an accusing finger at those brave Liberal Members who not long ago were giving the Province of Quebec and Quebec farmers the assurance that all was well. Yesterday's statement is certainly not in line with such assurances and has created a general uproar in Quebec. I think I have every right to demand that the ten Members who formed a committee to ensure the survival of agriculture in Quebec, have the courage to speak out against these proposals or at least relinquish their seat in the House, if they really care about the rights of Quebec farmers. The reaction in Quebec is very similar to the feelings aroused by the F-18 issue. Once more, Quebec has been betrayed by the Liberal Members from Quebec, who had committed themselves to take action regarding these proposals. In the circumstances, Madam Speaker, 1 have no choice but to speak out on behalf of millions of Quebecers, our Quebec farmers and ask the Members from Quebec to stand up and censure these proposals which are only going to jeopardize agricultural growth in Quebec. That is my position.


Mr. Blais:: Totally irresponsible! The Hon. Member is doing a disservice to his province and his country.



GARRISON DIVERSION


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 21 to bring to the attention of the House the question of the proposed additional funding for the Garrison diversion project which was indicated a few days ago in the United States Congress. In the 1983-84 year, the Garrison diversion will be receiving some $22 million, the largest amount it has received in any one year since the inception of the project. From a Manitoba point of view, and I would suspect from a Canadian point of view, this kind of funding is totally unacceptable.

February 2, 1983
The one point which must be made is that Manitobans at this point in time must not give up hope. It is only a proposal and it can be defeated.
I urge the Government not only to instruct its Ministers but also to give an indication to the Province of Manitoba that an all-Party Committee, as was suggested, will move forthwith to present itself in Washington to put up a strong showing against this particular proposal.


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky).
[Editor's Note: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Nielsen) and the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) having entered the Chamber. ]


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lewycky:: Madam Speaker, this is the first time that the entire Conservative caucus has risen and applauded me. I assume it is because of the statement I want to make on the Crow.



RAILWAYS


Laverne Lewycky: Yesterday in Winnipeg the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), with his announcement on the Crow rate, dealt a crushing blow to farmers in western Canada. With this latest action the Government has completely destroyed the already tenuous survival of farmers who really provide the country with such a fundamental necessity as its daily food. In fact, while the Minister of Transport was making his announcement, many of us were meeting with delegations from the Canadian Farmers' Survival Association. These men are desperate. Prices for grain have been falling, interest rates are climbing, and the banks are foreclosing their farms. Now the Government is throwing farmers to the mercy of the railways. This will be a millstone around the necks of farmers in western Canada. Specifically in Manitoba, there was nothing in the announcement with regard to Churchill or to the farmers of Manitoba.
I have received a strongly worded resolution, passed unanimously by some 300 people at a meeting in Swan River, which reads:
That this meeting go on record as being strongly opposed to the Pepin efforts to dismantle the Crow.
I present it to the House.



CANADA POST CORPORATION


Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, this year and next mark the bicentennial anniversary of the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists to Canada. They were a people who were instrumental in founding the nation we cherish today. They carried with them a loyalty and patriotism which forged a strong bond with England, and assured the French and English colonies protection against the threat of American Imperialism. The Loyalists introduced many of the social values and ideals we prize, as they brought with them British society, Government, and character.
[DOT] (MIO)
A great many Canadians can proudly trace their families back 200 years to the arrival of these diligent and patriotic people and, in doing so, proudly boast their Loyalist origins.
It is my understanding Canada Post is considering issuing a stamp in 1984 to commemorate the bicentennial of the Loyalist arrival. To honour these settlers, their descendants, and their legacy, I appeal to the Postmaster General and his cabinet colleagues to issue a commemorative stamp honouring the arrival of the United Empire Loyalists. Loyalist descendants will be celebrating the bicentennial with pride, and are asking the Government of Canada to acknowledge properly the significant contributions and historical importance of the Loyalist immigration.



TRUST COMPANIES


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, the following exist as fact. First, in the fall of 1980, at the time of the passing of the Bank Act, the then Minister of State for financial institutions promised the committee that there would be a whole new trust company act brought forward within a matter of a month or two.
Second, the Government has now tabled a white paper on trust company act provisions.
Third, negotiations did take place between representatives of the Government side and members of the Opposition with regard either to referring the contents of a new trust company bill or, as it turns out, this white paper, to a special committee so that we could get on with work on the legislation.
Fourth, the actual setting up of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs under the new rules would take at good two or three weeks at least.
Therefore I would suggest to the Hon. Ministers responsible that there be an immediate referral of the contents of the white paper, or of a new trust company act, to a special committee of
February 2, 1983

Oral Questions
the House, which could be going within a week because, as you know, Madam Speaker, there are serious problems.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, yesterday 1,600 United States troops began military activities in Honduras near that country's border with Nicaragua. Nicaragua has been under prolonged and persistent pressure from the United States and American-backed right wing rebels. This political pressure and military incursions into Nicaragua have taken a toll in civilian lives and a straggering toll on the besieged Nicaraguan economy.
The threat of invasion from Honduras continues. The Governments of Honduras and the United States continue to harbour and support anti-Nicaraguan rebels, terrorists, troop activities, and harassment of refugees. Only last month the foreign ministers of Panama, Columbia, Mexico and Venezuela met at Contadora Island in Panama and made an urgent call to all nations to:
-refrain from undertaking actions that could create the danger of generalizing the conflict throughout the region.
The Ministers said that dialogue and negotiations were the key to solving the interstate problems of Central America.
On Monday last a letter was sent to President Reagan, signed by 78 U.S. Congressmen, protesting U.S. troop presence in the region as:
-a dangerous escalation of tensions in a volatile region.
-and calling for U.S. support for the Mexican-Venezuelan peace initiatives.
Canada supports this Mexican-Venezuelan approach, and should do so enthusiastically according to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) who has recently returned from Central America.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, altogether too many elderly pensioners in the Victoria area, and probably elsewhere in British Columbia, suffered unnecessary misery and concern earlier this week-some even had to borrow to pay rents that were falling due-because of the deliberate failure of the Department of Supply and Services to mail January's pension cheques on schedule.
I urge, therefore, that the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) be required to investigate the matter immediately to ensure that such suffering and misery not be inflicted again on old age pensioners. A delay of this sort should not have happened, and should not happen again.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The Minister will be aware that the Canadian petrochemical industry is in serious difficulty. In eastern Canada alone this industry accounts for 9,000 direct jobs and 108,000 indirect and induced jobs. The reason the industry is in trouble is that its feedstock prices have pushed it into a non-competitive position as compared to industries in the United States and other countries. Is the Minister aware that, without immediate action, this industry will face the potential loss of 50,000 jobs, to be added to the 1.5 million or more Canadians who are now unemployed?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Madam Speaker, I will take that question in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. We are very much aware and sensitive to the problems of the petrochemical industry, which are certainly not unique to the industry in this country, as the Hon. Member knows. The industry is in difficulty in the United States, and in serious difficulty in Japan.
There are a number of structural reasons for this problem that faces the industry on a world-wide basis. The Government is looking at the matter on an urgent priority basis. Many of us, as I am sure the Hon. Member is aware, have received indepth representations from industry spokesmen, and I can assure you that the Government has taken its responsibility very seriously in this regard.


Gary Michael Gurbin: That is precisely the kind of answer that we know the Government has been giving to the industry. It is precisely for that reason that we are asking these questions today.


PRICE OF OIL FEEDSTOCK
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. The Government does not understand that it is not a question of recession, or other reasons that have been coming from the Department or the Government. This is a made-in-Canada problem. It is a problem of feedstock prices in Canada. Neither the industry, the Opposition, nor anyone else expects the Government to answer for world-wide recession problems, but it can deal with the problems that have been created in Canada and that affect Canadians.

February 2, 1983
Oral Questions
Yesterday the Flon. Member for Sarnia-Lambton presented a petition in the House. Part of that petition reads:
-the petrochemical industry is in trouble in Sarnia and in Canada because of the federal Government's Petrochemical Feedstock Taxation Policy; and that thousands of jobs are in jeopardy in both the short and the long term;-
Is the Minister aware that the taxation and revenue policies that have been put forward in the National Energy Program promise that the prices of feedstocks would not exceed 85 per cent of world prices and that that figure, in fact, was not expected to be reached until 1985? In many cases we have already exceeded that figure.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Is he prepared to change those taxation policies?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, I did not hear the last part of that question. However, the Member is essentially wrong in his facts. The fact is that the oil-based sector of that industry is in serious difficulty everywhere. In fact the Canadian sector does enjoy an advantage because of the feedstock prices that were established by the National Energy Program.
The oil-based sector in the United States is also going through serious difficulties, with many plants having been shut down. It is true that the oil-based sector produces a limited number of products that cannot be produced from the gas-based sector. But these are very complex issues. I suggest that, if the Hon. Member has some worthwhile suggestions to make, I am sure that my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, would be glad to hear them.
It is not a simple problem, frankly, of a domestic nature in the country. The oil-based sector is in serious trouble everywhere.


REQUEST FOR NEW TAX POLICY
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, the industries that are shut down in the United States are shut down because of the recession. This is a Canadian problem because of the Canadian taxation and revenue policies that have been designed by the Liberal Government. That is what needs to be changed.
Will the Minister respond to the request of the industry and the Opposition to put forward a suitable and appropriate taxation and revenue policy to maintain our feedstock prices below 85 per cent of world and competitor levels? Will the Minister provide a long-term petrochemical feedstock policy pricing regime for the Canadian industry?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues who are directly concerned and seized with this problem at the present
time, I will certainly take the Hon. Member's question as a representation as to the position of the Conservative Party on this issue. Certainly a long-term solution to the petrochemical problem is one which we would all like to achieve. That is what the Government is attempting to do at the present time.


STATE OF WESTERN PETROCHEMICAL INDUSTRY
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegrevilie):: Madam Speaker, 1 direct my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Perhaps he can enlighten the House a little more concerning the plight of the petrochemical industry. As he well knows, the natural gas based petrochemical industry, largely based in western Canada, is clearly struggling to survive. As a matter of fact, at the present time there are some $7.5 billion worth of petrochemical projects on hold, largely due to the loss of the competitive edge which the western based industry had. It is now in a position where feedstock prices are 10 per cent higher than the international price and the U.S. price. Two years ago, the Alberta based producers had a 25 per cent price advantage.
Has the Minister looked into the reason why the Government has allowed the western petrochemical industry to lose its competitive advantage, and why it refuses to take corrective action to allow this industry to grow once again?
Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I have nothing to add to what my predecessor just said to the House. At this time we are studying the problem, which is very complex, as we must take into consideration the east and the west, the feed stock base of natural gas, and also of oil, affecting the petrochemical industry, and so on. We are reviewing the situation at this time, and when we have a new policy we will announce it.


REQUEST FOR EARLY GOVERNMENT ACTION
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Can 1 interpret what the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said as meaning that the Government will simply ignore the potential loss of 60,000 jobs as a result of the failure of the petrochemical industry? The fact is that we are not talking about months or years. We are talking about days and weeks for the survival of this very important sector of the Canadian economy. Why does the Minister refuse to act?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I just said that we are reviewing the situation at this time. Very soon we will announce a policy.


Miss MacDonald:: You do not know the difference between feedstock and energy prices.
February 2, 1983


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Madam Speaker, my first question is directed to the Prime Minister since it relates to over-all Government policy. The Government announced yesterday that it proposes to amend the 1925 statute which not only sets out statutory grain rates but also sets out provisions concerning the reserve of coal on what are called Dominion coal lands. Amending that legislation would free those lands. The legislation states that "coal will be reserved for the purpose of securing a sufficient and suitable supply of coal to the public at reasonable prices, not exceeding $2 per tonne".
Can the Prime Minister give us his assurance that, should this legislation pass, the development of this $450 billion coal reserve will proceed in the public sector and that the benefits and revenues will go to the people of Canada? Whom will the Government allow to develop this reserve, the CPR or the private coal companies? Who will derive the benefits of that resource which has been held in reserve since 1925?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, it would be the intention of the Government to ensure that the benefits to the public are maximized in every way.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, that means that there goes the CPR again, on another gravy train.


RAILWAYS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development. Yesterday the Government announced the provision of a guaranteed annual income for the railroads, a 21 per cent return on investment and another 20 per cent in add-on profit from the transportation of grain. Why is the Government allowing the railways to invest less money in 1983 than they did in 1980, when they claimed they were losing hundreds of millions of dollars on the transportation of grain? Do the Minister and the Government intend to allow the railroads to take those guaranteed annual profits, and use them for something else?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, 1 would hope that the Hon. Member has had an opportunity of reviewing the package which was distributed to him yesterday morning at 11 o'clock. It seems to me that it was clear from the announcement yesterday, made across the country and in this House, that the railways' direct investments over the next decade will be $16.5 billion to improve the railway transportation sector. Also there will be
Oral Questions
industrial spinoffs, which are fully described in that package. So I really do not know what the complaint of the Hon. Member is.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I suggest that the Minister read Statistics Canada instead of letting the CPR write his answers for him. The rate of railway investment for 1980 projected to 1991 is many hundreds of millions more than the Government is now requiring of the railroads.


REQUEST THAT CAPITAL BE USED TO ACQUIRE EQUITY IN RAILWAYS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I must now direct this question to the Prime Minister because this also has to do with over-all Government policy.
We agree that the railway system must be upgraded with a massive capital investment. Since the people of Canada paid for the building of 60 per cent of the CPR, 81 per cent of the Canadian Northern and 65 per cent of the Grand Trunk Pacific, and when the latter two went bankrupt we paid for them a second time, I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the Government will assure the House and the people of Canada that the capital investment provided for Canadian National will be used to increase our equity ownership in the Canadian National and also that the Government of Canada will take equity ownership for the value of the capital investment provided to Canadian Pacific.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I take that as a suggestion by the Hon. Member. I am glad that he is looking at the future, not only the past. I can assure him that the Government wants to look at the future, not at the past.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne). Yesterday the CBC reported that the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Geneva expressed, and I quote:
-unswerving Canadian support for President Reagan's proposal for the zero option.
At the same time, Canada's Admiral Falls, Chairman of NATO'S Military Committee, said in an interview in Brussels, and I quote:
From the beginning it has not been hard for me to understand why the Soviets feel the way they do.
-It is obvious to me, and to a lot of other people, that if (American President Ronald Reagan's) zero option stance is to be retained, and the British and French weapons are excluded, it isn't a zero option.
Can the Minister tell the House why Admiral Falls spoke out against the zero option at the same time as the Secretary

February 2, 1983
OraI Questions
of State for External Affairs was expressing unswerving Canadian support for it?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, my first remark about the comment of Admiral Falls is that I would not like to make any comments concerning his remark at the moment, not knowing if it was misquoted or taken out of context.
The former Minister of National Defence knew Admiral Falls, who was Chief of Defence Staff during his tenure, very well. I much prefer to wait until I have the full text of his speech to make sure that what he said was correctly reported.
As far as the NATO commitment by our Minister of External Affairs is concerned, I think it is irrelevant with regard to his comment; the NATO policy is, the two-track decision taken in 1979 in that we believe in a strong credible deterrent in order to prevent peace.


REQUEST THAT ADMIRAL BE RECALLED
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the same Minister. As he well knows, there are Queen's Regulations for everything, including an outburst such as yesterday's. Article 19.36 of the Queen's Regulations and Orders says:
-no officer or man shall without permission ... publish his opinions on any military question that is under consideration by superior authorities.
It is obvious that Admiral Falls has forgotten this dictate. Does the Government intend to recall him to get this straightened out, because it is clearly in conflict with the Regulations?


J. Gilles Lamontagne: Madam Speaker, first of all I would like to correct something I said in my previous answer. When I said "prevent peace" I meant "prevent war". I must correct it right away to be straight on the record.
As far as Admiral Falls' comment is concerned, I would like to remind the Hon. Member that Admiral Falls is under the authority of NATO itself.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Paid for by us.


Mr. Lamontagne:: He is not delegated by Canada. He was asked by NATO to take up his post, and he is under the responsibility of NATO officials, so any action to be taken will be taken by NATO.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development. Yesterday the Minister of Transport, in changing the statutory rate for the movement of grain,
announced a $250 million agricultural development fund. Out of that fund $20 million is supposed to be allocated to western Canada. Is there any connection between the $20 million and the phantom $4 billion western Economic Development Fund which we have not heard anything about over the last while, and which was not mentioned in the Minister's statement? In addition, what industries in western Canada would be eligible for moneys from the fund when it is a stipulation that they cannot compete with existing industries in the rest of Canada which receive government assistance?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could answer the question of the Hon. Member to clarify some of the things he said which are not really very correct. First, the offset package put forward as part of the Crow proposal yesterday was a $250 million fund both for agricultural and industrial benefits. Of that amount, $75 million will be used exclusively in western Canada to support a number of initiatives by private business to develop new industry and provide sourcing for railways. To use one major example, the new telecommunications system the railways use will command about $450 million of imports. That is an area which could be very effectively filled by Canadian industry through the assistance of those grants.
The other $175 million is divided between both western and eastern agriculture to support the development of special crops, enter into research and development projects, look at improved marketing information, and sensory equipment to improve the over-all performance of agriculture right across Canada as well as in the West. We will be detailing those particular programs after we have consulted with provincial Governments and the business and agricultural sectors in order to determine from them what their priorities are as to the best allocation of funds in order to help Canadian industry and agriculture respond to the very major opportunities presented by the Crow development.


EFFECT OF ANNOUNCEMENT ON SASKATCHEWAN
William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, only 10 per cent of the sourcing for railway supplies comes from offshore. That means only 10 per cent of railway sourcing supply is available for industrial development in western Canada. The people of western Canada have a great deal of concern over the mythical Western Economic Development Fund, of which we have not seen anything. There is the immediate employment fund which was in the Minister of Finance's June budget, which was just a Liberal slush fund; it was not even responsible to a line Minister. It was given out through Minister's offices in the Province of Saskatchewan. If there is no specific allocation and no room for more than 10 per cent of railway sourcing in Saskatchewan, it is a myth that industrialization will follow the change of statutory rates.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, first let me say there is
February 2, 1983

absolutely nothing mythical about allocations under the Western Economic Development Fund.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: It is interesting, Madam Speaker, that this is such a cause of hilarity. Hon. Members opposite obviously are not reading what happened yesterday, because $3.6 billion, originally allocated under that fund, is now going into the modernization and improvement of the railway system in western Canada. That was a high priority, the major priority for which that Fund was allocated. So there is nothing mythical about it. We went through a very clear examination with Westerners as to what the best use of that fund would be, and the message was very clear-put it into transportation. That is what this Government has done, so that we will have the best transportation system in the world.


FISHERIES
Miss Coline Campbell (South West Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. Given the implications of his answer to me on Monday, is it now going to be Government policy to trade non-surplus fish for uncertain market accessibility, or is the Minister prepared to take a more active role in establishing new world markets for both our nonsurplus and surplus Fish within the 200-mile jurisdiction?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, as I said to the Hon. Member two days ago, the policy announced by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in Geneva two days ago, which we worked closely on, will very directly link the fishing allocation in Canadian waters not only with commitments to open up markets for our fish, but, I would go even further, on past performance these countries will have to perform by first buying before having access to our waters.
The second question related to border problems with the United States. That, of course, is a separate issue and, as the Hon. Member knows, is being dealt with in a different forum.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. One of the most disturbing findings of the McDonald Commission into the RCMP was the fact that the Security Service had opened up over 800,000 files on Canadians most of whom were completely law-abiding. In November of last year the Minister told the Justice Committee and I quote:
Oral Questions
-within a month I will announce the file destruction policy of the security service, and file review and destruction pursuant to that policy will begin.
The Minister promised to destroy tens of thousands of Files. Well, three months have passed and there has been no action whatsoever. When will the Solicitor General keep his promise to the Justice Committee and the people of Canada, and destroy those Files which were opened in a massive violation of the privacy of thousands of law-abiding Canadian citizens?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, I continue to agree that tens of thousands of files can and should be destroyed. But since the meeting to which the Hon. Member refers was held, I have been asked by counsel in the Province of Quebec handling a number of cases, about which the Hon. Member is aware, not to destroy files for the time being. I have been working on a policy which I hope in fact to announce in the next few days, about destruction, but I regret that for the reasons 1 have just given actual destruction of files will be deferred.


MCDONALD COMMISSION REPORT
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, we have counsel for the RCMP in Quebec telling the Solicitor General not to destroy files they illegally opened. What kind of system have we got there? How can the Minister possibly defend keeping those files which, in fact, in no way relate to any of the charges presently pending before the courts of Quebec? There is no relationship whatsoever.
Furthermore, Madam Speaker, when is this Minister finally going to make public those portions of the Third Report of the McDonald Commission, which will allow Canadians to make their own judgment on the decision of Attorneys-General, provincial and federal, not to lay a single charge for lawbreaking as revealed by the McDonald Commission, a decision clearly in fundamental breach of the rule of law in Canada?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member is always very good at giving free legal advice.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am sure that he would not want me to take any steps which deprive members and former members of the RCMP of any defences they feel they can make in their interests in the trials proceeding in Quebec. That is the reason the files are not being destroyed for the time being. On the other hand, I do intend to announce the policy, and I would be glad to have the Hon. Member's support for it. When he sees it, I am sure he will agree it is an excellent policy. As I say, in the next few days I do hope to be able to come forward with it.


Mr. Broadbent:: I want my file.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: So far as the publication of portions of the McDonald Commission Report is concerned, portions which I indicated were being withheld pending decisions by prosecutors and the Commissioner on Discipline, again those are in

February 2, 1983
Oral Questions
the process of being edited and I hope to make them public shortly, as I indicated I would.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, who will remember that in this House he said to western Canadians, and western farmers in particular, that while they had no representation west of Winnipeg, he would look into the interests of the western farmers. The announcement yesterday in Winnipeg was not in the best interests of the western farmer.
Is the Prime Minister aware of the burden which he has placed on the farmers? Wheat prices have dropped $1 a bushel in the last year. Cost of production has increased 25 per cent in the last year. The over-all loss of income to farmers is estimated to be 28 per cent. Is the Prime Minister aware of these facts, and is he aware of what he has done by the announcement made yesterday by his Minister in Winnipeg?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I suppose I should not say 1 am surprised at the question from the Hon. Member for Assiniboia. It is clear that there is no unified position on the benches across from us, but I would hope that when the necessary legislation is tabled in the House we would see them come forward with one voice. For example, I look at the statements made by the Hon. Member for Lisgar to the CBC on January 18, some two weeks ago, when he said, "We are generally in agreement with the Gilson thrust. We are not completely united because the country is not united. The Hon. Members from Saskatchewan have reservations and have been putting them forward very strongly within our own caucus".
It is perfectly clear, Madam Speaker, that the question, and opinion, if you like, expressed by the Hon. Member, does not represent a consensus of representatives from western Canada on that side of the House. Therefore I would take issue, first of all, with the statement about additional burdens being placed on western farmers because opportunities are being given to western farmers in this package. I dearly hope, Madam Speaker, that when the legislation comes forward it will be scrutinized with the objectivity expressed by the Hon. Member for Lisgar in the interview which he gave to CBC.


LONG-TERM IMPACT
Leonard J. Gustafson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. I am disappointed he did not answer my question because I believe he has a responsibility to answer to the farmers of Canada. Is the Prime Minister aware of the long-term impact
of what happened yesterday in Winnipeg, the long-term impact on the farmers? Within six to eight years the cost of this implementation will be $1 a bushel. Is the Prime Minister aware of the fact that, if the farmers are destroyed, grass will grow in the streets of our cities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member shows concern about the long-term impact. Surely everyone in this country has reflected on the long-term impact of doing nothing about the transportation system in the West.
Hon. Members on that side of the House are complaining about the inadequacies of the transportation system, the rail system. They have been asking for its improvement. It is a statistical fact, it is knowledge, that if the rail system is not improved there will be bottlenecks by the middle of this decade. The farmers will not be able to move their grain. The miners will not be able to move their potash. Coal will not be able to move. There will be a jam of transportation in the West.
The Government has looked at the long-term future of the West. Some $20 billion in private and public moneys will be invested over the next few years in order to improve transportation in the West so that farmers and other producers can move their produce, so they can export it.
Naturally, the Tory Party is saying, "Don't do anything about it. We have no solution, but whatever you bring in to solve it, even if it is $20 billion, we will complain." You do not represent the West.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Within the context of the tragedy of 1.5 million Canadians unemployed last year, we saw a dramatic increase in the number of young people unemployed, that is, between the ages of 15 and 24, a dramatic increase of 37.3 per cent. Many of these young people are university graduates of last year.
We are now just a few months away from the time when more young people will be coming from our universities and post-secondary institutions into a jobless market. Will the Minister tell us what new programs, or what hope does he have for these young people coming into a job market which is already flooded with unemployed young people?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, this year, as in past years, the Government of Canada will be putting forward a major employment program for students, which is called "Summer Canada". It is through this program we have provided a very major basis of summertime employment to allow students to
February 2, 1983

go back into school. As well, we have the "Hire-A-Student Program", where we have something like 400 offices across Canada which undertake to work with the private sector to provide jobs for young people.
I would say beyond that, Madam Speaker, Hon. Members of this Caucus have been working very extensively over the past several months to develop a number of proposals related to youth employment, and they have submitted them to the different Ministers to examine as part of an over-all employment package, which we are examining as part of a buildup toward the new budget. Hon. Members of this Caucus and of this Government have been looking at the kinds of additional initiatives which we can take, and we would hope to be in a position to put them forward at the time the Minister of Finance brings his budget forward.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT ON STUDENT JOB PROSPECTS
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, that initiative and that process do not seem to be working because I have it on the authority of the Minister himself, when he told a group of students on Friday last at the University of Manitoba, "They should prepare for a jobless summer as there is an initial lag between economic recovery and improving job markets." That outrageous statement by this Minister responsible for job creation was made in his own city of Winnipeg to the students of the University of Manitoba. That is a disgraceful cop-out by the Minister. How does the Minister reconcile that statement with what he is now saying in the House?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I believe one of the responsibilities of any Minister is to talk to the people of Canada, including the young people, people of all regions, in a realistic way, and not to try to fool them with exaggeration, hyperbole and rhetoric, which we constantly hear from this Hon. Member of Parliament. What we should be doing is talking common sense to them and discussing with them how we can arrive at a solution. I would point out, Madam Speaker, if the Hon. Member and his colleagues are looking for solutions, the announcement which we made yesterday has a potential of creating something like 350,000 jobs. If they, and the Members of the New Democratic Party, are so interested in employment, they should get behind this proposal which is the biggest job-creation effort this country has ever undertaken.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister, and it relates to the tragic situation in West Africa. The Prime Minister will know
Oral Questions
of the harsh and precipitous action on the part of the Government of Nigeria in expelling an estimated two million migrant workers. Would the Prime Minister tell this House what representations the Government of Canada has made to the Government of Nigeria?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Do you know the answer? 1 do not.


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of State (International Trade)):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I want to tell the Hon. Member that the Government of Canada is monitoring the situation in Nigeria with great concern. We have received requests for assistance with reference to this matter from Togo, and from the International Red Cross, and steps are being taken to react to those requests. Our officials are in touch with the appropriate officials of that country, and that organization. We are doing all that is possible to be helpful in this tragic situation.


REQUESTS FOR CANADIAN ASSISTANCE
Walter Franklin McLean: Madam Speaker, the question was not regarding assistance to those affected, but what representations has this Government made on this, the second largest expulsion of migrant workers in recent history?
Pursuing the Minister's comments about the willingness of the Canadian Government to be of assistance, may I ask him if the Government has made any offers, particularly to the Government of Ghana, where 1.5 million of these refugees are heading home? For example, is the Canadian Government prepared to assist the Red Cross and church agencies, and will it send Hercules aircraft to assist in the evacuation?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, may I say to the Hon. Member that while we have received some preliminary inquiries about humanitarian assistance we have only had the two specific requests that I mentioned. We stand ready to respond to requests as soon as the character of the requirements can be defined. What the Hon. Member has said about aircraft is something that can be determined in our contacts to ascertain exactly what help is required of Canada.
Along with the neighbouring states, we recognize that the Nigerian action, unfortunately, falls within the authority of that Government. It parallels action that has been taken by other Governments. We regret, however, the hasty application of the order that has led to considerable hardship for the people there and in the neighbouring countries.
I can only reiterate to the Hon. Member that it is a situation that our officials are following closely. We have indicated our willingness to respond to requests for help, and are attempting to ascertain what help can best be provided by Canada from this distance.

February 2, 1983
Oral Questions


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION
Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. While I am pleased to hear that the Government is launching a number of new employment programs, 1 want to tell him that there are thousands of people in British Columbia alone, working on those programs, who are beginning to wonder why they are working in the bush in sub-zero temperatures in snow and rain, not getting paid for weeks and weeks, while other people sit home and collect. What kind of reward is that for initiative?
Last fall, with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Win-nipeg-St. James and a number of other Members, I drew the attention of the Government to these non-payment problems and made some suggestions. At that time some minor improvements were made but since then the whole mess of nonpayment has become worse than ever. The UIC pay centre employees and management in Vancouver have a backlog of some 4,000 UIC and EBAP cheques. EBAP employees in Parksville, Campbell River, Salmo, Kaslo, Terrace, Nelson and places throughout the Province are having trouble. We want to see some action.
The corrective measures taken by the Minister have not worked. What new measures will he take? What new systems will be put in place? What does he plan to do to clean up this backlog before the UIC gets further bogged down in other welcome job creation programs so that the new ones may have a chance to work?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to note that the Hon. Member is in favour of and approves the job creation initiatives that we have taken. I will certainly respond to his concerns about the administration.
I should point out to the Hon. Member that in part we are experiencing problems because of the success of the program in its take-up. The Section 38 programs have close to 9,000 people enrolled in them, particularly in the rural areas of British Columbia. Those people must be paid through the unemployment insurance system, and this is now being done manually.
We are accelerating the implementation of the on-line computer system for handling unemployment insurance payouts in the British Columbia region. We hope to have that completed by February. That will mean that we will not have to utilize the manual method, which is a longer and more complicated way of doing it. We will be able to put it on the computer and make it easier to handle.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, as recently as Monday a representative of the Government, speaking in the adjournment debate said, referring to the EBAP program, "Interest in
the program is steadily increasing now that the normal growing pains and the birth pains of the Program are over." The Parliamentary Secretary said this on Monday afternoon.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member took two minutes to ask his first question. I cannot allow him more than half a minute.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE PERSONAL INVESTIGATION
Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, there seems to be a divorce between their perceived reality and the facts. Would the Minister agree to accompany me, or other Members, to British Columbia to meet with his own officials and with people drawing unemployment, to find out what the situation really is and whether his solutions are really working?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the invitation and his offer of company. I must tell him that I was in British Columbia last week, meeting with my officials about this specific issue. We took the steps we have just announced to bring the system on line. I think we can save the taxpayers the cost of an additional trip to British Columbia. Instead, I will be staying here and working on other programs.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Bearing in mind that the thesis of the announcement made by the Minister of Transport in Winnipeg yesterday was that the railways would get more money by some contributions from the Government and from farmers, setting aside the merits and demerits of that specific formula for the moment, could the Prime Minister indicate whether, on the basis of getting more money, the railways will be required to meet a target of performance? If they are going to meet a target of performance, will it be measured by the volume delivered to the ports per year? Also, will there be a penalty to the railways in terms of financial payment if they do not meet the delivery target?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will take the question as notice.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, I would be just as pleased if the Prime Minister would take the question as a representation.


STATUTORY AUTHORITY FOR CHANGES
Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, as long as there has been a Crow rate in the country, one of the great facts that farmers could live by has been that, irrespective of
February 2, 1983

whether the rate was right or wrong, it was guaranteed. When the new legislation is introduced with respect to the Crow rates, may I ask the Prime Minister if it will ensure that whatever the changes are, they will be made according to statute, that changes will not be manipulated by order in council, and that farmers will have a guarantee of some rate, either fixed or by formula, so that they will know what their costs of transportation are going to be, and that those facts are predictable?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is not a question; that is a representation.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Justice. For two days he has been meeting with provincial Attorneys General. Last week the British Columbia Attorney General, Allan Williams, indicated that during those meetings he would be discussing the question of the recovery of the $90,000 which the RCMP paid at the request of Clifford Olson, and of the $10,000 that is presumably still being held in trust in Canada. Did these discussions about the recovery of the Olson moneys take place and, if so, what was the result of them?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Madam Speaker, that was one of the subjects I discussed with the Attorney General of British Columbia yesterday. I had already sent him a copy of my answer in this House to a question by one of the Hon. Member's colleagues. At that time I explained that, since the initial decision to pay was made by the Attorney General of British Columbia, any decision to recover the money should also be his. I understand that the Attorney General of British Columbia hopes to make a final decision on that matter in the relatively near future.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR RECOVERY
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, last week the British Columbia Attorney General, Allan Williams, expressed surprise that the federal Minister of Justice had attempted to put the onus-as he just did today again-on British Columbia to recover these moneys because retrieving these moneys, and I quote directly from the Attorney General, has been "under consideration ever since it started. It involves the Department of Justice federally-"
Why has the federal Minister of Justice attempted to leave the impression just to the contrary of the views of Mr. Williams? If the federal Department has been involved with
Petitions
discussions ever since they started, why has he attempted to put that onus on the British Columbia Attorney General?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, it may well be that the federal Department of Justice would be involved in an attempt to recover the moneys, if such a decision were made. The decision ought to be made by the Attorney General of British Columbia however, just as the original decision to pay the money was made by the Attorney General of British Columbia without the knowledge of either the Commissioner of the RCMP or the Solicitor General. The Attorney General did not challenge my assertion of that yesterday.


PETITIONS
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, February 1, 1983 and finds that the petitions meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, in accordance with the wishes of the vast majority of farmers, ranchers and people generally in the Bow River constituency, I am herewith presenting a petition opposing the passage of Bill C-85, an Act to establish a corporation called Canagrex, unless Clause 14, the power to buy and sell, is removed. These 426 signatures represent the wishes of thousands of people in the Bow River riding.
We urge the Government to heed the wishes of the people and humbly pray that Parliament will not pass Bill C-85 in its present form.


Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Madam Speaker, 1 wish to present a petition on behalf of and signed by the following associations in my constituency: Com'femme Inc., Union des families de Brossard, AFEAS regionale and the Groupe Ma'me Chose, in which the petitioners object to the screening of erotic shows on pay television channels and urge that the

February 2, 1983
Order Paper Questions
public be made more aware of the general problem of pornography.


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. 4,566, 4,573, 4,575, 4,630 and 4,634.


Mr. Siddon: Did the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation provide closed circuit television service or equipment for such service at the Liberal Party National Convention in Ottawa on November 5 to 7, 1982 and, if so (a) what amount was the Corporation paid to provide the service (b) what was the total cost to the Corporation?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: I am
informed	by	the	Canadian	Broadcasting	Corporation	as
follows: No.


Mr. Bosley: Is Mr. Pierre O'Neil presently the Director of Information Services at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and was he a former press secretary to the Prime Minister?


Francis Fox: 1 am
informed	by	the	Canadian	Broadcasting	Corporation	as
follows: Yes, Mr. Pierre O'Neil, a former press secretary to Prime Minister Trudeau, is at present Director of Information Services for the French Services Division of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation.


Mr. Bosley: 1.	Did the President of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation accede to an unprecedented instruction by the Prime Minister's Office to grant the Prime Minister three 15-minute free-time appearances on CBC/Radio Canada networks and, if so, did the President (a) consult (b) advise (i) the Vice-President and General Manager, English Services Division of the CBC (ii) the VicePresident and General Manager, French Services Division of the CBC (iii) Messrs. Pierre DesRoches, Arthur Boughner, Gordon Bruce, Guy Coderre, Marcel Deschamps, Guy Gougeon and Jean-Louis Arcand (iv) the Minister responsible for the CBC?
2.	How many (a) weeks (b) days (c) hours (d) minutes elapsed between the receipt by the President of the instructions from the Prime Minister's Office and the President's acquiescence in that instruction?
3.	During ihe period between the receipt of the Prime Minister's instruction and the acquiescence, which (a) officials of the CBC (b) other individuals were consulted by or on behalf of the President?
4.	During the period between receipt of the Prime Minister's instruction and the acquiescence, did the President inform himself (a) directly (b) indirectly of all relevant circumstances respecting each request for access to the CBC by
Prime Minister (i) Bennett (ii) King (iii) St. Laurent (iv) Diefenbaker (v) Pearson (vi) Trudeau (vii) Clark?
5.	On what precise occasions were requests for free access to the networks of CBC and/or Radio Canada made by Prime Minister (a) Bennett (b) King (c) St. Laurent (d) Diefenbaker (e) Pearson (0 Trudeau (g) Clark and, in each case (i) what was the response and what were the reasons for that response (ii) by which officer or office in the CBC was the decision taken?


Francis Fox: I am
informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	The CBC policy, copies of which have been supplied to all major federal parties states " ... the Prime Minister of Canada has occasional access to air time to raise issues of exceptional national importance". Under the same policy, any request for such access must be made at least 24 hours before broadcast and must specify the subject matter. The recent request by the Prime Minister met these two requirements. Additionally, the CBC had to decide if such requests had been made only occasionally and if the subject was of exceptional national importance. The President of the CBC, after consultations in the normal manner with senior officers of the Corporation, was satisfied on both counts and advised the relevant senior officers of the CBC decision.
The President at no time consulted the Minister responsible for the CBC about the Prime Minister's request or the CBC's decision regarding the request.
2.	The CBC's decision to accept the Prime Minister's request was made on the same day, following consultation by the President, in the usual manner, with senior officers of the Corporation.
3.	Between receipt of the request from the office of the Prime Minister and the CBC decision to grant access to its facilities, consultation took place between the President and senior officers of the Corporation. No other individuals were consulted by or on behalf of the President.
4.	It should be noted that the present policy which was agreed to by all political parties has been in place only since 1978. In addition, details of requests for Prime Ministerial access were readily available for only the ten previous years. The President informed himself directly of the relevant circumstances respecting these requests.
5.	The length of time covered by the question is 50 years (since the establishment of the CRBC in 1932), and files and records have not been maintained in a fashion that would allow the accurate retrieval of such data prior to late 1973. However, since November, 1973 there have been six requests for Prime Ministerial access. In all cases, the requests were granted by the CBC President under provisions of the policy existing at the time. The dates and subject matter of all such broadcasts by the Prime Minister are: November 22, 1973-energy crisis, October 13, 1975-announcement of anti-inflationary measures, December 18, 1975-the economy, June 23, 1976-air traffic controllers strike, August 1, 1978-remarks on Bonn Economic Summit, October 19, 20, and 21, 1982-the economy.
February 2, 1983


Mr. Mazankowski: Were two studies carried out, one on behalf of the Department of the Environment and one on behalf of the Department of Communications, both "to assess the level of involvement of the Canadian population in various types of high, mass and popular culture" and, if so (a) what was the purpose of the studies (b) for what reason were two separate studies required (c) who conducted the studies (d) what amount did each study cost?


David P. Smith: 1 am informed by the Departments of Communications and Environment as follows: only one study was carried out on behalf of the Department of Communications.
(a)	The project "High Culture, Popular Culture and Mass Media" is designed to show the relationship between high culture, popular culture and the mass media in terms of both behaviour and attitudes. The results will show to what extent individuals distinguish between high culture and popular culture and can aid in the development of fairer funding policies.
(b)	See above.
(c)	The study is being conducted by Professor Zuzanek of the University of Waterloo under the University Research Program of the Department of Communications.
(d)	The study, when completed, will cost $25,000.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What is the government's projected deficit for the fiscal year (a) 1982-83 (b) 1983-84?
2.	Does the Department of Finance have alternate projections based on (a) 10 per cent unemployment (b) 5 per cent unemployment (c) full employment and, if so, what are they?
3.	If the economy were running at full capacity, what would be the expected (a) GNP (b) deficit for the fiscal year (i) 1982-83 (ii) 1983-84?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of State (Finance)):: 1 to
3. The Minister of Finance has indicated that he will make a budget presentation in the not too distant future.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. McKenzie:: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary what information he obtained about my starred question which I placed on the Order Paper on December 20, 1982. The questions were:
Motions for Papers
Will the Government be launching a comprehensive environmental study to determine the effects on the water quality of Indian Bay and Shoal Lake in the event that the proposed 350 cottage lots on the northwest corner of Shoal Lake in Manitoba are developed and,... ?
Will the Government permit the use of motorboats for recreational purposes on Indian Bay?
When I raised this question last week, the Parliamentary Secretary stated that he would make some inquiries. Could he inform me what progress is being made on answering this extremely important question?


David P. Smith: Yes, Madam Speaker, 1 made inquiries and 1 regret to advise the Hon. Member that I do not as yet have a reply to them. I will again make further inquiries and hopefully get an answer for him as soon as possible.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 106, in the name of the Hon. Member for Skeena, is acceptable to the Government subject to the usual reservations concerning documents received in confidence from sources outside the Government.
Notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 117 and 118, in the name of the Hon. Member for Mississauga South, are also acceptable to the Government.
I ask that the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Subject to the conditions mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House to have Notice of Motion No. 106 deemed to have been adopted?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 106-Mr. Fulton:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of correspondence, telegrams and reports between the law firm of Aird and Berlis and the Ministers of the Environment, Fisheries and Oceans, and Indian Affairs and Northern Development and their respective Departments.
Motion agreed to.
Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that Notices of Motion Nos. 117 and 118 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

February 2, 1983
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 117-Mr. Blenkarn:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the agreement whereby the government paid $600 to the National Trust Company Limited to acquire from the National Trust Company Limited in Toronto the one share held by the National Trust Company Limited in Financeco.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 118-Mr. Blenkarn:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the agreement made between the General Adjustment Assistance Board (GAAB) and the National Trust Company Limited in 1976 with respect to the holding by the National Trust Company Limited of the only issued and outstanding share in Financeco including any agreement whereby any profits would be paid to any charity and particularly the Sick Children's Hospital in Toronto, Mount Sinai Hospital in Toronto and St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto.
Motion agreed to.
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining Notices of Motion be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS

["The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody does not have unanimous consent. It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).\nAt 6 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Thursday, February 3, 1983']
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, prior to calling what I believe is the first Private Member's Bill, Bill C-668, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), there have been consultations between the Parties and I believe the House would give its unanimous consent to deal with Bill C-672, standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Dauphin (Mr. Lewycky), which is to be dealt with at all remaining stages without debate. I believe the House would be prepared to waive the period required by Standing Order 76(2), which is the period between first and second reading.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, we on this side are prepared to grant the necessary consent to the passage of this Bill at all three stages.


Madam Speaker:: Perhaps in circumstances such as this it would be sufficient for the Speaker to ask for and obtain unanimous consent to deal with the matter.



Laverne Lewycky: that Bill C-672, an Act to change the name of the electoral district of Dauphin, be read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to a Committee of the Whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time, considered in Committee, reported, read the third time and passed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall all orders listed under Private Members' Public Bills preceding No. 468 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BANK ACT
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta) moved: that Bill C-668, an Act to amend the Bank Act (power of inspector), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have more than the usual number of Members in the House today for Private Members' Business. I assume it is because of the intense interest in any Bill dealing with the Bank Act, it has an inherent fascination for everyone.
I have proposed this legislation because 1 see a good change coming in the banking industry. There has always been in the industry a kind of pragmatism with regard to technology. If industry wants to be competitive, if industry wants to get its share of the market, it must be pragmatic in terms of technology. Therefore, we have a lot of competition in the banking industry regarding the obtaining of loans, the extending of personal credit and the taking down of barriers.
I remember as a young man going to the bank. The tellers were behind iron cages. For the past 20 or 30 years the focus has been on removing those cages and making all banking officials as accessible as possible. Now everyone realizes that the consumer is important. It is not commercial lending that is important; it is the individual consumer who is important. All banks are in competition for that lending business. Therefore, the banks are very pragmatic in technology and up to date. We now have computerized banking systems which, incidentally and parenthetically, cause a great deal of concern in society. The computer banks are not situated in Canada and, therefore,
February 2, 1983

they are potentially accessible to people in other countries. Thus, there is some well-founded concern regarding that phase of technology in our banking industry.
What concerns me is that pragmatism is applied not only to technology in banking but can easily be applied to the activities of banking personnel having nothing to do with technology. As a renaissance writer put it, a new philosophy calls all in doubt, whereas there was a time in banking circles when the personnel or the management of banks were controlled by a concept, an overriding understanding that there are certain things you just do not do. That concept has quickly eroded in the last decade or two. We are now into an era of pragmatism where in the minds of some people you do what is successful and what you can get away with. It does not necessarily always have to do with legality.
When that kind of a concept becomes the philosophy of any individual staff member in any bank, then the consumer becomes vulnerable. He is at jeopardy. It is possible for internal fraud to take place within the banking system of which the senior banking management may be totally unaware. I am sure in cases like this that the boards of the banks, the senior levels of management of the banks, would not be committed to all kinds of pervasive attitudes of pragmatism in the banking business. Once any individual official can be guided by the concept that he can do what he can get away with, particularly if that catapults him into the level of a successful executive, then the consumer is vulnerable.
I am concerned about the present Bank Act and the powers of the Inspector General. I am sure the consumer, the borrowing public, naturally expects, with a title like Inspector General, that there is a certain level of protection for the consumer. Therefore, when a consumer goes to the bank to carry out a transaction, if something fraudulent should happen in that bank the consumer will have the Inspector General on his side and an investigation will take place and the wrong righted.
Under the present Bank Act I think that is an illusion. In fact, I think it is a delusion. In Section 246, Clause 1 of the Bill, Subsection (2), we find the following words concerning in the Inspector General:
The Inspector, from time to time ... for the purposes of satisfying himself that the provisions of this Act having reference to the safety of the interests of the depositors, creditors, and shareholders of the Bank and other provisions of this Act are being duly observed and that the Bank is in sound financial condition, and at the conclusion of each examination and inquiry shall report thereon to the Minister.
The First obligation of the Inspector General is to make sure that everything taking place within a banking operation is going to maintain the solvency of the bank. That is not unimportant. Every investor or depositor who has an account in a bank will be happy to know that somebody has the authority to make sure that the deposits are secure. That is a very important function for the Inspector General. In the context I am addressing, I think that is not taking place. The present Act goes on to read:
Bank Act
The Minister, whenever he has reason to believe that an offence against this Act has been or is about to be committed by a bank, or by any director, officer, or an employee of a Bank, shall direct the Inspector to make such examination and inquiry as the Inspector deems necessary for the purpose of determining the facts-
That is basically where it starts-"for the purpose of determining the facts." That is a dead-end. That takes you nowhere. Let me add parenthetically that my Bill is addressing the banks and the Inspector General of Banks. There has been enough information in the news the past weeks and months regarding trust companies, particularly in the Province of Ontario, to give us pause for concern regarding the activities being carried on within trust companies. I would simply like to say that whatever I have submitted in this amendment to the Bank Act I think ought to apply also to trust companies. Trust companies ought to be open for examination. However, it is important to note that the Inspector General is incredibly limited in the conduct of his affairs.
I want to illustrate the dilemma. I have here a letter directed to a constituent, not one of mine, dated some time ago but within the life of this Parliament. It reads:
Further to my letter of May 5, I have now been advised by the-bank that an investigation has been made and that a blanket release of all of the securities in question has been offered and that they are now available for delivery upon request.
That letter deals with what would have appeared at the time to be an attempted fraud. I think there was a fair amount of evidence to indicate at that time that there was attempted fraud in this particular case. Notice what the Inspector General said-that he had now been advised by the bank in question that an investigation had been made.
Here was a case where there was enough suspicion that fraud was attempted and probably would have been carried out had there not been a storm of protest. There was enough suspicion that very likely a criminal investigation should have been conducted. But what we have is the Inspector General saying that he was acting, in fact, as a messenger boy on behalf of the bank. The bank itself is carrying on an investigation and is reporting to the Inspector General. That is not good enough. I think the banks themselves should welcome an avenue that would allow them to clear themselves. As long as they are carrying on their own investigations, they can always be held suspect of carrying on a whitewash.
It seems to me that the banks should consider this a friendly amendment. If this amendment should be passed, there would be a mechanism structured outside of the banks that would carry on independent investigations. If there is fraudulent activity, charges can be laid. If the banks carry on their own investigations, there continues to be lingering public doubt because of possible whitewashing. Therefore, no real purpose is served. It appears to me that in the banks' own interest this should be considered a friendly amendment.
Even more important, it seems to me that the consumer needs that kind of ultimate protection. If there is an attempt at consumer fraud by a local car dealer, General Motors, or a

February 2, 1983
Bank Act
clothing manufacturer, for example, it is no time at all until an official from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs arrives at that particular industry or business to check their books, and if the Department believes there is reason for charges to be laid, it will lay them.
This is not so in the case of the banks. Nothing like that occurs. According to the present Act, the Inspector General is the one who looks at the solvency of the banks and reports to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). In that, you have a merry circle.
I would invite Members of the House to give serious consideration to supporting this legislation. There is nothing ideological or partisan about it. I believe that all Members of the House are interested in genuine consumer protection. I invite them to support this amendment, which will simply give additional powers to the Inspector General of Banks so that if there is reasonable belief that fraud has been committed, he can make a report to the Minister of Justice (Mr. MacGuigan) who can then take the appropriate steps to ensure that the consumer is protected.
Their support of this amendment will also allow the banking industry itself to be cleared of any accusations of having protected itself, or that it whitewashed any type of activity, as well as giving it a clean bill of health as a result of an investigation. The consumer can then have total confidence that he will have a non-partisan umpire to carry out an independent investigation and to make sure his interests are being protected when he feels he may have been wronged.


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, before I deal with the main issues in this Private Member's Bill, I want to congratulate the Hon. Member on his election as official caucus Chairman of the Official Opposition. I cannot help but find it interesting that his first speech in the House after his appointment would deal with increasing the powers of the Inspector of Banks. I want to wish him well in his functions. I know he will have a very exciting and eventful two-year term.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the comments of the Hon. Member opposite, and I share his interest in the subject as well as his aims, which are to afford greater security and protection to the banking consumer. However, Mr. Speaker, I cannot support the Bill as presented by the Hon. Member, because he seems to be somewhat misdirected. Let me explain. Bill C-668 expands the authority of the Inspector General of Banks by giving him powers under the Criminal Code, as indicated in the wording of the Bill, and I quote:
Anyone who believes that a director, officer or employee of a bank has committed or is about to commit an offence against this Act or an offence under the Criminal Code-
That is the key-word.
-may make a complaint to the inspector.
This amendment is important, I believe, because it considerably expands the powers of the Inspector General of Banks. Mr. Speaker, we all know-and I hope the Member for
Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is going to speak in this debate, in view of his considerable interest in banking affairs- we all know what the duties and powers are of the Inspector General of Banks. During a very long debate, as you may recall, Mr. Speaker, which resulted in the new Bank Act, we had an in-depth discussion on the powers of the Inspector General of Banks, which in the previous legislation were defined in Sections 60 and 64 and can now be found in Part IX of the Bank Act which relates to supervision, which is, in fact, the responsibility of the Inspector General of Banks.
The extent of the powers of the Inspector General of Banks is described in Section 246(2) of the present Bank Act, and with your leave, Mr. Speaker, I shall quote as follows:
The Inspector, from time to time, but not less frequently than once in each calendar year, shall make or cause to be made such examination and inquiry into the business and affairs of each bank as the Inspector may deem to be necessary or expedient, and for such purposes may take charge on the premises of the assets of the bank or any portion thereof, if the need should arise, for the purposes of satisfying himself that the provisions of this Act having reference to the safety of the interests of the depositors, creditors and shareholders of the bank and other provisions of this Act are being duly observed and that the bank is in a sound financial condition, and at the conclusion of each examination and inquiry shall report thereon to the Minister.
Well, Mr. Speaker, those are the powers of the Inspector General which are indeed very extensive, and now the Hon. Member opposite would like to extend those powers even further, conferring responsibilities on the Inspector General, not only with respect to the Bank Act, but also with respect to the Criminal Code.
At the time, the Inspector General of Banks told the Members of the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, that he did not have enough staff, that the growing number of new banks was putting tremendous pressure on his staff, and that the additional responsibilities and powers that banks have at the present time resulted in an enormous workload for this staff. He had to make sure that audits were in order, he had to discharge his responsibilities as defined in the Bank Act, and he had to have competent staff including auditors, lawyers, accountants, actuaries and people familiar with the international markets, the securities market, the stock market, and Canadian industry in general. Until now, however, it has not been considered either useful or necessary to have Criminal Code experts on the Inspector General's staff.
Mr. Speaker, if in addition, the Inspector General is to have responsibilities with respect to the Criminal Code, it is clear that this will add considerably to his staffing problems, his own responsibilities and the extent of those responsibilities.
Recruiting enough staff is already a difficult problem, and now we want to hire more bureaucrats. But supposing the necessary and I hope competent staff were available, when would they start working? Whenever there is a complaint? Of course, but unless there are a great many complaints, they will not have much to do, and if that is the case, it will be just one more burden on the Canadian taxpayer.
February 2, 1983

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I do not think this bill is the answer. We should not forget, and I wish to emphasize this for the benefit of my hon. colleague opposite, that the Act already confers on the Inspector General of Banks the power to hold an inquiry as described in Section 246(6), which says, and I quote:
The Inspector has all the powers conferred on a commissioner appointed under Part II of the Inquiries Act for the purpose of obtaining evidence under oath, and may delegate such powers as occasion may require.
The important thing here is that the Inspector General of Banks already has quasi-judicial powers under the Inquiries Act. These, however, extend only to the Bank Act and not to the Criminal Code. Therefore, if we want to add, and I do not share this view, a Criminal Code responsibility to the responsibilities of the Inspector General in the Bank Act, we shall need an amendment, and that amendment is the one being proposed by my colleague opposite. We on the Government side cannot support this amendment because, Mr. Speaker, as you are aware, we have our police forces, including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Surete du Quebec or the Montreal Police, which have special squads to investigate crimes such as business frauds, fraudulent bankruptcies and shady banking transactions, and these officers are experts in that area. When a complaint is made involving the Criminal Code, when there is the possibility of a criminal offence, it is really up to the officers of the peace to ensure that justice is done.
In recent years we have seen a number of major arrest and convictions thanks to the fact that these excellent officers did their job. It is their responsibility and not that of the Inspector General of Banks to hold that kind of inquiry. I feel that police officers and members of the judiciary who are specialized in business crime should have that responsibility. I know someone is going to say: Sure, but what happens if the Inspector General of Banks suspects fraudulent or criminal activity or if someone informs the Inspector General that he suspects something? The answer is simple. The Inspector General can communicate his information to the RCMP if the charges involved fall under their jurisdiction, or otherwise, he can transmit the information to the Montreal Police or the Surete du Quebec, depending on their respective jurisdictions, and of course depending on the location where the offence was committed.
Mr. Speaker, in the past-and I remember that the Member for Edmonton West often brought this up in the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs-before the present Act, the word bank was often misused. Some companies were using the word "bank" to designate institutions which were not banks. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police had to investigate with the help of experts, and the investigations were made because the offence came under the terms of the Criminal Code. The information was sent to the Inspector who would order the RCMP investigation as he was expected to do. If there was a strong case against the offenders, the whole matter
Bank Act
was transferred to the Attorney General of Canada who would then institute proceedings. This procedure used to work smoothly because the Inspector General of Banks-for whom I have a lot of respect and who does a tremendous job, although he has never complained about the fact that he has very few people working for him-has never asked for the authority to extend his jurisdiction to criminal activities.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that if it had been deemed advisable to give him that authority, we would have had to consider that amendment when we sat for hours on end to review the Bank Act, a task that was completed hardly a year or 18 months ago and which laster for three years. And yet, the amendment was not even mentioned during the debate on the Bank Act. It is important once more to read what is being proposed in Bill C-668. The amendment in sub-clause (4.2) reads as follows:
Where, as a result of an examination and inquiry made by the Inspector under this section, the Minister determines that there are reasonable and probable grounds for believing that an offence has been or is about to be committed, he shall forthwith inform the Minister of Justice of his determination.
It seems rather interesting not to say astonishing to me that if the Minister of Finance, for instance, is required to examine the report and determine whether there are reasonable and probable grounds-I am using the legal terminology with which Members opposite are obviously very familiar-for believing that an offence might have been committed, he informs the Minister of Justice. However, if the Minister makes an inquiry pursuant to sub-section 246(4) as it now reads, and I quote:
The Minister, whenever he has reason to believe that an offence against this Act has been or is about to be committed by a bank or by any director, officer or employee of the bank, shall direct the Inspector to make such examination and inquiry as the Inspector deems necessary for the purpose of determining the facts and the Inspector shall make or cause to be made such examination and inquiry and at the conclusion thereof shall report thereon to the Minister.
Therefore, the Bank Act clearly states that the Minister of Justice must be informed of any irregularity if need be.
Mr. Speaker, may 1 point out to the fact that banks are already subject to the Criminal Code, which provides for investigation in case of offences, and that these investigations come under the jurisdiction of the police forces and our courts. Moreover, without any evidence to the contrary, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that there are enough offences such as the Hon. Member opposite seems to fear to justify granting the Inspector General of Banks more power. Allowing him to hire personnel and investigate and adding to the responsibilities already given to him under the Bank Act would not be justified. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this would cause much duplication of efforts.
Moreover, there have been enough complaints about the size and cost of our bureaucracy and I am afraid that such a change would result in more duplication of efforts. Everyone

February 2, 1983
Bank Act
knows what problems can be caused by a lack of communication.
It seems to me that, under the Bank Act, and God knows that this Act is quite substantial and voluminous, the Inspector General is primarily accountable to us in this House. He already has quite enough to do and if he feels that the present legislation does not give him enough powers to alleviate the concerns and fears of the Hon. Member opposite, I am convinced that he will be the first to say so. However, such is not the case, Mr. Speaker. The Inspector General of Banks often appears before the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs to complain that he is short of staff. He is right because there are now many more banks than in the past, but he has never complained of not being granted the power which the sponsor of this bill would want him to have.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, 1 want to point out that I understand and respect the views of the Hon. Member opposite, namely his concern for security, but I do not believe that such security can be provided by this bill unless we create a very large bureaucracy because there are already officers who have the authority to answer all the concerns of the honourable member, except for centralization, which, unfortunately, neither the Inspector General of Banks nor ourselves seem to want. However, it would certainly be interesting to examine this issue in depth, but not through an amendment to the Bank Act.


Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond very briefly to the proposal before the House this afternoon. I would perhaps make some observations on the comments of the Hon. Member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger) who last spoke. During the long period in which the Bank Act was reviewed in the House of Commons, it was very clear that the Inspector General of Banks did not have sufficient resources to do the job at hand. In addition to that, he lacked the will, and that lack of will was caused by a lack of direction from the Government and the former Minister of Finance. As a result, the Inspector General of Banks was simply performing a limited accounting function. He was certainly not involved and I suppose had been told not to become concerned with a number of the very crucial issues raised by the Hon. Member.
The Second point raised by the Hon. Member was that those resources already existed, so there was no need to "duplicate", as he called it, through this Bill, in order to delegate additional resources and authority to the Inspector General of Banks. I suggest that this is completely wrong and, to some degree, it shows a lack of sufficient information.
One recommendation I would give to the Hon. Member and the Finance Committee would be to call before that Committee representatives from the RCMP commercial crime group to determine their available resources. Recent publications have indicated that they are extremely short of personnel. They do not have the access which the Inspector General of Banks would have on a regular basis. Finally, they do not have
the professional expertise readily available at their fingertips to handle the kinds of complex problems which can arise in commercial crime. The Committee should determine whether or not the resources, which the Hon. Member suggested are adequate, are in fact adequate. I am certain it would be extremely clear to anyone that we do not provide the budget or personnel necessary if those individuals are to handle the kinds of problems with which they are dealing.
Just to recap the first point, the Department of the Inspector General of Banks is understaffed and lacks the policy direction from the Government which is necessary in order to deal with the kinds of concerns which seem to be expressed here.
While the last revision of the Bank Act was before the House of Commons, there were numerous serious questions raised. I would just like to mention some of those questions today. The first would be the role that we had assigned to the Inspector General of Banks of reporting on this particular area and giving us the information he had available; but certainly there was a question in our minds and in the minds of other Members of that Committee during the revision process about the operation of the foreign operations of Canadian chartered banks. At that time we were unable to obtain any co-operation from the Inspector General of Banks on the grounds that, one, the information was confidential and, two, that he did not have it.
Ultimately, there were some serious questions raised about the foreign operations of Canadian banks. First of all, it was suggested that in some countries the banks had in fact been involved with certain groups which had worked actively against the existing governments. That kind of information was not available from the Inspector General of Banks. So the question of supervision of our chartered banks in foreign countries is an extremely important part of his role. The question whether or not these banks are exceeding the laws of the Government of Canada or the policy directions established by the Government of Canada was an extremely important aspect of that, which both the Government and the office of the Inspector General of Banks shrugged off.
The other aspect of the foreign operations of Canadian banks was certainly brought to light when the very serious question was raised some years ago about the exorbitant bank profits, enormous profits, which in reality were gleaned from Canadian taxpayers and Canadian residents. What they tried to sell us was essentially that the banks had earned these enormous profits by their foreign operations. Again, we are getting extremely misleading information from the banks, and this is allowed to proceed through the Inspector General of Banks and the Government of Canada.
Essentially what we have today is the absolute contrary, where Canadian chartered banks through their foreign operations seem to be in very serious difficulty. Loans to Venezuela and to Colombia have turned into a situation of very unwise
February 2, 1983

investment which the supervision of the Inspector General of Banks in earlier times may have prevented.
I would like to suggest that the over-exposure in some of those areas is creating apprehension on the part of the banks and enormous pressure in Canada to reduce that exposure. That type of pressure is applied against small businesses, farmers, fishermen and home owners. When we see foreclosures, people forced into bankruptcies and their assets seized by receivers, essentially we are getting a reaction on the part of banks to over exposure in some very unwise lending programs that occurred some time previously. If these loans had been properly supervised by the Inspector General of Banks, we certainly would not have the level of concern and the level of problem that we have in the country today.
Another area that was raised during the revision of the Bank Act, and again this relates directly to the supervision, the staff and the Inspector General of Banks, was bank operations and their labour relations policy. There was an effort to organize bank workers for a period of time. This particular group was extremely hard pressed. They had low wages, poor working conditions and were subject to many intimidations. When an effort was made to organize these employees, to guarantee them some of the same basic rights that other organized units were provided with, we found that the banks intensified the intimidation and it was extremely difficult to get any cooperation to provide the bank employees with the same kind of rights and privileges that other people in the working community have who are covered by collective agreements. There was no co-operation whatsoever and there was very intense intimidation.
Probably the worst employment record in Canada can be demonstrated by the Canadian banking system. It would not take Government Members any time at all to come up with numerous incidents of the banks' involvement in these practices. Again, if we are talking about supervision in the banks, whether it be through an RCMP commercial fraud operation, through the Inspector General of Banks, or through the facilities of the Canadian Labour Code, we are talking essentially about one and the same thing. Those organizations share responsibility for the smooth and effective operation of the Canadian banking system and one of those items pertains to the tremendously negative record of employee relations during the attempts of organizers and employees within the banking system to organize that particular work force.
Another matter that was raised, and it is proving to be a very difficult situation today, was the degree of consumer protection. We spent an enormous amount of time trying to plug matters into the Bank Act and regulations that would provide for the protection of consumers in the banking industry. When any individual in Canada, any small business, fisherman, or home owner approaches the bank, they literally approach on bended knee with cap in hand to seek a loan. There is an old adage that the only time a banker will give you a loan is when you do not need a loan. But many Canadians find themselves at a tremendous disadvantage because the
Bank Act
power of the bank, and behind that the support of the Government, is exercised totally against the consumer.
What we have today is a situation where people are operating with very limited information. Members of the general public do not have the resources to hire accountants and lawyers to provide them with sophisticated advice, adequate guarantees and adequate protection in the event of problems. Therefore the entire situation is stacked in favour of the banks through lack of information and lack of assistance.
We have today an interesting scam that I would like to relate, a situation where employees in a number of banks across Canada, but particularly in my own area, became involved in a situation where they would set up a separate account and into that separate account they would place money obtained from a customer who needed funds transferred from one bank to another. These funds were placed in a staff party fund for individual gifts and whatnot. That is, the charges that were allegedly levied by the bank for a number of services provided were diverted out of the customer's pocket into an employees' fund. This matter is thoroughly documented in cases before the Canada Labour Relations Board.
The question is, where is the Inspector General of Banks? This practice seemed to have been reasonably widespread. The banks were very secretive about it and unwilling to come forward and expose these operations and root them out, even though managers in some cases knew of the matter and it was transmitted from one bank to another. There was very little in the way of consumer protection there. A practice which was really contrary to any accepted level of business practice within the banking community was allowed to continue and flourish.
Another problem is with consumer protection within the present context of the economic downturn. We have a situation where many people are strapped with mortgage interest rates and loan interest rates at 19 per cent or 20 per cent. There are mechanisms by which refinancing of loans can take place so that individuals will not be forced to work with bankruptcy level payments; but the bank will provide no information to customers on methods of refinancing those loans. As a matter of fact, continued unnecessary exploitation at very high interest rates goes on without any attempt to inform customers that interest rates are significantly lower and that there are options to refinance.
I spent a day with constituents from a small community in my riding, Black Creek, who are facing a foreclosure on their home because they are carrying a 19.5 per cent mortgage interest rate that could have been reduced to around 14 per cent, an enormous cut in the payments on their property as they are going through a rather difficult period in connection with their family income.
In addition to that, the bank did not make them aware of a program in British Columbia which would allow them to defer part of the principal and interest. The bank badly bungled the

February 2, 1983
Bank Act
application to a federal program which would have provided assistance.
At that point we have a situation where that family-and they are certainly not alone-are in danger of losing the home they had poured thousands and thousands of dollars into. That money will go down the drain because the bank refuses to provide information to its customers on ways of taking advantage of lower interest rates. That is because of the bank's incompetence or a deliberate attempt, I would say, to obscure opportunities available to these and other individuals to protect themselves in very difficult times.
We find the same situation, Mr. Speaker, with fishermen. There has been a very difficult time for fishermen on the West Coast. Rising fuel and other costs, and inflated interest rates, have put them in a position where they are in danger of losing their vessels. Everyone knows that a seizure by the banks will not in fact resolve the problems faced by those fishermen. So they confront the fishermen with an alternative. They say: "Even though we will not get 15 cents on the dollar for your vessel, we will seize it and take away your method of earning a living unless you sign over your house as well and maybe get a friend to co-sign". They tie that individual to the wall. His boat and home are mortgaged, he has personal friends and family co-signing the loan, and then the bank moves. The bank had intended to shaft the individual all along. They wanted to increase the size of the asset pool so they could get his boat, his home, and take his friends to the cleaners as well. That is the kind of thing the Inspector General of Banks should be inquiring into. He has a dual responsibility to protect not only shareholders and depositors but those who depend on an efficient banking system. Our law is inadequate and the office of the Inspector General of Banks is inadequate; and the Government's policy is also inadequate when it comes to protecting the consumer.
There is no point in repeating the problems of small business because everyone opposite knows them. The Small Business Development Bond has assisted some individuals, but the banking community has failed miserably to act in a responsible and responsive way to those businesses which need a cut in interest rates to survive. If any person were to ask what is the largest problem faced by businessmen in this country today, the answer is simply "trying to service their debt". That is because of high interest rates; there is a desperate need for assistance in bringing them down.
Another problem is the failure of the banks to contribute to the economic well-being of this country. The banks went on a binge during the hey-day of corporate mergers and foreign investment, and we are faced today with a very serious situation. The Inspector General of Banks could be playing a very effective role with more staff, more policy direction and more authority in legislation. The situation of the last couple of years where banks were bank-rolling organizations like Chrysler, Massey-Ferguson and Dome Petroleum, with the subsequent big bail-outs, was totally ill-conceived. When the bubble burst the banks were over-exposed on their foreign loans and they are in a precarious position. They are now faced with some very large bankruptcies in their domestic operations,
with the possibility of several banks being hauled down unless something is done.
When we were looking at the Dome Petroleum situation some months ago, Members on the opposite side were seriously concerned that there were no choices available. It was either bail out Dome or bail out the banks; one would drag the other down. That situation is now placing other sectors of the Canadian economy in very serious difficulty. The squeezing we see going on with many other businesses in Canada seems to be directly related to the exposure of the banks with companies like Dome. We looked at this question during the revision of the Bank Act, but unfortunately Government Members and the Official Opposition did not see this as a priority and were not overly concerned with the fact that the generators of pools of capital should be making significant investments for the long-term benefit of our economy. Who knows were we will go from there, but ultimately it was failure to revise the Bank Act and put in policy direction which led us to this situation.
I would like to close my remarks with a reference to the chartering of foreign banks in Canada, Mr. Speaker. It is my contention that this will be something we will live to regret. The proposal before us to allow the Inspector General of Banks more staff, more legal authority and more policy direction from the Government is vitally necessary. We now see advertisements telling us what a great deal Canadians now have because we are not dealing just with domestic chartered banks but with 67 new banks in Canada, many of which are foreign banks. It has been pointed out that this would be one of the worst mistakes Canadians ever made. Well, the Government preached the tremendous benefits of competition and access to capital, but I say we will eventually find foreign companies and their agents working diligently against Canadian industrial policy through the operation of Canadian banks.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have very little time left but may I say that I have never heard such a speech quite so irrelevant to the point of the Bill as the one we have just heard from the New Democratic Party representative. He is not talking about protection which should be provided by the Inspector General of Banks, he is talking about some hope he had, as I recall his stand during the hearings on the Bank Act, that the Inspector General of Banks should be some sort of conscience or, shall we say, spear-carrier on behalf of Government to force banks to do the things we wish them to do.
There should be nothing of the sort, Mr. Speaker. While I have not entirely agreed with my colleague's Bill, I do agree that an individual who is aware of something wrong in the handling of securities held by a bank should have immediate access to laying a complaint with the provincial police.
We have to look at Quebec and Ontario here, and at other Provinces where the RCMP carry out the duties of the provincial police, because the administration of justice in cases of this kind would be from the police to the Attorney General of the
February 2, 1983

Province, who would determine whether a charge should be laid or not.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, the proposal in this Bill envisages, somehow or other, that the Inspector General of Banks has the right, or makes a practice, of visiting individual branches. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Inspector General does not do that; he works through the head offices of the banks. He has no flying squads of auditors or other officials who visit banks to count cash or verify securities; nothing of the kind. This is all done internally by the banks.
I would even go further. With respect to the person whose property interests are being adversely affected, or a person who is aware that the property interests of another person may be adversely affected by a criminal act which has been committed in the past-say that bonds had been converted or were about to be converted to the use of a bank official-the right exists. For instance, we know there are frauds, defalsifications and conversions by individual bank employees. If anyone is aware of that, the right already exists for that person to complain to the police. It is not necessary that he should have to go through the Inspector General of Banks, who would then deal with the head office of the bank, who would in turn deal with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde). The Inspector General is not the person to determine whether there has been an offence against a property or a right of property in any way.
I believe the right exists already. It does not have to be done through the Inspector General. He is not qualified, nor is the Minister of Finance qualified, to determine that there has been an offence committed or about to be committed. The facts should be turned over to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Mac-Guigan), whose officials are qualified to determine whether or not charges should be laid.
Frankly-and I will terminate my remarks now-while I accept the purpose which the Bill of my colleague would try to achieve, I would say that right already does exist, because in reciting to me the facts which gave rise to this particular Bill, I found that action was taken by my colleague in reaction to publicity of the situation, and the matter was attended to. To that extent, I think this amendment to Section 246 of the Bank Act is quite unnecessary.
Mr. Jim Peterson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for
Science and Technology): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak on this important issue of the role of banks. In so doing, I would like to pay credit to the words expressed by the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly).
I would like, however, to go back to some of the basics. The Finance Committee had the opportunity in a non-partisan way of looking at this precise issue and they made two recommendations: first, that we have an obligation to look at the Loan Act and the Trust Companies Act in order to give those institutions the power to get into consumer and business loans; second, that Committee recommended that the Canadian
Bank Act
Payments Association assume additional responsibilities to look into complaints.
The Hon. Member of our Party who spoke before me outlined adequately and well the functions of the Inspector General at this present time. I would like to make it very clear that we on this side, are not unsympathetic to the intent of prividing better service to customers of the banks. As the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River very eloquently pointed out, if the traditional way of always looking at things is pursued to its ultimate degree, if the banks do not act intelligently and compassionately in circumstances, you could end up with a small business person being put out of a viable operation. You could end up with the banks realizing on their security in such a way that they would not get as much back as if they were prepared to see that person through in particular circumstances.
In these difficult economic times all of us recognize that we are facing extraordinary circumstances, not only in our country but throughout the Western industrialized world. We have an obligation, all of us, Governments, the private sector, business and our banking institutions, to take into consideration these exceptional circumstances.
There are cases which have come to my attention, and I am sure they have come to the attention of many Hon. Members of this House, where the bank has simply called its loan on a small business which has not defaulted on any of its payments, which was probably in the same kind of economic condition as it was when the bank undertook to extend that line of credit. But the banks have been under a squeeze pressure, perhaps as a result of declining international situations, perhaps as a result of too many big loans. We have to look to the small investor who might not have the same type of political clout as the big investor.
That is why I believe the proper approach is not to enter into layers of regulatory coverage, introducing new officers into the banks, into the Inspector General's banks, trying to impose another bureaucracy on our system. Surely, that is not the approach that the Tories, in their wisdom, would want to see happen. Surely, we would not want to see a system in which, perhaps, if we took the NDP argument to its ultimate, we would legislate that banks could only foreclose under very extreme circumstances.
But legislation cannot deal with the myriad of human circumstances which exist out there. Rather, I believe the approach is one which is based on sound banking and an understanding of our present economic circumstances, as well as a sense of obligation and compassion towards our economy as a whole. If the banks are prepared to assume that responsibility, they will be prepared to look at the small business person or farmers they are going to foreclose on who will never get their security back because they have over-extended their loans in the past, and part of that could be the banker's fault. If we are going to get out of this problem in a way which is commensurate with maintaining human dignity and preserving jobs in this country, I believe the best approach is one under which the banks themselves enter into self-regulation whereby

February 2, 1983
Northern Canada Transportation
they enter into an acceptance of their responsibilities on a mature basis.
I have every confidence, Mr. Speaker, that the banks will be willing to undertake that responsibility. And, perhaps, as Members of Parliament, one of our obligations is that when clients call us, or when constituents call us, we should work with the banks; we should phone the banks and lay out the facts. I have found, when I do this, the banks are generally receptive.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2), it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and move to the next stage of the proceedings.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Shall all items listed under Private Members' Notices of Motions preceding item No. 59 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of embarking on an ambitious program of upgrading transportation systems in Northern Canada.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in speaking to my motion, which suggests that the Government should embark upon an ambitious program of transportation system upgrading in the northern part of Canada, it is my purpose this afternoon to do what I can to resurrect the Diefenbaker "Vision of the North".
In doing so, I want to pay tribute to two honourable and eminent gentlemen, one of whom is still with us. I refer to the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) who was responsible for giving Diefenbaker his vision of the north. In his younger days the Hon. Member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain spent many years in the northern parts of Canada. He is a gentleman who has always been 30 or 40 years ahead of his time. He saw the opportunities that would come with the development of a transportation system.
The second gentleman to whom I want to pay tribute is the late Hon. Member for Brandon-Souris, the Hon. Walter Dinsdale. In Diefenbaker's time he very ably filled the office of minister for the North.
For the last 20 years or so the vision has become clouded, however. Emphasis on transportation has declined because there is an underlying difference in the viewpoint of Hon.
Members opposite and Members on this side of the House. The Liberal view of Canada appears to be that of a little Canada. Liberals are inward-looking. They look at what exists already and put a wall around it. On this side of the House we tend to be outward-looking. At the time of the "Roads to Resources" program-that is, the Diefenbaker vision-we were ridiculed by Hon. Members opposite who described it as an igloo-to-igloo policy. I hope when they look back that they find such has not been the case and that the policy has paid dividends. Perhaps they will then change attitude.
We may be asked why we need an upgraded and improved transportation system in northern Canada. As someone from that part of the country, I look at the matter from a local viewpoint and say it would lower the cost of personal transportation and of the transportation of goods, and that this would eventually show up in the selling price.
In the last two elections in which I participated, I listened to debate between Liberal and NDP candidates. It was a kind of bidding match when each candidate, supported by his Party, claimed that if the people voted for his Party it would give them subsidies which would help to bring costs down. I did not become involved in that bidding match but tried to make the point that a more efficient transportation system and a more competitive transportation industry in the North would bring down the cost of living.
The NDP won that bidding match. Because it is never likely to form a Government it came up with the highest bid. And, of course, it did not succeed to office but the Party opposite did. Unfortunately, it then forgot about this little auction that had gone on. It did precisely the opposite of what it had promised and threatened to remove existing subsidies and to substantially increase taxes for northerners.
Looking at this from the national point of view, which is what we have to argue in this House, if Canada is not to be just a narrow strip of inhabited territory along the forty-ninth parallel, we must develop the hinterland of the country. We must bring northern Canada into the main stream. If we do not, you can bet your bottom dollar, Mr. Speaker, that someone else will come in and do that for us. Whatever our legal position is with respect to sovereignty over the northern part of Canada, we cannot neglect it; we cannot just leave it alone. There are millions and billions of people in the world who are short of land and short of resources. If we do not develop our northern reaches we will lose them by default. Someone else will eventually come in and develop them.
As I have said before, well planned ventures in transportation have been proven to pay dividends. The St. Lawrence Seaway is a prime example of this. It took great investment in time and effort but it has paid handsome dividends. One just needs to look at the volume of shipping and commerce it has generated.
A smaller example is the Pine Point railway which was constructed in the 1950s. Despite certain setbacks which are
February 2, 1983

occurring today, it has proven to be a profitable investment. The people of Canada got their money back, and more. It is now an integral part of the Canadian National Railways system and pays its way.
Then there is the Dempster Highway, the road going through Yukon into the Mackenzie Delta. This was proposed many years ago in the Diefenbaker era, and it received a great deal of criticism at that time. It was completed about the time the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker died. Already it has proven its worth, as oil and gas developments are occurring in the Mackenzie Delta and the Beaufort Sea. The Dempster Highway provides a vital link to that oil and gas rich part of Canada.
I should like to touch on a few distinct sectors of the transportation industry which exist in the North and comment briefly on them, Mr. Speaker. First of all, there is air transportation. Of all sectors this is probably the one that has done the best job. That may be because air transportation is under the control of the Department of Transport and not the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I shall have more to say about that particular Department later.
The Arctic airports program is a joint program of the federal and territorial Governments and has worked out extremely well. There has been some slowness in the system but that has to be expected. A couple of years ago I wrote to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) with respect to the Norman Wells airport, which is now extremely busy and likely to be more so in the coming months, asking that something be done to upgrade the facilities and that planning be done for pipeline and oil field expansion. So far that has not taken place.
Generally speaking, the airports branch of the Department of Transport has done a pretty good job. Our main complaints are not against the Department as such, but rather against the Air Transport Committee of the CTC. There could be improvements in the licensing of certain operations and in the scheduling of service.
With respect to rail service, I already mentioned the Pine Point railway which has proven to be quite successful. I have heard the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) speak about the White Pass and Yukon railway many times in this House. He has said that if it is to be an effective means of transportation of products in and out of Yukon, it must be upgraded. There should be a standard-gauge track and the rolling stock which was originally brought into the country in the early 1900s should be replaced.
The railway into Churchill, Manitoba, which is the natural route into the heartland of western Canada, must be upgraded. It should be reballasted and the railbed should be improved. Perhaps we could use the new geotextiles to stabilize it. We must replace existing rail with heavier rail so that modern rolling stock instead of old boxcars can be used. It is a natural route for the transportation of grain, potash, coal and other commodities out of the Canadian heartland.
Northern Canada Transportation
I want to make a few remarks with respect to water transportation. The Port of Churchill immediately comes to mind. Port facilities at that location must be expanded. I understand it is the intention of the Hon. Member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) to go into this matter in detail, so I will skip over it now although it is very important.
New port construction techniques in Arctic areas have been developed. I could cite as an example the construction which went on in connection with the Polaris mines. We should now start looking at the area of the Beaufort coast. There is need for a proper port facility there. In the not too distant future there will be need for a major oil and gas port in the Beaufort Sea, for which we should definitely start planning now. Despite some progress in the private sector-and I am thinking of Kigoriak, for instance-Canada lags in development of commercial icebreakers-and that is probably the bright spot-military ones such as naval icebreakers and vessels for the Canadian Coast Guard.
If ever the United States and the U.S.S.R. were to engage in a naval battle in Canadian Arctic waters when they are ice-covered, they have the correct naval equipment with icebreaking capabilities, but we would only be able to sit on the iceflows and keep score. This is all we would be able to do.
I look forward to the time when the Northwest Passage will be open for the peaceful commerce of all nations. I would like to see the Northwest Passage through Lancaster Sound, Prince of Wales Strait, and across the northern part of Yukon and Alaska, operated in a manner not dissimilar to the Seaway. Obviously it would be expensive to keep the shipping lanes open and to provide the necessary navigational aids. Denmark, Canada, the United States and potential user nations such as Japan, should get together to come up with a joint system of management of navigation in the Northwest Passage. There is a need for better charts and navigational facilities to complement the Canadian Hydrographic service on the work being done in Arctic waters and a hope they would go from strength to strength.
The Mackenzie River system, according to officers of Northern Transportation Company Limited, needs to have spent on it somewhere in the order of $75 million to upgrade it into a major, proper waterway. In years of shallow water, if conditions get any worse, we will have to put wheels on the barges and push them down the river bed. This $75 million does not have to be spent all at once. There are a few major bottlenecks on which we could concentrate to make the waterway one that could be relied on. Then we could load barges to their full capacities instead of only putting on halfloads. We have to look to potential threats to navigation on the Mackenzie River system such as the proposed Liard Dam in British Columbia.
Now I should like to make a few comments with respect to roads. The worst record of the Government is with respect to roads. In the 1950s and 1960s there were ambitious programs under Conservative Governments. We worked on the Mackenzie Highway and on the Dempster Highway; we upgraded the

February 2, 1983
Northern Canada Transportation
Alaska Highway. Since that time disintegration and decline have set in. It would appear that the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development concentrates on social engineering, telling people what to think and what to do, rather than on civil engineering. They have the roads branch over there in the figurative basement of the Department. I do not know whether the people in charge of roads ever get to speak to the Minister or the Deputy Minister. In the office of the roads branch they have a graph showing the amount of money, in real dollars or in constant dollars, spent on roads over the last 20 years or so. I can assure the House that it declines year by year. Road building now has no emphasis within that Department.
With the completion of the Liard Highway linking Fort Simpson in the Territories to Fort Nelson in British Columbia, there are now no major road building programs in progress in northern Canada whatsoever. That is a terrible state of affairs. We are losing the expertise in northern road building which has been built up over the years.
I should like to indicate some examples of what could be done. We could pave the Mackenzie and Alaska Highways. I am told by members of the trucking industry that this would probably result in a cost reduction of some 10 per cent to 15 per cent. A bridge is needed over the Mackenzie River. The cost of this was originally estimated some years ago at $6 million. Today it might cost $50 million. In years to come it will cost even more, unless we get it over with once and for all. Also there needs to be a southern access link into the town of Fort Smith, connecting it with the town of Fort McMurray in northern Alberta. This will be especially important if a dam is to be built close to Fort Smith on the Slave River, as is planned by the Province of Alberta.
We must extend the Mackenzie Highway, in the first instance, as far as Norman Wells where oil field expansion and development is presently being undertaken, and then on to the Mackenzie Delta and Inuvik. The Dempster Highway, which presently stops at Inuvik, must be extended to tidewater at Tuktoyaktuk to support the oil and gas industry there. Road construction will not only assist the oil and gas industry, but also the minerals industries and agriculture, an aspect of northern commerce which has been sadly neglected by the present Government.
There are many other sectors upon which I could touch, but I do not propose to do this for lack of time. I could talk about pipelines, electricity transmission lines, vehicles designed especially to go over muskeg areas and lighter-than-air craft. I could say what work has been done in the Province of Alberta with respect to this and describe the meetings I have had with the Hon. Henry Kroeger, the Minister of Transportation for the Province of Alberta who is enthusiastic about potential developments. I could talk about necessary research and development in all aspects of northern transportation, whether it be road construction techniques, ship designs or the need for better ice tanks and research facilities.
If we want to get out of the present economic difficulties we face in Canada, I think the development of transportation in northern Canada is one of the real ways. It is the real cure for
unemployment. It is not a make-work scheme or a NEED project; it is none of these things. It would put people to work doing real and sensible jobs. It would provide dividends for us in the years to come. I submit we must rekindle the flame of the Diefenbaker vision and bring all parts of Canada together, socially and economically, connected by a modern, effective, efficient, multifaceted transportation system.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Motion No. 59, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of embarking on an ambitious program of upgrading transportation systems in Northern Canada.
Had the mover of the motion changed one word in the Motion, I think the Government would be prepared to support it. All he had to do was change the word "should" to "has", and I think we could have supported it. I hope my remarks will demonstrate to the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) that the Government has over the last decade embarked upon ambitious programs of providing efficient, affordable and safe transportation systems in northern Canada. I had the pleasure, together with the mover of this motion, to take part in the second major Northern Transportation Conference which was held in Whitehorse, Yukon, in October, 1982.


Dave Nickerson: It was the Yellow-light Conference.


Jesse Philip Flis: At that time, over 200 interested people, from industry and Government together with private citizens, sat down for three days to discuss the issues facing northern development, transportation systems and the environment in which all those components could come together.
The first Arctic Transportation Conference hosted by the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Chretien) and the Hon. Don Jamieson in 1970, was in response to the recognized need for co-ordinated discussion of problems encountered in the Arctic. At that Conference, some of the topics discussed were Arctic aviation facilities, re-supply, the social and economic impact of transportation, railway development, pipelines and icebreaker support, terminal facilities in the Arctic and environmental impact. Now, 12 years later, many of the same issues were discussed but with a difference. This time, emphasis was placed on planning, regulatory concerns, research and development.
The first time an Arctic Conference sponsored by the federal Government took place was in 1970 but the Government and industry already had well developed interests in the North, recognizing its potential. We were making strong first steps at that time and we have come a long way since then. I do not think it was only a Diefenbaker vision that brought us to this stage, as the Hon. Member would lead this House to believe.
Efficiency and effectiveness were very serious concerns then as they are now. In 1983 we are even more serious. Much has
February 2, 1983

happened in 13 years. Even more sophisticated approaches have been taken to develop the North, to maximize its potential, while at the same time considering the needs of the people in the Arctic and the environment and bearing in mind the costs of Arctic development.
To underline the increased emphasis on the need for discussion of Arctic air transportation issues, the Northern Air Transport Association, as you may be aware, held its fifth annual Conference in March of 1982, also in Whitehorse. Papers presented at that seminar addressed such issues as cost of risk for air carriers, management of capital and human resources and economic survival in support of the theme "Management Challenges facing North of 60 Operators in the 1980s." What we are facing also is a management challenge. How are we going to make the most of our investment in time and resources in developing the Arctic in a way that will benefit all concerned in a way that we can all survive and not just on the balance sheet?
We are making investments in the future of the North, the future of Canada. During the 1982 Conference, proposals were put forward on ways of meeting the challenge of the 1980s. Allow me, for a few minutes, to highlight some of the initiatives taken by Transport Canada to assist in developing the North since 1970 to meet what could be considered the challenge of the 1970s.
In October of 1972, responding to environmental concerns regarding potential pollution of the Arctic, the Hon. Don Jamieson announced the publication of new Arctic shipping pollution prevention regulations. These regulations were to be used in conjunction with the shipping safety control zones order, proclaimed in August of the same year, under which the waters of the Canadian Arctic were divided into safety control zones, classified according to the degree of ice hazards present. As the Hon. Member is aware, shipping is controlled by limiting the zones in which the vessel may operate based on prevailing ice conditions and the capabilities of the ship.
In 1975, the operational base for the annual re-supply service to the Keewatin communities on the west side of Hudson Bay was transferred from Montreal to Churchill. This decision would provide increased federal Government purchasing in the western provinces and an expanded role for Churchill as a gateway for northern shipping. In November of the same year, plans were announced to build the 28,000 ton bulk carrier, M.V. Arctic, a joint Government industry project. The ship, designed to operate in the high Arctic, was also to serve as a prototype for larger vessels to be engaged in the movement of gas and oil out of the Arctic. It was also intended to enable more accurate determination of the ice navigation regulations under the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. The M.V. Arctic has met these objectives. It has been a successful venture and an excellent example of industry and Government collaboration. To reinforce Transport Canada's support for developing the North, and to allay concerns regarding the application of "user pay", the Hon. Otto Lang, the then Minister, stated in October, 1976:
___________________________________________22443
Northern Canada Transportation
The North need have no fear of assuming the full burden of transportation costs ... user pay guidelines would only apply to areas of the country with enough volume in travel and shipping to justify cost recovery.
The costs of opening up and developing the North would be shared by all. The Minister emphasized the importance the North had in Transport Canada's plans to develop an integrated transportation network for the entire country. That same year, subsidies in the amount of $743,000 were provided for the re-supply service in the Keewatin district.
As part of the Urban Transportation Assistance Program, Transport Canada contributed over $442,000 to the total purchase price of $532,379 for buses and mini buses, to be used in Whitehorse, Hay River and Frobisher Bay.
To ease the high cost of air transportation in the Arctic, in April, 1982, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) announced that the imposition of landing and other fees at small Arctic airports will be deferred again until March, 1983. More recently, as a matter of fact, in May, June and September of 1982, Transport Canada announced airport improvement and equipment purchases to the tune of almost $3 million for Eskimo Point and Hall Beach, Northwest Territories, and Whitehorse. On the subject of the Whitehorse airport, I am pleased to say everything is on schedule. Preliminary design of the air terminal building was completed in August, 1982. A request for funding approval will be submitted to Treasury Board shortly.
Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, I could continue citing Transport Canada's past contributions to the Arctic, but I will end the list here. What is of greater significance is what we are doing now, what our future plans are to meet the challenge of the 1980s. As you may be aware, one of the objectives of Transport Canada is "to foster an environment which supports the efficient development, provision and operation of all elements of the national transportation system.
Pursuit of this objective is evidenced by Transport Canada's contributions to assist in the establishment or otherwise provide for improvements of transportation facilities, including subsidies and the funding of studies by private consultants, etc.
Other very significant objectives, Mr. Speaker, concern themselves with efficiency and effectiveness and, of course, safety. We are all too well aware of the hazards to all modes of transportation in the Arctic. Transport Canada, of course, will continue to place a high priority on safety and search and rescue.
One other very important objective, which may not be so obvious but is inherent in the role of Transport Canada, is to support the achievement of the objectives of the federal Government that relate to national, regional and urban social and economic development, and to industrial, environmental and energy policies.
Transport Canada, therefore, is not only in the business of transportation. Every move we make takes into consideration all these other factors and more. For example, Mr. Speaker, plans are being developed to overcome low water levels at one location on the Mackenzie River where some dredging appears

February 2, 1983
Northern Canada Transportation
necessary. Environment concerns for wildlife and fish habitat are being addressed by the project manager.
To continue, let me give you some other examples of what we are doing. Program responsibility and the modal expertise for Arctic development has been incorporated directly within each of the transportation administrations, with a co-ordinating function provided by headquarters.
I would like to comment on the aspect of research and development to which the Elon. Member also referred. The significance of such a program, be it within the federal Government or the private sector, cannot be overstated. Such programs as the Arctic Scientific Evaluation Program is a major undertaking to evaluate the ice-strengthened cargo vessel, M.V. Arctic. The vessel was designed to meet the Arctic Ice Class II specification, which indicates a moderate icebreaking capability in accordance with the Arctic shipping pollution prevention regulations.
A three-part instrumentation and evaluation program has been defined to collect data on environmental forces experienced by ships during commercial operations in the Arctic and to verify the appropriateness of the shipping regulations. The total cost of funding this entire project is $1.9 million. In terms of the potential benefits as a result of better designed vessels, these dollars are, to use a very appropriate analogy, the tip of the iceberg in terms of the potential high return on investment.
I am pleased to see that approval has been received for the expenditure of $14 million for Arctic marine projects. The crucial point is that the significance of R and D is finally being recognized and the high profile it has warranted in the past is now a reality. Through research and development, transportation in the North can only improve.
One other area that I would like to expand upon is that of policy. What are Transport Canada's policies with respect to the North? It is understood that air carrier development is also affected by policies on social services, energy and other Government activities. To ensure the requisite co-ordination and planning between the public and private sector, the Joint Air Service Planning and Evaluation Review, or JASPER, was developed in 1977. Since then, it has been applied to a carrier-Government planning for four Arctic route networks.
On the marine side, the question arises as to what level of shipping services for international trade is required to meet the demand in the North.
A more important question that must be raised is, what should the Canadian position be with respect to Arctic shipping? On the one hand, if action is not taken soon Canada could be left out in the cold, so to speak, in more ways than one. On the other hand, having operating experience in northern waters may provide some Canadian carriers with advantages over those of other nations. It is felt by some that the Arctic is a special environment and therefore a greater degree of assistance for Canadian shipping may be justified.
Some have expressed the view, the mining industry, for example, that any extra costs due to shipping would render
their already costly northern mining ventures even more difficult to develop. However, based on numerous consultations, it is generally felt that a stronger regime should be in place in the Canadian Arctic than in the rest of Canada, with the condition that such a policy not hamper development and that vessels be available at reasonable cost. The development of an Arctic shipping policy will be designed to ensure that northern demand for shipping services is met by Canadians to the greatest extent possible without causing an adverse effect on Canadian trade.
I have been discussing the North simply from the perspective of developments in the areas of operation and policy, highlights of transportation accomplishments and development in support of Transport Canada's strategic objectives. Unfortunately, success stories of progress do not prevail in all other areas affected by transportation.
From the viewpoint of native groups, there are still shortcomings in the way in which transportation services are provided and, indeed, in the manner in which transport might be used to solve certain social problems such as the high cost of living. Program delivery is perceived to be cumbersome and possibly more expensive than it should be. However, local input for airport planning and construction has become routine, with community co-operatives at times bidding for work. There is a sense of urgency felt by headquarters staff in the scheduling of Arctic projects, which sometimes run afoul of total Government priorities, the short shipping season and the time required to consult extensively with all parties concerned.
It is useful to be reminded of individual project problems and their slippage, but these specific problems should not be allowed to detract from this Government's commitment to northern development.
Transportation cannot be viewed in isolation. This is true especially for social problems. While it is acknowledged that freight rates are very high, and there is a temptation to provide subsidies as a quick fix, it must be remembered that this country is already struggling under many such well-intentioned past programs. Factors such as overcoming the small market size, increased storage facilities and negotiated changes for retail pricing should also be considered.
One other major factor to be considered is the chronic shortage of funds. Because of the lack of sufficient resources, it serves as a governing factor which requires some priorization of programs. There are many programs for which the need is easily justified, but the lack of adequate funds does not allow all of them to be realized.
In support of the six and five restraint program, these limits have been applied to charges levied by Transport Canada. This situation is of benefit to the users but at the same time restricts the flow of dollars into the federal coffers, thus further limiting available Government resources.
I think that we have accomplished much, and by joining forces and working together for the benefit of all concerned,
February 2, 1983

we will be able to meet the challenges of the future, which I know is what the Hon. Member who moved the motion wishes.


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank the Hon. Member who moved the motion. I believe it is an ideal topic to be raised in the House of Commons since this issue has certainly been neglected in the past. I agreed with much of what the Conservative Member had to say, and I thank him especially for his kind remarks about the community at the Port of Churchill. While I am certainly grateful for his remarks, I must say that I found them to be at variance with the remarks made by the Hon. Member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) and the Hon. Member for North Vancou-ver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook) who speaks for his Party with regard to port policy.
It is interesting to note that in spite of the fact that the Conservative Party supports the use of the Port of Churchill, two of its Members who frequently speak about ports and grain transportation came out against the use of the Port of Churchill.
Since 1 come from a northern riding, although it is not situated in the Territories themselves, I recognize the need for over-all planning in transportation policies in the North. This lack of planning and co-ordination of services is evident in my riding of Churchill almost on a daily basis. I have become very aware of the inconsistent planning for air travel in the North. The Liberal Government has commissioned a study to be conducted into the role of Churchill in providing services into the Northwest Territories. A consultant discussed this matter with me a week ago. Although the Government conducted another study last fall into transportation in northern Manitoba, which is a legitimate study, the consultant who was conducting this Churchill study told me that his terms of reference did not allow him to look at the role of Churchill in northern Manitoba. Surely if we are to have a reasonable transportation policy, we should not only consider those flights heading North but also consider all flights going in and out of a transportation centre.
This is a problem in Canada that can be seen in other areas as well. I will use my own riding as an example since I am familiar with that area. The Government recently decided to close down runways and airport services at five o'clock in the evening in a number of communities and not open them until eight o'clock the next morning. This was done in the full realization of the fact that many of the scheduled flights either came in after the closing or took off prior to the opening. We therefore had the unusual situation in which the airport would not be open when scheduled flights were arriving or departing. How can the Government claim to be planning when this is the situation? Similarly, runways in northern communities would not be cleared except during stated hours. If a flight was arriving during a snowfall, that carrier would have to pay the cost of clearing the runway.
This is not an isolated situation. In Manitoba, and in my riding alone, Flin Flon, The Pas, Lynn Lake, Leaf Rapids, Thompson, Gillam, Norway House and Churchill will all be affected by the Government's new restraint program. Throughout Canada, hundreds of communities will be affected
Northern Canada Transportation
by a restraint program which the Government never really thought out. I discussed the matter of how that would affect scheduled flights. Let me refer to another dangerous side effect of that particular decision.
In the North, medical evacuations are most often carried out by air. They depend upon speedy service. If a plane must fly up from Churchill, for example, or up to one of the small communities in the Territories, and if the runway is not cleared and crews must be called in to start clearing that runway at seven o'clock or eight o'clock at night, it may take two or three hours, as is often the case, and then the flight cannot leave until ten o'clock at night. The same problem could occur at another strip at the receiving end as a result of the new Government cutbacks or restraint measures. A small move to save the Government some dollars could endanger the lives of people because of the long time involved in clearing those runways.
Scheduled carriers are also concerned about the new regulations, first, because they will be charged for having a runway cleared, even though they set up their schedules under the old regime and even though it was the policy of the Liberal Government, the policy of Transport Canada, to have those runways open during times of scheduled flights.
This reversal by the Government means that air carriers, which would try to provide good service to many communities, will now be penalized. They will incur extra costs in keeping airports and runways open. That is a terrible situation and it obviously, once again, points to the lack of planning with regard to northern transportation.
One of my other concerns with regard to northern transportation concerns air safety. In Manitoba, search and rescue is carried out from Air Force bases in Edmonton. We have a time lag, which means that a search will not be started for at least two or three hours after it is known that a plane is down or missing. That is valuable time. It is important that the Government either establish more bases for search and rescue in Canada or at least provide funding for organizations like the Civil Air Search and Rescue Association so that various groups within each region of Canada could carry out an interim search until qualified Air Force personnel are on hand. That is another important area of consideration.
The Hon. Member, in speaking for the Liberal Government, discussed many things which have been going on in the last couple of years, and I agree that there has been some work done. I would congratulate the Government for its current research in relation to the rail line to Churchill. This research may be helpful in overcoming the permafrost problem which is preventing the use of hopper cars in delivering grain to the Port of Churchill. I hope that when the research is complete, the Government will spend the funds to do the actual work so that this will not have been just another study following another study with no action taking place. We are all familiar with studies conducted by Governments of all political stripes,

February 2, 1983
Northern Canada Transportation
and we know that it is much easier to conduct a study than to carry out the necessary action.
With regard to the use of the Port of Churchill, we in the New Democratic Party are concerned over yesterday's announcement of the Crow rate changes. There are two elements of that program which could have drastic effects on the use of the Port of Churchill for grain movement. First was the announcement that all rates may not be equal for equal distance across the country. That means that the Government or the Canadian Transport Commission, depending on which is given the final authority, may allow the railways to charge different rates for grain being shipped the same distance. This is not allowed under the present Crow rate provisions. One must charge the same rate per mile or per kilometre, regardless of the route.
Our second concern is that the rail lines may be allowed to charge different rates for unit trains, which only carry grain, and that the railways could have complete freedom to determine the routes on which they offered the unit cars. If that were indeed the case, the situation could arise where the CN and CP would offer special low rates for unit trains to the Port of Thunder Bay or the Port of Vancouver, but would not offer that same rate for unit trains destined for the Port of Churchill. That would have not only the effect of killing the Port of Churchill, but also of forcing farmers from the Churchill catchment basin to truck their grain to terminals on the main line. That would hardly be energy-efficient. It could cost people who work on the railways and at the Port of Churchill their jobs, yet it would not increase the profit to farmers. There is a danger involved, and I certainly hope the Government takes that under advisement before it introduces any changes to the legislation which comes under the Crow umbrella.
The issue concerning the Port of Churchill does not receive much attention in the House of Commons although it is very important both to me and to my riding. Yet quite often the Government ignores the central role of that Port in its studies and actions, which has been a problem. In the past, I think there has been some rivalry between the Northwest Territories and the Port of Churchill, which was only natural. But I believe that if there were adequate studies and reasonable research, we would find that in many cases adequate development and use of the Port of Churchill could result in even more savings for the people of the Northwest Territories. I would hope that the Government would spend money to do adequate research, but sometimes we do not find that to be the case.
1 mentioned earlier that a study of air service from Churchill to the Northwest Territories is being conducted, but it is isolated from other studies of transportation in northern Manitoba. Once again that points out my central theme. The Government is spending much money on transportation, consultants and research, but it tends to be spending it a little bit here and a little bit there. If we had what I would call a regional-based transportation policy, we could consider the entire transportation system within a region. Then we would
not have pockets of research here and there which have little or absolutely no value after the research is done.
We have a saying in the Port of Churchill that it has been studied to death, and I am sure that is a phrase that has been used in other parts of Canada as well. I am sure that the Northwest Territories, both the eastern and western halves, feel that way as well. They feel they have been researched to death. Yet what they also believe is that there is very little in the way of Government action.
We believe, and I am sure other Members from the northern parts of the Provinces and from the Territories would agree with me, that if the Government is going to take an activist role, and I certainly support that position, it must do so based on fact and not only on political goodwill but on adequate research and adequate economic data. I think if that were the approach of the Government, then we would see Northerners much happier with Ottawa. We would see Northerners feeling that their lives are a concern of the Government, that the Government is not going to issue regulations which would shut down airports for certain hours in the middle of winter and threaten the lives of Canadians, that they will not find that the Government is spending thousands and thousands of dollars doing research and then ignoring that research. We would find that we would have a transportation policy for shipping, for air, for rail, that would help all Canadians.


Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, because the generality of this motion by the Hon. Member for the Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) lends itself to one of the most informative and most boring debates I have ever heard in the House, I would like to bore the House further on certain aspects of northern transportation.
The previous speaker's comments on Churchill bring to mind a saying that we from the Northwest Territories have about Churchill and that is, it being overstudied, each family in Churchill includes a scientist and a polar bear.
I wish to bring Transport Canada's Air Administration to bear on the issue of northern transportation. First of all, the continued expansion of the air transportation industry north of the 60th parallel is inevitable. Government and industry alike must be able to forecast the demand for air services and cooperate in providing them in a timely manner.
I would also like to describe the general direction that the Air Administration is likely to follow in developing northern air facilities and systems. I will review some of the policy issues that require attention. They are the air transportation planning network, and what could be expected in the way of airports and air navigational systems in the Arctic. Little development would have taken place without the funding by the federal Government and support and co-operation of the Governments of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories and members of the Northern Air Transport Association. This spirit of mutual co-operation is continuing.
February 2, 1983

I would like to get into the background of this. How did our northern transportation system get where it is today? In 1970, the Northern Transportation Conference identified shortcomings in air facilities and services north of 60, and the former Minister of Transport, the Hon. Don Jamieson, spoke of the need for an Arctic air facilities policy. With this beginning, the federal Government approved a policy in 1974 for the provision of air transportation facilities in the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. It consisted of a five-year $60 million program. Although major hub airports received attention, the policy stressed community airports to provide adequate air transportation to isolated communities with populations of 100 or more. Some projects were delayed by difficult planning, logistics and construction circumstances and, consequently, the program was extended four more years to terminate in March 1983 with a total capital program of about $100 million. A revised or extended policy for community airports in the North is now under review by the Federal Government.
When approved, the Arctic air facilities policy will have the same objectives as the original 1974 policy, that is, to provide adequate air transportation to northern communities, and I might add that air transportation is adequate to most northern communities but still should be improved.
I would like to look at future policy concerns. There are a number of issues that must be considered. These are the vital aspects of adequacy and cost of transportation; that the aviation system of the 1980s will see route and equipment expansion of the 1970s; that competition between charter and unit toll carriers will continue but at a lower rate; and that aircraft standardization for main and local service carriers will continue. A simple, uniform policy for the North perhaps is not possible, but the search for the most appropriate combination of economic, efficient and adequate air service will continue as a challenge to Government, industry and Northern peoples in the decade ahead.
One of the over-all strategic objectives of the Air Administration is the national air transportation strategic plan. Transport Canada has developed a series of national air transportation plans covering safety, security, communications, energy, finances, human resources, air space and airports. These plans provide a framework and guideline for the national air transportation system in terms of technology, levels of service and facilities.
Within this framework, each area of Canada and each airport within that area can develop area and site master plans. An area master plan examines aviation needs and priorities for its area over a 20 year period. It also establishes individual airport roles and requirements from a regional point of view. The airport master plan guides future development of facilities and services at specific sites in the North. Aviation area master plans exist or are in the planning stages for all areas. They can be consulted at Transport Canada's regional offices. Area master plans north of 60 include the Mackenzie Valley area plan, scheduled for completion this summer, the central Arctic plan, completed in 1980, and the Eastern Arctic plan, to
Nuclear Control and Administration
be updated in the mid 1980s. Airport master plans or updates also are under way for Norman Wells, Whitehorse, Yellowknife and Tuktoyaktuk. The majority of these will be completed later this year.
A master plan is the basis for decision-making for timing air navigational and airport facilities. This planning process has enabled a link-up of northern aviation requirements to national air strategic objectives.
How will northern airports develop during the coming decade? To answer this, one must examine the present set-up. There are more than 100 airports in Canada north of 60; of these 62 are public airports and are of direct concern to Transport Canada and the Territorial Governments. Private airports will likely continue to be developed, as well as one or two major facilities now being planned by the oil and gas industry.
Some of the 62 public airports are the well-known ones at Whitehorse, Yellowknife, Resolute and Frobisher capable of handling scheduled jet service. These will continue to be developed under national policies and standards and within available resources. Development needs include air terminal building modifications, runway and taxiway repairs, firehall, navigational aids, maintenance and utility facilities. Of the remaining 51 Arctic community airports, which can handle either medium turboprop or light aircraft, 31 have been completed, nine have work under way, and 11 are still in the planning and approval stages.
Development to date has cost $100 million, and operation and maintenance about $15 million. The latter includes annual contributions to the Territorial Governments which have responsibility for operation and maintenance of the majority of Arctic community airports. Benefits derived from these investments include safer, more reliable air transportation; improved aircraft acess to northern communities; improved medical evacuation; perishables more readily available to Northerners, and an over-all improvement in transportation costs and quality of life for northern communities.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to make one more comment before 1 stop, and that is that the area which has the greatest need for upgrading of airports in all of Canada is northern Quebec.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 24(2) it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Shall all orders listed under the Private Members' Public Bills preceding Order No. 70 be allowed to stand by unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
22448

February 2, 1983
Nuclear Control and Administration


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. Before putting the question for second reading of Bill C-270, an Act respecting Nuclear control and administration, the Chair would like to express reservations as to the procedural acceptability of this Bill which seems to infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown as far as the power of imposing charges upon the Consolidated Revenue Fund is concerned. For instance, Clause 6 of the Bill seeks to increase the number of members of the Nuclear Control Board to be appointed by the Governor in Council, and Clause 9 provides for the appointment of substitute members on the said Board. For its part, Clause 8 makes provision for payment of a salary to members of the board.
However, having entered this caveat, the Chair will allow the debate to take place on the motion for second reading of Bill C-270. Should the debate come to an end, the Chair will have to rule on the procedural acceptability of this Bill.


NUCLEAR CONTROL AND ADMINISTRATION ACT
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough) moved: that Bill C-270, respecting nuclear control and administration, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Natural Resources and Public Works.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before proceeding with my planned remarks may I comment briefly on your caveat. That caveat was taken into account when my colleagues and I redrafted the Bill. In fact, it had been brought to our attention by the Table officers that the problem to which you made reference had arisen and the Bill was redrafted taking into account their advice, I understand that the Bill as it now stands meets the normal standards of parliamentary practice in that respect. While Clause 6, 1 think it is, does contemplate an increase in the number of members on the board, the total cost to the Treasury might not necessarily be increased, but I leave that question to your good judgment at a later point in the debate.
Sir, 1 am pleased to be the sponsor of the Private Members' Bill now before the House for debate. The subject, as you have pointed out, is Bill C-270, an Act respecting nuclear control and administration which received first reading on May 2, 1980. As Members who participated in the debate then will know, my Bill is virtually identical to a Private Members' Bill debated at second reading on December 17, 1982. The other Bill was sponsored by my friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin). His Bill was thoroughly debated on the occasion; indeed, all Parties in the House were represented in the debate. So I think it is unnecessary for me or for any other Member to address my Bill at any great length. My purpose in rising is to identify myself with the Bill now before us, to remind Members of the main provisions, and to urge all Hon. Members to allow it to go before the Standing Committee on Natural Resources by not talking it out.
In his speech on the Bill of the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy,
Mines and Resources (Mr. Dingwall), whom I see in the House this afternoon, agreed that the subject of nuclear energy was of such importance that it should be discussed in greater depth on another occasion, possibly in committee. I believe the best forum for further discussion would be at the relevant standing committee where each clause could be discussed and perhaps improved upon or supplemented in the thorough fashion that only a standing committee makes possible. The fact is, Sir, a wide-ranging, in-depth investigation by Parliament of the subject of nuclear energy is long overdue. The subject has virtually been ignored by both the Parliament of Canada and the general public alike, except for keenly concerned special-interest groups such as, for example, HOPE, in my own Province of Prince Edward Island. Bill C-270 would give us an excellent opportunity, an excellent point of reference, if you will, for the kind of standing committee investigation we require.
The nuclear industry has grown at a rapid rate since the end of the Second World War when the country began to focus on the development of a nuclear reactor. Yet the country has never had a full inquiry into whether such an energy or export option is in the best interests of the country or, if so, whether we have been following the safest, most cost-effective course in embracing that option. We have developed enormous technical expertise and skill in the nuclear field, to the point where we are currently a world leader. But, as so often happens, our technical capacity has outpaced both our capacity and our resolve to address certain moral, health and environmental questions surrounding the use of nuclear power for either peaceful or defence purposes.
Let me make it crystal clear, Mr. Speaker, that I am not condemning the nuclear option on this occasion. In my opinion, now is not the occasion to address the issue at that level of debate. I am merely trying to make the point that Canada has adopted the nuclear option and pursued it vigorously, albeit in a scatterbrained way, without devoting enough thought to attendant environmental and moral issues. On a more mundane plane, we have not even set in place adequate laws and mechanisms to ensure that the nuclear option is managed with maximum benefits to the public it is intended to serve. Certainly the general public has been all but excluded from a role in the relevant decisions. Meanwhile, nuclear power has emerged as a key part of the country's over-all energy mission.
The size of the industry, the magnitude and scope of it, Mr. Speaker, is mind-boggling. There are currently 18 nuclear reactors in operation or under construction in the country, one of the most recently completed projects being Pickering II in Ontario which consists of four reactors in all. Electricity makes up 30 per cent of the total energy produced in Canada, and 10 per cent of that total is generated by nuclear power. In other words, 3 per cent of all energy is derived from nuclear sources in this country. In Ontario nuclear power stations account for a staggering 35 per cent, or 38 billion kilowatt hours, of all electrical generation in the Province. In my own
February 2, 1983

region, the Atlantic Provinces, nuclear energy has surged in importance with the completion of the LePreau Nuclear Station and with the possibility that another one would be built at LePreau before long.
At the same time, Mr. Speaker, Canada has placed a high priority upon efforts to open up overseas markets for the Candu reactor, especially in the last two years. India, Pakistan, Argentina, South Korea and Rumania have all signed contracts with Canada, although of course we have had to end further negotiations with India following the explosion of a nuclear device by that country in 1974. The irony, sir, is that we have continued to feed Argentina's appetite for a nuclear capacity, even though, at the height of its war with Britain over the Falklands, Argentina's Vice Admiral Castro Madero, head of his country's national energy commission, told the International Atomic Energy Commission in Vienna that Argentina reserved the right to develop nuclear energy for military purposes.
In any event, despite the fact that we have lost millions of dollars in our various overseas sales of the Candu reactor- Korea being the only case, 1 believe, where we actually turned a profit-the export of our nuclear technology remains a major part of what little international trade strategy the current federal Government has deemed it important enough to formulate. Indeed, total federal Government outlays on nuclear energy over the past 30 years amount to some $4 billion. And there is certainly little evidence that I can discern that any significant let-up can be expected in the foreseeable future.
The point, Mr. Speaker, in connection with Bill C-270, is this: for good or ill, the nuclear option has been embraced by Canada. Like it or not, the point of no return has probably been passed, if for no other reason than the fact that about 36,000 jobs depend on it. Given those realities, the task facing us Parliamentarians, those in this House and those in the Senate, is to ensure that our society's interests are fostered in every way possible in connection with nuclear power. In that respect, I believe we have been woefully neglectful. Bill C-270 is aimed at making up for lost time.
Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to elaborate briefly. The Atomic Energy Control Act, passed in 1946 and amended only slightly since them-I believe there was only one amendment, in 1974-is the principal legislative instrument for the regulation of Canada's nuclear energy program. Its pith and substance, as my lawyer friends would say, are to control nuclear materials and facilities in the interests of health, safety and security. That control is supposed to be achieved by a comprehensive licencing system, including both the evaluation of an application before the issuance of a permit and a subsequent follow-up inspection to ensure compliance. The Atomic Energy Control Board, as everyone in this House will know, is the agency through which the Act is applied.
Nuclear Control and Administration
The chief problem is that the 1946 Act is appallingly out of date, a fact acknowledged by almost every thoughtful Government and non-Government observer alike. In 1977, the Government of the day sought to replace the Act with a "troughly modern Milly" of a Bill, the Nucleqf Control and Administration Act. Unfortunately, the BilLwas allowed to die on the Order Paper, and we have seen neither hide nor hair of it since then.
Bill C-270, before us for debate today, like the sister Bill of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey, Bill C-218, seeks to resuscitate the Nuclear Control and Administration Act of 1977, with certain improvements made to it. In a nutshell, my Bill would do the following things. In general, the Bill seeks to correct certain drafting flaws in the initial Act. Second, again generally, it seeks to decrease the amount of discretion vested in the relevant regulatory body by opening up the entire process to the public and by enhancing the authority of Parliament itself.
Specifically, the Bill broadens the scope of nuclear regulation by declaring all types of nuclear facilities for the general advantage of the country. Matters related to national defence would be covered by the Act unless explicitly excluded. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) is delegated responsibility for the Act on the grounds that environmental considerations, including human health, must be deemed paramount in the nuclear field. The Bill contemplates a slightly larger regulatory board whose meetings would be public to ensure due process and whose members would include people chosen from the public at large, rather than merely from among activists in the nuclear industry itself, as is now too often the case. Provisions have been added to decrease the potential for a conflict of interest on the part of members appointed to the regulatory agency.
More precision is provided to ensure that professional, scientific, technical and other personnel are hired to ensure the health and safety of the public and the protection of the environment. But this need not involve an added burden on the Treasury because some of those people, probably all of them, could be seconded from other areas within the federal bureaucracy. The Act is given more muscle in other ways also in terms of ensuring that health and environmental factors are taken fully into account in the nuclear field; for example, by requiring applicants to submit environmental impact assessments which must, in turn, be reviewed, studied and decided on by the regulatory board. At present, such a procedure is dependent on the whim of the powers that be. Again, procedures are specified to maximize involvement by, and notice to, the public in relation to the regulatory process.
Of special concern to me, and no doubt to other Members, is the matter of nuclear waste. The topic is dealt with specifically in my Bill. More broadly, the improved mechanisms and procedures for public participation included in Bill C-270 will better ensure that health and environmental concerns will be reflected in all decisions made under the authority of the legislation.
Allow me to conclude, Mr. Speaker, with two brief points: first, currently our nuclear waste is stored in interim reservoirs, so-called swimming pools, on the site of each of the reactors

February 2, 1983
Nuclear Control and Administration
themselves. We have no nuclear waste disposal capacity at present, anywhere in the country. Although much research is under way into the disposal of nuclear wastes, the fact that the field is still virginal underscores the earlier point which I made, namely, that we have allowed the industry to grow at a faster pace than the research and development required to keep it within appropriate health and environmental boundaries.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that Bill C-270 will help redress the imbalance of which I have spoken. Lost time cannot be recaptured with one legislative stroke, but this Bill is a beginning. I urge all Members to join me this afternoon in making that start by allowing the Bill to go before committee. After all, in this field, more so than in most others, much more than just debate is involved. We are dealing, sir, with the health and safety and the well-being of the very people whom we have been elected to represent.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, in rising this afternoon to speak on Private Member's Bill C-270, sponsored by the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan), I would like to say that I know he is sponsoring this Bill with good intent. Unfortunately, whenever we get into a discussion such as this, quite often the factor of nuclear energy becomes automatically mixed up with nuclear power in warfare. This is very unfortunate because Canada's emphasis has been on nuclear energy for peaceful purposes, and certainly Canada's emphasis has also been on medical research through the nuclear industry. We have made great strides in that field.
The Hon. Member correctly mentioned the emphasis on nuclear reactors producing hydroelectric power in Provinces such as Ontario. I think that it is a good thing that we have nuclear reactors producing that amount of electricity in Ontario which is our major industrial Province. Until that happened, every white water rapids and every river in the Province was being dammed and that kind of environment was being destroyed. Everyone was trying to get electrical power by damming the rivers. The nuclear reactors producing hydroelectric energy in Ontario have used the situation and have saved the remaining white water rapids for recreational and other uses.
Although the Atomic Energy Control Board was established 36 years ago with the passage in August, 1946 of the Atomic Energy Control Act, like many administrative tribunals, its role and function in the regulatory process which it applies had evolved very significantly during this period. The changes which have taken place over the years reflect not only the vast scientific and technological developments which have occurred, but also the marked difference between contemporary society and the social milieu of the late 1940s. The basic philosophy of nuclear regulation in Canada and the underlying principles of the regulatory process have changed very little, however. Certainly the process is far more open in terms of the general public. It has also become appreciably more comprehensive and systematic in terms of the depth and extent in both the pre
and post-licensing technical evaluations which are conducted from time to time and the ensuing compliance program itself. Furthermore, it applies to the whole of the nuclear fuel cycle as well as the industrial, agricultural and medical applications of radionuclides.
Nevertheless, the following fundamental principles remain unchanged: the primary responsibility for achieving high standards of nuclear safety and environmental protection in the design, construction, commissioning and operation of nuclear facilities resides with the licensee; the credibility of the nuclear regulatory process depends not only upon its technical correctness and practicability, but also upon acceptance by the public at large of its perceived effectiveness and efficiency. That is another very important factor. Even when a good job is done or is attempted by people with expertise, they are not always given full credit for the effort because this is a subject about which it is easy to create fear.
The regulatory criteria and principles should be concise, clearly stated and understandable; regulatory decision-making should be based upon stated criteria and principles, taking into account pertinent scientific and technical facts only; fairness and impartiality must characterize all regulatory decisionmaking. it is very important that people in the Atomic Energy Control Board or the board set up by Bill C-270, be impartial and have expertise. The regulatory process should be subject to a comprehensive periodic review and evaluation to ensure that it continues to produce the desired results at justified costs.
The jurisdiction of the AECB is, of course, established by the AEC Act, which came into effect in October, 1946. The exercise of that jurisdiction by the AECB, as expressed in regulations and licensing action, has come about in large measure through a series of precedents established as the nuclear program evolved. However, it is worthy of note that the areas of jurisdiction occupied by the AECB in terms of current practice, are significantly less than the potential jurisdictional field embraced by the AEC Act. It would be possible, given the strength and breadth of the current Act, for the AECB to make additional regulations that would explicitly cover, for example, conventional occupational health and safety in addition to the new specified radiological health and safety. It has not done this, for obvious reasons, and such careful attention to the practical necessities of nuclear regulation and control have marked its activities since 1946.
In the present situation, workers in all parts of the nuclear industry, including the medical, research and industrial uses of radioisotopes, are protected to an equal degree against radiation exposures, according to the schedule appended to the AEC Regualtions. Exposure dose limits for the general public are also provided. All Canadians, in effect, are given protection under one Act and with one authority responsible for exerting the control, and being held accountable for same.
This single authority position assures consistency across the country for all Canadians, and it represents the best source and use of expertise. Some Provinces, by their own admission, have little experience in radiological health and safety matters
February 2, 1983

at this time. It also represents the combined opinion of provincial health officials, through the now defunct Dominion Council of Health, but is still unquestioned by the Conference of Deputy Ministers of Health. And it permits a continued and centralized contact with international agencies, such as the International Commission on Radiological Protection, whose advise is part of the basis on which standards are set.
The matter of environmental protection in nuclear regulation presents significant potential for ambiguity. Nuclear facilities are within federal regulatory jurisdiction, the Atomic Energy Control Act providing the only legislative framework. The environment to be protected, however, is clearly an area of primarily provincial concern, though federal concern can never be eliminated, particularly for facilities at or near a provincial or international boundary. At both federal and provincial levels, there exist government bodies with the responsibility and the expertise for environmental protection, and it would seem to me the AECB has neither the justification nor the desire to duplicate what already exists. Indeed, the AECB currently incorporates the environmental protection standards of other jurisdictions through its licensing process. Furthermore, at the federal level, the AECB counts on Environment Canada for expertise-it can draw on experts from other Departments and the private sector-and recognizes the value and role of the environmental assessment and review process. Since there is more potential for difficulty to arise between federal and provincial bodies, a joint regulatory process has been designed to overcome such difficulties. I understand that this system has worked very well.
Reading through this Bill, one gets the impression that it was prepared a little hastily. For instance, the mention of uranium and thorium mines and mills as nuclear facilities subject to controls is missing, although there is a reference to the licensing of extraction and production. Furthermore, the new Nuclear Control Board would be empowered to make regulations respecting the development, mining and milling of uranium and thorium. Since nuclear facilities are the main regulatory focus of the Bill, this would present an awkward situation. One would have to ask how and by whom these regulations would be enforced. Would the public stand for the federal Government treating mines and mills any differently than major nuclear facilities?
Hasty preparation is also marked by the fact that while the employees of the new Board are only to be interested in the general public and the environment, the Bill would give the Board the power to make regulations providing for protection of persons who, because of their work or professional activity, may come into contact with or may be exposed to prescribed substances. In other words, the details of the Bill do not jibe entirely.
There are also a number of items in the Bill which collectively give cause to be concerned about intent. For instance, given the large number of members contemplated and reference to substitute members, one wonders if there is not an effort here to make it easy to infiltrate the Board with delegates of one persuasion or another. This is why I said at the
Nuclear Control and Administration
outset that members of the Board must be impartial and must have the expertise to make judgments.
There are various interest groups talking about nuclear energy, but usually when we talk about nuclear interests we think of those people who are actually in the nuclear industry.
I submit that those groups opposed to the nuclear research industry are also interest groups. We cannot look at this in a puritanical way by saying, "You are wrong and I am pure".
As well, the inclusion of provisos on Board member employment before and after their appointment at the very least suggests an unreasonable mistrust of the common decency of potential appointees. At worst, it could be an attempt to emasculate the Board by depriving it of necessary expertise or willing candidates.
Unfortunately the Bill is silent on the delegation of authority to issue licences. Undoubtedly this reflects a lack of understanding of the workload involved and perhaps misplaced zeal to require the Board to deliberate on every licensing action. With the number of extant or still existing AECB licences in Canada approaching 5,000, I fail to see how the Board could cope in anything other than semi-permanent session. Otherwise, the whole Canadian radioisotope business-industrial, medical, agricultural and experimental-would grind to a halt. As a matter of fact, the wording of the Bill is very much oriented toward dealing with nuclear facilities and, therefore, it would impose tremendous administrative loads on the more mundane but very numerous licensing actions dealing with prescribed substance uses.
During the past 36 years I believe the Board has consistently exhibited a dedicated commitment to serve Canadians as the guardian of safety in nuclear matters through the development and application of stringent controls. This considerable responsibility enabling decisions to be taken by the people through their elected representatives with a degree of confidence is not popularly associated with the sophisticated technology of the nuclear energy field.
The confidence we enjoy in the nuclear regulatory process as it now exist encourages me to observe that while the Bill is founded on good basic principles and good intent, there are too many unresolved questions and issues to warrant its support by the House.
In closing, I would simply like to say that people who work in the nuclear industry and have considerable expertise listen to television programs and commentators talk about the interests of the future of humanity and the safety of my children, their children and our children's children. The AECB has been involved in that over the past 36 years. Those same people who work in the nuclear industry and try to do their day-to-day work in a very constructive manner feel somewhat hurt by someone insinuating that they are not interested in their children or their children's children. People who work in the atomic energy research and nuclear field are as interested in their children's children as anyone else. I should like to erase that error in judgment and comment before taking my seat.

February 2, 1983
Nuclear Control and Administration
Also I should like to pay tribute to the tremendous research which has been done in the medical field of the nuclear industry. It has been fantastic. That fact has been overshadowed by the criticism perpetuated among the general public and is quite often overlooked. I know that the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin), whose constituency and name was brought into this debate by the Hon. Member for Hillsborough, would certainly be among those to agree that a great deal of good work, particularly in the medical field, through nuclear research was done. Also I know that the Hon. Member for Hillsborough brought in the Bill with good intent and with principle. 1 do not question his good intent or his principles because all of us agree that while we go ahead and develop nuclear energy, there are positive things in medical research that go along with it. Yes, research into the handling of the waste side of the industry must be faced up to. A great deal of work has already gone into this area and is continuing into the research of handling the waste products of the industry. I am not negative about the future because necessity is always the mother of invention and development. 1 have confidence in the scientific expertise and common sense of the people in the nuclear industry today. They have done their best to produce good regulations through the AECB. I have faith that they will use good judgment. They are not going out to destroy our children's children or their children's children. Also, in closing I would like to emphasize-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order. I must inform the Hon. Member that his time is exhausted.


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, 1 was about to offer the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) an opportunity to finish his sentence, but he indicated that he did not want to take this opportunity and that he felt he had been sentenced long enough. I would like to congratulate him for a most reassuring speech. I, too, would like to confirm that the people who work in the nuclear industry in research and various forms of it are not necessarily conspirators to poison us all forever. I think there are some well motivated people within that industry. I think the whole industry is a high tech turkey, but that does not mean the people who work in it are not well motivated.
I think we got into the nuclear industry for very many good reasons. Canada had the technology, the brains and the uranium. We got into this industry after World War II because it seemed like a reasonable thing to do. Ever since that time we have been throwing good money after bad and trying to recoup an investment for something that is suffering from terminal, if not moral economics. I do not share the same confidence in the nuclear regulatory agencies, whether they are in this country or any other country; the United States, Soviet Union, France, or wherever, that is held by the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke. Simply because I feel that citizens of this world have been systematically lied to about the dangers of even low-level radiation for the last 50 years. We have not yet achieved the competence to look at the tonnes and tonnes of nuclear waste. If the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke is confident, that is terrific. I do
not share his view. I think that all of us, and this is the essence of democracy, should probe into what our governments tell us and not believe everything we are told whether by a Government, a regulatory agency, a Crown corporation or whatever. It is absolute naivete for any of us to be that confident in what a group of men, who may have a stake in the nuclear industry, tell us about anything. That is my view. If it sounds cynical, I am sorry. But I happen to feel that way because I think life on this planet in terms of how we dispose of nuclear waste or what we do with nuclear weapons, nuclear power, or nuclear research, is too precious to leave in the hands of a bunch of bureaucrats appointed by the Government who have no reason that I know of to make a clean breast of things.
1 think others have noted that this Bill is very similar to the one put forward by the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin), a colleague for whom I have the utmost respect. His views on nuclear power are not necessarily congruent with my own. My own position and the position of my Party was set forward, I thought, very well by the Hon. Member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) on December 17 at the time when the Hon. Member for Bruce-Grey debated his Private Member's Bill. The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway and, I believe the Hon. Member for Hillsborough (Mr, McMillan) also said that at this time Canadians would welcome a serious debate on this whole issue of what Canada's commitment to the nuclear industry is, whether it is nuclear weapons, nuclear power or nuclear medical research.
In any event, these sister Bills have been brought forward by the Conservatives to ensure more accountability. We can support that. We are in favour of more accountability. I think that is important. I can support, in principle, some of the proposed changes. I can support tighter regulations on the transportation of radioactive materials. When we had evidence in the Standing Committee on Transport about unsafe cargo or dangerous goods, I was surprised, appalled and even shocked to learn that sometimes when I return to Ottawa from my riding on the West Coast I am sitting blindly and naively above cannisters of nuclear material that are being transported on the same plane. That is not particularly reassuring, not that it would matter one way or the other to me if the plane went down. We still do not know about the technology of shielding or the effect of low-level radiation. We are just beginning to understand that. Witness the story about the people in the Armed Services who were involved in the clean-up of the two spills in Chalk River during or shortly after the Second World War. People like Bjorne Paulson are attempting to get some kind of pension because he suffered cancer as a result of taking part, without adequate shielding, in that clean-up at Chalk River. There are at least 20 to 50 other radiated veterans who are crying desperately for some kind of help from the Government, especially from the Department of Veterans Affairs.
I can support tighter regulation in transport. I can support reductions in the ability of the Government to hide nuclear questions behind a secret wall by way of saying, "These are for
February 2, 1983

defence reasons and people cannot know about these things." I do not accept those reasons completely. They are good and sufficient reasons, 1 think, in terms of international and national security. You cannot let everything hang out. But perhaps more is hidden about this whole question than needs to be. I think Hon. Members on both sides of the House who believe in more freedom of information could support me in that statement.
1 like the idea that 50 per cent of the representatives on the Atomic Energy Control Board, or the Nuclear Control Board as proposed, will not be charter members of the private sector or from the governmental nuclear industry fraternity. You have to have informed people on the Board. But if you put only people who have a stake in the industry you can hardly expect to escape bias. Similarly, the College of Physicians needs a medical consumer on its board and the legal profession should welcome lay people on their respective boards. 1 do not see why we should not have well informed lay people on the AECB as well. Is there a problem?


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has to do with the length of this debate. If I may have the indulgence of the House for a moment, this is the third occasion in Private Member's business when the third Bill or motion has been terminated after about 50 minutes because of the requirements to adjourn the House at six o'clock. I would like to ask either for unanimous consent to continue until 6.10 p.m., or, even better, if the matter of the continuance of the third Member's Bill or motion be referred to a committee so that the Member can get the full hour's debate, which I am sure was the intent of the committee when it decided that on Wednesdays there would be three Bills, motions or motions for papers and that each Member should have his full hour. The last Member should not have his time abbreviated as it has been and might unfortunately happen again today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I thank the Hon. Member for his comments. He raises a valid concern, one which has been expressed by other Members, if I recall correctly. However, it is the Chair's duty under the present provisional
Nuclear Control and Administration
Standing Orders to adjourn the House at six o'clock. I refer Hon. Members to Standing Order 8(1) which reads:
At 6:00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays, and at 5:00 o'clock p.m. on Fridays, the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.
However, as the Chair acknowledges, the Hon. Member raises a valid point. Perhaps he would want to take the initiative of bringing this matter to the attention of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization, which is now empowered under our provisional rules to consider on its own initiative the Standing Orders and procedure in the House and its committees. It is a matter which can be taken into account by that Committee. I cannot see any other way whereby we could at this time refer that matter to the Committee. The point has been made. It is on the record and I am sure someone will take it under consideration.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, in the attempt to assist me, I think the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) has done his best to talk out the time allotted to me. I know that was not the intention. But I would like to point out, Mr. Speaker, since you said you knew of no other way in which I might be accommodated, a time extension can be granted by unanimous consent. The Speaker does not need to see the clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Is the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose) now proposing that by unanimous consent we do not see the clock?


Mark Willson Rose: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: I shall now put the question to the House. Is there unanimous consent to continue the sitting beyond six o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody does not have unanimous consent. It being six o'clock this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 3, 1983