1983-11-14

THE LATE HON. WALTER BAKER TRIBUTES TO FORMER MEMBER

["Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until two o'clock this afternoon.\nAt 11.40 a.m. the sitting of the House was suspended."]
Mr. Brian Mulroney (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, it is with true sadness and a deep sense of loss that 1 rise to pay tribute to our colleague, Walter Baker. With Walter's death yesterday, Canada has lost a gifted leader and a distinguished parliamentarian and all of us who knew him have lost a warm and a generous friend.
While new to this House, 1 am not insensitive to its traditions. During the short time that I have been here, I have seen that one of the noblest traditions seems to be the friendship that emerges from the forge of partisan battle. Such friendships, Mr. Speaker, tempered as they often are in the cauldron of debate, are both genuine and durable because, irrespective of Party, they are born in the deep respect that comes from true accomplishment on behalf of Canada.
During one of my first conversations with Walter after my election as Leader, he spoke movingly of his recent visits with the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Walter told me of the Hon. Member's great contribution to Parliament and to Canada over three decades and how much he would be missed should he decide not to run again. I found it both poignant and elevating, Mr. Speaker, that Walter would speak with such obvious affection for someone of another political Party. I knew that a man capable of such discernment loved people, revered Parliament and ennobled it by his presence.
To earn the respect and the admiration of one's colleagues, including and perhaps particularly those who represent other Parties, is, in my judgment, the ultimate tribute to one's time here. Walter recognized and indeed enjoyed the partisan nature of the House. He understood its rules and he stood in respect of its customs. But Walter sensed as well a growing estrangement of ordinary Canadians from this place he loved so well and served so admirably. He knew that vitriol was no substitute for vigorous debate; that partisanship did not preclude decency; and that humour, true humour, was an instrument to disarm and not a club to embarrass. He was the antithesis of the "merchants of discourtesy" so scorned by Churchill for debasing exchange in another Parliament.
So along with many here he worked tirelessly in the cause of parliamentary reform. The committee of which he was vicechairman produced ten reports, all unanimous, all arrived at by consensus and all designed to improve the parliamentary life of Canada. Time and time again he warned that our rules must be more responsive, our procedures less arcane and our
conduct more becoming, failing which Canadians would progressively question both our relevance and our value.
We should ensure, Mr. Speaker, that his gentle but incisive words not go unheeded. We should learn from his thoughtful personal conduct. We should remember him as a man of distinction who asked only that we refurbish the reputation of this historic place by conducting ourselves with the same sense of courtesy and responsibility we would wish to have associated with our professional careers or our private lives. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, Walter Baker was a great parliamentarian, but above all, he was a gentleman. He had great affection for this place and affection and admiration for all who work here, without regard for political orientation. He was a loyal Member of his Party, but he was never blindly partisan. He saw the qualities of his political adversaries and respected them, and during the short time that I have been in this House, I have always observed that the feeling was mutual. [English]
Above all, Mr. Speaker, Walter Baker loved Canada. He loved it as a country of opportunity and a land of tolerance. He worked tirelessly toward its unity and its enhancement.
In all of the years that 1 knew Walter, I suppose that most of all 1 was always struck by his sense of fairness and by his sense of humour. Problems were to be solved but always with concern for those affected by the decisions. Positions were to be held strongly but always with openness for those of different views.

Ideas were to be put forward, but never with the cool brashness of people who think they have a monopoly on the truth. [English]
Choices were to be made but never with malice toward those of other persuasions.
So today, Mr. Speaker and colleagues, we salute Walter Baker and we say goodbye to a wonderful friend, a man with a unique love of Parliament, a delightful, happy individual of unfailing grace who loved Canada and enriched us all by his presence. On behalf of my Party and 1 am sure on behalf of all Members, I convey to Lois and the family our heartfelt sadness and our deepest condolences.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, it was with great dismay that we learned late yesterday of the untimely passing of our friend and fellow Member, the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton, the Hon. Walter

November 14, 1983
The Late Hon. W. Baker
Baker, my distinguished predecessor as President of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
While we were all aware of the insidious disease which he had been battling since last summer, it appeared from his good spirits and hearty demeanour that he was winning. Therefore, it was a double blow to learn so suddenly of his death.
Walter Baker loved this place. He loved it from the moment he first stepped into the visitors' gallery. From his earliest days as a Member, he demonstrated that he had spent most of his life preparing himself for it. He was a servant of the House, both as Leader of the Government and as Opposition House Leader. More recently he served as vice-chairman of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure and became one of the most constructive influences on the operations of that Committee by consensus rather than by confrontation.
He was totally committed to the improvement of the institutions of democracy in Canada and as such served as a major contributor to the access to information law.
The people of Nepean-Carleton will miss him greatly. Walter Baker was not just a great parliamentarian, he was a great constituency man. Regardless of political affiliation, there was probably no resident of his district who could find anything but praise for his service to them.
The loss is hardest, however, for his wife, his three young children and his two tiny grandchildren. Walter always spoke of his family with pride and affection. We offer them our most sincere condolences.

Although 1 often had occasion to consult with the Hon. Walter Baker at our meetings of parliamentary House leaders, it was especially during the historic debate on the Constitution that I learned to appreciate my distinguished predecessor in the position of President of the Privy Council. I found his attitude positive, constructive and respectful. A man of "unfailing grace", as the previous speaker said so well, Walter Baker was a typical example of the parliamentarian this institution needs if it is to renew itself and provide better safeguards for our rights and freedoms. This loss will be felt by each and every one of us, and on behalf of the Government, I wish to offer his wife and his entire family our sincere sympathy.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I was very sad this morning to hear of the passing of Walter Baker. I came to know Walter quite well in the short time I have been in the House of Commons. I came not only to know him when he was House Leader for the Government but also to know him outside Parliament. He was a man of very deep commitment, and he showed at all times a very genuine concern for his constituents on the one hand and for the institution of Parliament on the other. He was firm in his convictions, yet he was gentle in his approach. He was quick to challenge when he felt that you were wrong, but he was equally quick to come to
your defence or to offer words of encouragement if you were under pressure or if you felt that you needed his support.
He clearly felt very deeply for the people of Nepean-Carleton. It has been said by many-and it has been said to me frequently-that we could always find Walter in the constituency. He was known by everyone. He attended every event, large or small. Every family felt touched by him and every family felt confident about Walter.
I remember an occasion when I was invited to speak in Walter's constituency and he noted an advertisement in the newspaper. He sent me a small clipping of the history of the constituency, providing me with some background, with a note just letting me know that he was happy I was going to be there. On another occasion, when my executive assistant was helping to organize a tenants' association, Walter phoned- although we were on different sides of the House-to offer his support and his encouragement, both of which he demonstrated frequently during the period of time when the organization was taking place.
He was committed to his wife and family. I recall going with Walter and his wife to Halifax where I saw a different side of Walter Baker. After the day's work was finished and the arguments had been put aside for the day, I saw the joyous side of Walter, dancing, singing, happy and sharing his happiness with the other people who were at that particular conference.
Walter will be remembered as a person of substance. He will be remembered fondly by his supporters and by his political adversaries alike. He will be remembered by those of us in the House of Commons for his work, as was said earlier, on the parliamentary reform committee. He believed that Parliament could be reformed to be a more meaningful place, and that came through at every meeting which we held when I was a member of that committee. He will be remembered by many for his work on freedom of information. There will be a lasting benefit to the people of Canada as a result of Walter's commitment to this cause.
Walter, of course, will be remembered by his family as a truly decent man. He was taken in the prime of his life but what he left behind will be remembered by everyone. His influence will be with us for years to come. I want to say on behalf of my good friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-who unfortunately could not be here today-on behalf of my Leader and on behalf of our caucus, how sad we are at his passing. We want to say to his family that they should be proud of the accomplishments of their father, son, grandfather, husband; proud of Walter Baker.


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Yellowhead):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to contribute very briefly to the eloquent tributes paid to Walter Baker by my Leader and others who have spoken. For most of my time in this Parliament, Walter Baker was at my side as Acting Prime Minister and as House Leader in Gov-
November 14, 1983

ernment and in Opposition. I counted on him, not just for his industry and judgment, but because he was the most open and vital of men.
Walter loved his work, not just in Parliament, not just in his constituency, but wherever in the country that work carried him. He had the gift of making Government and Parliament personal. He leaves one kind of legacy in the debates and the rules of this Parliament and in the laws which he affected, but for those of us who were privileged to work with him, his larger legacy is the committed, generous, positive spirit which guided everything he did, even in the days when disease was pulling him down.
More than a colleague, even more than a friend, he was a constant example of the decency, generosity and love which are at the heart of the way we live. We miss him, we mourn him, and our hearts go out to Lois and to his family.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wonder if 1 could be permitted at this point to join in the respect being paid to a man whom 1 have known for over 25 years and counted as a very good friend.
Walter was born in Cardinal, and practised law in Ottawa before coming to this place in association with the Hon. Dick Bell who was a Member for Carleton. Walter succeeded to that seat in 1972.
Members of the House have paid tribute to Walter as a parliamentarian and words cannot express his love for this place, his contribution and his work in the direction of parliamentary reform.
Words have also been said about his work as a constituency representative. Walter represented a constituency adjacent to my own. We had many occasions on which we acted jointly, always in a spirit of good friendship, with frank and free exchange of opinion where there were differences, but always with mutual respect and, I would like to think, affection.
Walter's family life was also a model. In days when people are sometimes disrespectful of those who hold public office, Walter Baker was a man no one could possibly criticize. His eminent virtue, his industry, his integrity and his warm human qualities made him very much endeared as a friend. I personally wish to express my sympathy to Lois and members of his family. This has been a difficult period for all of them. I hope it is some comfort to her and to them to know of the deep affection and admiration we held for Walter.


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Mr. Speaker last night I was both astonished and saddened at the news of the death of our colleague, the Hon. Walter Baker. On behalf of all the Members of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization, a committee I have been privileged to chair and on which 1 was also privileged to work together with Mr. Baker in his capacity as Vice-Chairman, I wish to offer our sincere sympathy to his wife Lois and all his
The Late Hon. W. Baker
children. It was a very rewarding experience to work with an experienced parliamentarian like Walter Baker. I am sure that his passing will be felt as a tremendous loss, not only by the members of his family but by his constituents and the Parliament of Canada.

There is no doubt that Walter Baker's work, his concern and his commitment had a great deal to do with the quality of the reports produced by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure. This Committee provided me with the unique opportunity of working with a great parliamentarian in the person of Walter Baker. Throughout his career Mr. Baker and I, when we sat on both Government and Opposition sides, occupied different positions in the House where we had to adopt and defend Party positions. Never once in all those times did the work we carried out on behalf of our Party policies ever interfere with his honour, integrity and the feeling of friendship that he had with myself and many other MPs. We shall miss him, and this institution will be the lesser for his regrettable passing away.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, as a constituent of Walter Baker and a long time friend, I would like to add my personal tribute to his family and himself at this time.
You mentioned that he was born in Cardinal, which is indicative of the fact that he came from the Valley. He also knew that I was married to a woman whose family goes back to the original settlers of theValley, going back to the veterans of the Napoleonic wars. He constantly came to me to talk about the roots and the views of these people because he knew I had some knowledge of the history of the County of Carle-ton. It was his deep understanding of these people which carried him through many a decision. He had a deep appreciation of the background of these English, Scots and Irish who came here after the great wars in Europe to settle the land, break the ground and clear the bush.
Even though I lived on the outskirts of his riding in Mano-tick, almost every week he would ask me: "What are the bus drivers saying?" This was our way of learning through the school children what was going on in the homes.
I think that background should be put on the record because Walter in his public life was not only interested in the affairs of the nation, but he was interested in the views, feelings and hopes and aspirations of every person in the whole area he represented. As was said before, he was the kind of Member of Parliament that all of us would like to be. Along with others here, my sympathy goes to the family.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I have the temerity to rise at this time not to add to the excellent expressions of tribute which have been made, because my words could not do that, but to try to suggest that words can now be brought into action. Perhaps our concerns as we have expressed them concerning our affection and love for

November 14, 1983
The Late Hon. W. Baker
Walter Baker may in this case be put into action by a non-partisan approach to the subject of parliamentary reform, which was so dear to him. I hope this event will provide us with that added incentive to make a reality that which was such a part of his life's work.
The second way in which we might be able to express our feelings, those of us who are not given an opportunity to take part in this tribute, is to ask that before this period is brought to an end and we begin Orders of the Day, we might have an opportunity to stand for a moment of silence together.


Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday evening I was returning home by car from a Latvian function commemorating the sixty-fifth anniversary of the proclamation of the independence of Latvia. The Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) knows which function I am speaking of because he was the keynote speaker. As I pulled into the driveway 1 heard the announcement over the radio and I stopped the car halfway up the driveway and my first words were, "Oh no, not Walter."
We did lose a great parliamentarian and I would like to take this opportunity to express sympathy to his wife and children on behalf of Canadians of Estonian, Lithuanian and Latvian descent. 1 think most of us sitting in this Chamber know that every year we have a function here called the Baltic Evening. Walter always co-chaired that evening with a Senator. 1 know Canadians of Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian descent would want me to express condolences to Walter's entire family.
Just last summer young Lithuanians from around the world were having a conference in Canada, with a one-day program here in Ottawa. They were looking for someone on the Government side and someone from the Official Opposition to co-chair this function. I called Walter and he immediately said: "Yes, Jesse, no problem." I could not make that function because of my commitment with Bill C-155, but Walter attended. Even though he was getting treatment for his cancer, he gave up the day to join these young Lithuanians from around the world to shake their hands and say hello. That was Walter. He always co-operated.
When we had our Standing Order 43s in the House, I knew that if I ever wanted unanimous consent on any issue dealing with human rights, all I had to do was go to Walter, especially when he was House Leader, and I knew it was granted. On behalf of Canadians from the Baltic States and all Canadians, 1 too wish to add my condolences to the entire Baker family.


Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I will speak very briefly because words are difficult. I would like to join in paying tribute to our late colleague. Walter Baker was an outstanding Canadian, a great advocate of this city and a dedicated Member of the House.
His legacy is one of parliamentary reform. I know that he would want that to be ongoing because this institution, as it lives, must be involved in reform. Freedom of information is also an outstanding legacy.
This House has lost a dedicated, outstanding parliamentarian and 1 have lost a friend.


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, it is hard to add more to what has already been said here today but I think 1 have to add the words that I have inside of me over the loss that we have experienced with Walter's passing. We all know that Walter was a very highly respected parliamentarian in the House. He was seen as that not only in his riding but in the City of Ottawa and across the country. He loved Canada.
He could always be counted on in the House to add to the debate and add a Canadian and national perspective which had meaning to all of us. He was loved and he loved the people of his constituency. That perspective was always brought to bear when Walter spoke here or when he spoke in his riding.
My constituency, as does yours, Mr. Speaker, borders on Walter's. Like you, when we had joint events which we attended-which was often-Walter could always be counted on to be concerned about the people who were there, what their problems were and how he and I jointly could help those people. He could always be counted on to do so in a totally non-partisan and co-operative fashion. He was a great constituency man and will be greatly missed in his constituency.
When I was first elected, even though Walter came from another Party, he was always at my assistance, counselling me on what it meant to be a Member of Parliament. 1 have learned a great deal from Walter about how 1 could deal with my constituency, better serve my constituents and how I should conduct myself in the House. Walter was a great model for us and a great example for all parliamentarians now and in the future. I hope he will be remembered as such. He was a role model for us. He will be deeply missed as a friend, colleague and national leader. 1 want to express my deep regrets and sympathy to Lois and the family and to let them know that Walter will be fondly remembered here as a model for all of us.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, I wish to join the previous speakers in offering my sincere sympathy to Lois, David, Jeffrey and Nancy. Walter first became a Member of Parliament in 1972, the year I started in the House of Commons. Since then, we often worked together on issues concerning the National Capital Region, and in this connection, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the House, very briefly, that Walter was not only sensitive to the problems of the people of his riding but also profoundly aware of the more general problems encountered by minority groups. I would like to add that he was also very helpful in dealing with issues concerning federal public servants. He was constantly asking questions on the floor of the House. He made enquiries and was always well informed on the problems of Canada's public servants. That is why, because of his co-operation and his ceaseless endeavours in the past eleven, nearly twelve, years during which he served this country, Mr. Speak-
November 14, 1983



[Stage Direction]
er, we have lost a great Canadian. 1 have lost a friend, and I offer Lois and her family my heartfelt sympathy.
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: It is with a great amount of sadness that I rise today as a result of our long time colleague, Walter Baker, having passed away. When I returned to the Ottawa Valley after being absent for many years, it was with Walter Baker that I articled. Five years later we both came to this place at the same time.
1 think people must reflect and consider that Walter was probably one of the most positive people and was never negative. If there was a way to bring people together, Walter would do so. I think everyone has considered today that he was a joyful influence and could perhaps even be referred to as a happy warrior. He enjoyed life, loved people and loved this Parliament. Along with others, I would like to express my regrets and sympathy to Lois and his family.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, in my constituency there is a private school that is older than this country. That school counts among its alumni many famous and well known people, one of whom was Walter Baker. Being a member of its Board, 1 should say that I have heard of many of Walter's activities during his school years in addition to those things we have heard here. He was a normal teenager, full of spirit, pranks and other things. Since his graduation he has kept in his heart a place for Albert College. He was on the Board of Directors.
On behalf of the Chairman, the Headmaster and all of the students who paused this morning to pay tribute to him, I want to extend their condolences to the Baker family.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would it be appropriate at this time to ask Members to rise for a minute's silence in tribute to a former colleague, Walter Baker?
[Whereupon the House stood in silence for one minute.]


AGREEMENT NOT TO SIT ON WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 16
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 propose, with the consent of the House, that the House suspend its present sitting until 2 p.m. later this day. I also propose that the House do not sit on Wednesday, November 16, 1983.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 11.40 a.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.



SITTING RESUMED The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon. Bud Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 21 I would like to call to the attention of the House that the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has just returned from a trip of immense importance to Canada and the world, a mission of peace to European capitals. The Prime Minister presented four points that are part of a strategy of peace, including a call for a five-power nuclear conference to negotiate nuclear arsenal limits, and the expansion of the non-proliferation treaty. It is encouraging to know that the Prime Minister has returned from Europe with a consensus among leaders there that these peace initiatives should be supported.
The Prime Minister has begun the task of moving the world back from the brink of nuclear holocaust and international tensions which increase the likelihood of war. 1 was moved by his statement yesterday and 1 draw this particularly to the attention of Canadians. He said:
We can without effort abandon our fate to the mindless drift toward nuclear war. Or we can gather our strength .... to turn aside the forces bearing down on us.
Canadians have made great contributions to mankind. Canadians could make no greater contribution now and in the future than working for the preservation of mankind. 1 call upon all Members of this House and all Canadians to support actively the Prime Minister's peace initiatives and his efforts both here in Canada and abroad.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Lee Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, recent discussions about the possibility of Canada participating as a peace-keeper in Grenada brings to mind another peace-keeping role in which this country is involved. I am speaking of Cyprus, where Canada has sent peace-keeping troops for 19 years. Our mandate for maintaining a peace-keeping force in Cyprus comes up for renewal in December. Certainly one cannot and should not advocate a troop withdrawal simply

November 14, 1983
because our peace-keeping role in Cyprus has not brought about a resolution to the country's peace talks. But the stalemate in negotiations is cause for concern.
One has to wonder whether Canadian peace-keeping troops in Cyprus are as much a part of the problem as a part of the solution in that our presence there makes it easier for the stalemate to continue. Some 500 Canadian soldiers are in Cyprus, and most soldiers do a six-month tour of duty. It is a tremendous strain on our manpower and resources, so perhaps the time has come to review carefully our role as peace-keepers in order to ensure that we are as effective as possible.
I therefore suggest a parliamentary review, a white paper on Canada's peace-keeping commitment, with particular emphasis on our role in NATO. Canada has every right to be proud of its reputation as a peace-keeper. However, if we are to maintain that reputation we must ensure that our peace-keeping role is practical and effective.

[ Translation]



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Gaston Gourde (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the situation at the Davie shipyards remains disastrous. In spite of the contribution of the Canadian government to the construction of the CN Marine ferry in the amount of $121 million and to the repairs of a few other ships, the workers will soon have to face the hard fact that as of mid-1984 there will be nothing on the order book. Nearly 1,000 employees who are already out of work will see their unemployment insurance benefits replaced by welfare payments before Christmas. This problem at the largest employer of the Quebec region must be solve quickly.
Recently, we have heard many comments and questions in this regard and I urge all parties involved to reply to them jointly. First, why have the Davie shipyards lost all the major contracts awarded recently by the Canadian Government, even though the average hourly rate at Davie is lower than at Marine Industries Limited of Sorel, for instance? Second, are the workers satisfied with their productivity? Is there something to prevent Davie from being the lowest bidder for these contracts? Third, does the Quebec Government, through the SGF give unfair support to one shipyard at the defense of another? All interested parties will have to jointly answer everyone of these questions in order to solve this urgent problem.



THE ADMINISTRATION


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, in August, 1969, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated, "We would be on the road to financial disaster if nothing were done to bring spending under control."
Since that time government spending has increased 693 per cent, and it has cost every Canadian taxpayer over $10,000. The net national debt at the end of the last fiscal year was $119.2 billion, but the Auditor General believes that this has been understated by $14.5 billion. This year interest on the debt will cost each Canadian taxpayer more than $1,700.
The result of all this has been continuing high interest rates, slow economic growth, low productivity, and high unemployment rates. Unemployment Insurance Commission benefits in 1982 were equal to $8.5 billion, more than the combined government spending of the four Atlantic Provinces.
The magazine Euromoney ranks Canada's over-all economic growth since 1974 at sixty-second in the world, our inflation performance is rated twenty-fifth, and our balance of payments performance is rated twentieth. It is an economic record that only a Liberal Government could take pride in, a Liberal Government led by a Prime Minister who has stated unequivocally that he would choose Cuban or Chinese socialism as the national model for Canadian society. But the polls indicate that Canadians have not been fooled. The Prime Minister should call an election now and give them an opportunity to show that Canadians do not choose Cuban, Chinese, Liberal, or any other form of socialism.



PROPOSALS PRESENTED BY FEDERATION OF CANADIAN STUDENTS

Mr. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, a group of about sixty young students from almost all Canadian provinces is in Ottawa today on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Students to make representations to their elected representatives and to express concern about the problems of youth unemployment, postsecondary education and access to educational institutions.
Mr. Speaker, I know that about one hundred Members of the House have welcomed the recommendations of the Canadian Federation of Students, and I hope that this sympathetic reception will be translated into a non-partisan and common will to act. The current critical situation of young Canadians is well known, and surely no one would want to see a generation disillusioned because of a lack of political leadership. In that respect, I am convinced that the representations made today by those sixty young students will have strong
November 14, 1983

repercussions on the political programs of all parties in the House. Mr. Speaker, 1 hope that you and other Members who have yet to respond to that invitation will do so later today so as to become aware of the problems of the groups involved.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, while the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been visiting several European capitals as a self-appointed pilgrim of peace, the nuclear arms race, abetted by Canada, continues, and war close to home is imminent.
No matter how highly respected an individual might be in world councils, an individual's globe-trotting efforts are all for naught if his own Government's policies and actions support the nuclear arms race. It is not enough for a political leader to go on a peace-making mission if his Government's policies do not fulfil basic peace-making objectives.
While the Prime Minister talks nuclear age peace, Canada continues to prepare to test nuclear weapons delivery vehicles for the United States Air Force. And while the Prime Minister implores other Governments to abandon the nuclear arms race, Canada, thanks to federal financial subsidies, builds components for new nuclear weapons systems. Canada must, itself, practise nuclear arms restraint if the Prime Minister is to be a credible messenger of peace.
Finally, the Prime Minister rightly deplores the increasing use of violence in international affairs, yet says nothing about the imminence of war on our very doorstep in Central America. The escalating U.S. military presence in the region, and the mounting threat of a U.S. backed invasion of Nicaragua, demand a firm and immediate protest from Canada. We wait anxiously for changes in the Government's nuclear arms policies, and we wait anxiously for Canada's efforts to prevent a U.S. inspired war in our own hemisphere.



THE ECONOMY


Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, the Premier of Quebec has taken a new tack by revealing in advance the contents of the mini-budget to be brought down tomorrow evening by the Quebec Minister of Finance, Mr. Jacques Parizeau.
Interestingly, the leader of the Quebec Government managed to announce a spectacular recovery plan while at the same time giving Quebecers the impression that the federal
Government had not played a role in creating many jobs in this province.
Mr. Levesque wants to speed economic recovery without, however, getting rid of the factors that inhibit investment. The House will recall that the Leader of the Quebec Government did not announce he was repealing the anti-scab law, that the sliding tax on gas would be removed, that he would be maintaining special tax measures to make Quebec more attractive than Ontario for business executives, or that municipalities would be allowed to accept grants from the federal Government.
Mr. Speaker, the principal obstacle to genuine economic recovery in Quebec remains, and that is the ongoing, neurotic concern for independence the Levesque Government maintains today and will continue to maintain as the main element of its party program.
As was pointed out not long ago by our Minister of Finance (Mr. Lalonde), for every job we create, we lose three every time the Government of Quebec talks about independence.
Mr. Speaker, we can only hope the Premier of Quebec will give the question some thought and finally give Quebecers the Government they deserve.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, automobile exhaust contains gases called nitrogen oxides. These turn into nitric acid in the air and contribute in a significant way to acid rain. It is disturbing to me and to many of my constituents in Parry Sound-Muskoka, as well as to other people throughout the country, that our gas emissions are three times higher than those permitted in the United States. Does this not make it easier for the Americans to point an accusing finger at us? Who are we to complain about them when we are unwilling to cut our gas emissions?
I urge the Government to initiate and approve legislation in this regard to bring our gas emissions into line with United States standards. I also urge that this action be considered for the 1985 automobile model year and that both Ministers responsible, Environment and Transport, present the seriousness of this to their cabinet colleagues.

November 14, 1983



TRANSPORT


Mr. Andre Maltais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have just come back from a visit to the riding of Manicouagan. 1 went from Fort Chimo to Blanc-Sablon, and 1 was asked to bring to the attention of the House the problem of air fares at Quebecair. I would like to take this opportunity to stress the excellent work done by Quebecair employees, and I would also like to ask the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) to give Quebec another chance, to see if something can be done with Quebecair and Nordair or Air Canada or some other way, because right now, a return ticket Lourdes-Blanc-Sablon-Montreal costs $700. Needless to say, there is no first, second or third class-there is just one. Mr. Speaker, this issue is very important to the people I represent, on the Middle and Lower North Shore, the people in Port-Menier and the Magdalen Islands, Baie-Comeau and Schefferville-there still are people in Schefferville. The Leader of the Opposition will be interested to know that the day I stopped there, there was a power failure in Schefferville, Gagnon and Fermont. In French, the word "voi" is often used to mean flight, in aeronautical terms, but in our part of the country, Mr. Speaker, the rates for those flights are "du vol", meaning highway robbery. Since the federal Government is subsidizing air transportation on the Middle and Lower North Shore, I would ask the Minister of Transport to study very carefully the possibility of economic amalgamation, because that is what people on the North Shore want, not just political symbols.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, in its report on Great Lakes water quality released a few weeks ago, the International Joint Commission reported that chemical pollution in the Great Lakes, after ten years of decline, was on the rise again, this at a time when 66 per cent of Canadians surveyed in a recent Gallup Poll, more than ever before, said that the water quality of the Great Lakes was of critical concern to them.
To compound the problem, and this is something those Canadians surveyed were kept in the dark about, there is the result of scientific testing of public beach waters in the Great Lakes. Reported over four years ago was a potentially deadly germ in those waters that could survive the ordinary municipal chlorine water process. This microscopic amoeba is harmless in drinking water, but could be fatal to swimmers by going up noses to their brains.
What can be done? A major step forward would be to toughen up the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement. What is needed is a firm re-commitment by the Government to the goals of that agreement. Over 20 million people use and enjoy the Great Lakes. Their protection is not something that should be bargained with; and their lives should not be subject to timetable delays. Will the Minister reflect the will of the Government by initiating meetings to achieve that purpose?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. The House will, of course, welcome the Prime Minister's return to Canada following the first leg of his peace initiative, and wish him well on the second phase as he undertakes it. I quite understand why he is not with us today.
Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the House whether a reply has been received from President Reagan with respect to the letter on certain peace initiatives sent by the Prime Minister to the President and, if so, what was the nature of the President's reply?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not have the details of that reply in my memory at the moment, but 1 know that the Prime Minister did correspond or was in touch with the President with respect to a conversation on a future meeting on the question of East-West relations. As I recollect, the President had made a suggestion that such a meeting would be arranged between the President and the Prime Minister some time following the President's return from his trips abroad.


NATURE OF CORRESPONDENCE
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if one ought to conclude from his remarks that the communication from the Prime Minister to President Reagan was with regard to a possible future meeting and did not deal with the substance of any specific peace proposals?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition knows, the Prime Minister had a number of discussions in the past week with European leaders, in particular with respect to East-West relations and the peace initiative. The same substance of the Prime Minister's concerns has been conveyed to the President. I do not have the
November 14, 1983

correspondence with me, nor do I have access to it. However, the Prime Minister will be in the House tomorrow. 1 think he can provide further details as to the substance and content of these exchanges.


CORRESPONDENCE WITH RUSSIAN AND CHINESE LEADERS
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in light of the response of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the Government would have no reluctance to table all communications in this regard in the House-and 1 look forward to the possibility of his doing so at his earliest convenience-can the Minister indicate the contents of the letter? I ask the question inasmuch as public reference has been made to it on some occasions by the Prime Minister, most lately in Montreal on Sunday. Can he indicate the content of the letters containing the peace proposals sent by the Prime Minister to the Soviet leader and to the Chinese Premier, and indicate as well whether he has received replies? If so, will he table such replies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will draw those requests to the attention of the Prime Minister, both with respect to the possible correspondence with the Chinese and Soviet leaders. He will determine tomorrow if he wishes to make them available to the House. It is not usual to table communications of this type. In fact, it would be quite unusual. However, that is a matter that can be discussed.


REPLIES FROM NUCLEAR POWERS
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I recognize the general validity of the comment made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I would not ask were it not for the fact that the Prime Minister made specific reference to it yesterday at a certain dinner in Montreal. In light of this, and pursuant to the same document, has the Government received replies from any of the Big Five powers relating to the Prime Minister's specific proposals, to which he made direct reference yesterday, for reducing world tensions and creating an atmosphere favourable to disarmament? If he has received replies from any of those Five, would he table any documentation in relation thereto for consideration by the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has already had discussions with, for example, the President of France, and I would assume that the Leader of the Opposition has France in mind as one of the five nuclear powers. Obviously, that discussion dealt with a number of elements to which the Prime Minister referred yesterday, and obviously the Prime Minister will be able to tell the Leader of the Opposition, if he wishes and quite apart from the correspondence, the nature of the conversations he has had with
Oral Questions
European leaders and particularly with the President of France. My understanding is that the Prime Minister did receive a very positive response from the European leaders, and that the President of France in particular was greatly interested in and supportive of the thrust of the Prime Minister's proposals.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER MAKE STATEMENT IN HOUSE
Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would ask a final supplementary question for clarification purposes. Would the Secretary of State for External Affairs, inasmuch as we all wish the Prime Minister well as he undertakes the second leg, indicate whether we could expect a report that is as full and complete as is humanly possible to be given to the House of Commons prior to his departure, as opposed to having him make statements outside the House? 1 think all Members would welcome a full and complete statement made by the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Leader of the Opposition has raised a good point for the Prime Minister to consider. The Leader of the Opposition knows that the practice of giving statements in the House on foreign policy has fallen into disuse.


Mr. Crosbie:: Why?


Mr. McDermid:: Disarray.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The reason it has fallen into disuse is because what ought to be serious discussions on foreign policy usually become rather intense political brawls. Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition can change that practice and bring back a system that prevailed in the House for quite a long time, which was to have the Prime Minister and the Foreign Minister make statements in the House on foreign policy questions following their trips abroad, and then to have serious discussions in the House rather than the partisan, political attacks which we have seen in the House for quite a long time.


IMMIGRATION
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. I presume that he would agree that it is better to make those statements here in the House of Commons than it is to make them at some partisan Liberal fund-raising brawl in Montreal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the ten landed immigrants from Poland who are currently conducting

November 14, 1983
Oral Questions
a hunger strike in front of the Polish consulate in Toronto in order to try to gain the exit visas that would allow their families to come to Canada, i am sure the Minister is aware that six of these exit visas have been granted. Could he tell the House today about the status of the four remaining applications and the efforts the Government is making to help these people in Toronto?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we are pleased that six of these cases have been settled and that family reunification can proceed. There are still four cases remaining. Today I instructed the officials in our embassy to make further representations with respect to these four remaining cases. We will strive to achieve the same results with those four remaining cases as were achieved with the six earlier cases, and we are also drawing to the attention of the Polish authorities additional family reunification cases that are a matter of concern to the Government.


DEPARTMENT'S TREATMENT OF APPLICATIONS
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Immigration, my second question is directed to the same Minister. While he has been making these efforts in support of these exit visas for people from Poland, the Immigration Department has been thwarting the efforts of literally hundreds of Canadians of Polish origin in Canada who are attempting to have some members of their families come to Canada on vacation. Let me give the Minister one brief example.
I understand that officials in the Immigration Department have so far rejected the application of a family to invite their five year old nephew and his grandmother to come to Canada. The parents of that young lad will stay in Poland, so there is no question of him staying here permanently. Could the Acting Prime Minister explain this double standard?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot explain anything about the case until I examine the details of it. Questions on the Orders of the Day usually do not provide a very good vehicle for a detailed discussion on immigration cases. I think it is a matter that should be raised by the Member directly with the Minister.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister, who clearly had time to speak to a Liberal fund-raising gathering about disarmament but not to appear in the House of Commons today, I would like to direct my questions to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
In his speech in Montreal the Prime Minister did indicate that he had certain broad proposals concerning the future with which anyone concerned about disarmament and peace would agree. We all wish him well with those proposals. However, they are concerned with the long run and the distant future.
My question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerns certain matters which are very pressing now. As the Minister knows, the United States and Soviet Union INF talks, which are very important to the immediate future, have become bogged down. Could he tell us if the Prime Minister made any specific proposals concerning those talks and, if so, what they were and what response he got?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the Hon. Member when he describes the Prime Minister's specific ideas as being far distant and in the future. The Prime Minister raised, for example, the question of the MBFR talks in Europe which have been stalled for quite some time, and the possibility of providing them with new political impetus. I cite that as one specific example of the Prime Minister's proposals being quite timely and centered on the present.
Specifically in reply to the Hon. Member's question, Mr. Speaker, I do not believe that the Prime Minister has made specific new proposals to be laid on the table at the Geneva INF talks. There does not seem to be any lack of proposals or ideas. As the Hon. Member knows, many proposals are being put forward, not only at the INF talks but elsewhere as well. What seems to be more urgently required is some improvement that would enable the INF talks and talks in other fora to proceed in a better political atmosphere. I do not think the Prime Minister had in mind making any specific proposals for discussion at the INF talks.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to discount the Prime Minister's proposals because they are important for the long run, but I believe the Minister knows that the Prime Minister's proposals overwhelmingly emphasized the future and were not concerned with immediate and pressing problems that could lead either to regional wars of a non-nuclear kind or to a nuclear holocaust. These immediate problems do concern a great many people right now.


NICARAGUA-POSSIBILITY OF INVASION BY UNITED STATES FORCES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to another specific issue cited by the Prime Minister. He referred to the increasing tendency of states to resort to military solutions for problems that should be addressed by peaceful political means. Considering that for the past week there has been talk in Washington and Central America regarding the possibility of an invasion to be launched against Nicaragua, and considering that two senior American officials, one a security adviser to the President himself and the other an emissary of the President to Central America, have indicated as recently as the past 48 hours that
November 14, 1983

the United States might support a military course of action against Nicaragua, what will be done? Will the Secretary of State for External Affairs put into action some of the nice words, by assuring the people of Canada that we will expressly convey our opposition to such military action by the United States or any other state in that region?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have already stated quite clearly what we think about military action in Central America. We have stated that in our view, as the Hon. Member indicated, the situation does not lend itself to a military solution. We have repeatedly urged all those who are present in the area with arms or armaments, with armed personnel or advisers, to leave. That is our policy, and we can repeat it again to the United States. I have already made that clear to Mr. Shultz earlier this year. It can be made clear again that that is our policy with respect to Central America. That is why, the Hon. Member will know, we have supported the efforts of the Contadora Group. An essential component, probably the essence of that plan, is demilitarization of Central American states, and we support that.


John Edward Broadbent: As the Minister will know, we are not dealing with some abstract, hypothetical possibility that may not occur. We are discussing the possibility of an invasion, according to informed sources, which could take place within a matter of days, not in general in Central America but against a particular country.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT MAKE REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering that the Government of Canada expressed its opposition to military action in general in Central America, will the Government follow up specifically by indicating to the United States, one of the great powers of the world in the region, that the Government of Canada wants it to make a public commitment that it will not take military action against Nicaragua, nor will it support such action?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member asks that we make our views known to United States authorities. I think that has been done and can be done again. Tomorrow I will be meeting with Mr. Dam, Mr. Burt and Mr. Madas, who will be in Ottawa to discuss a series of international questions. One which may come up will be the question of Central America; Grenada will also be on the list, as will East-West relations. It will provide an opportunity for Canada to make its views known on these issues as early as tomorrow.
Oral Questions EDUCATION


FEDERAL FUNDING FOR POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Government House Leader. He will recall that last May the Government brought forward Bill C-150 which would reduce federal support for post-secondary education funding in Canada. In light of increasing enrollments, up 7 per cent in 1982 and continuing to rise, the Government has received many representations against this action. Today representatives of the Canadian Federation of Students have been meeting with Members of Parliament. Will the Government be amending this legislation, or has it decided to abandon totally Bill C-150?


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-150 is on the Order Paper. I will have a House Leaders' meeting later this week. This Bill, as is the case with others, is always subject to negotiation. If the Hon. Member has representations to make as to the substance of the Bill, I would suggest that he talk with the Minister responsible for the legislation. Certainly in our parliamentary process any Bill dealt with is subject to amendments. We have accepted over 80 amendments to Bill C-155. I do not see why this Bill or any other bill could not be improved after reasonable debate. Without agreeing in advance to any change, I certainly invite my hon. colleague to talk to the Minister responsible for the legislation.
As far as dealing with the Bill itself in the House is concerned, it is on the list to be dealt with any time, with the consent of House Leaders. It is part of the process of dealing with different Bills. I will have my regular meeting, and if the Hon. Member has representations dealing with this Bill, we are openminded.


EMPLOYMENT
Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question, which also relates to students, is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. The Minister will be aware that unemployment has increased by four percentage points over last year among students between the ages of 20 and 24 who returned to post-secondary institutions this Fall. The students who are speaking to Members of Parliament today are concerned about their future and about making plans. In his Department's planning for the 1984 summer student program, have these details and this increase in student unemployment been taken into account? When will the details for the coming Summer be released by the Minister's Department? How do students go about applying?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. Of course it is not simply a question of student unemployment but of unemploy-

November 14, 1983
Oral Questions
ment among young people generally. We are extremely concerned. It is a major preoccupation of the Government to try to improve the delivery systems and the programs available in an attempt to ensure that young people have a better chance of getting into the job market than has been the case over the past few months, indeed during the past year. The details of the various programs we will want to present, the strengthening of existing programs, and perhaps a reprofiling of some of them, are subjects which 1 hope we will be able to discuss in the context of the next Speech from the Throne.


SPECIAL RECOVERY CAPITAL PROJECTS PROGRAM
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development. Since the Minister of Finance introduced his budget on April 19 there has been considerable speculation as to the number of direct and indirect jobs which will be created by the Special Recovery Capital Projects program. Will the Minister confirm reliable estimates which place the total number of jobs at something like 50,000 and that, in particular, in the present fiscal year there will only be 10,000 direct jobs or 10,000 personyears of employment produced, which will reduce the unemployment rate by less than .1 per cent?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Minister of State for Economic Development and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, it is not altogether clear to me where the Hon. Member is deriving his numbers from. At the time the specific program was introduced, there were 277 work sites across Canada in villages, hamlets and major centres. Many of these major projects, as Hon. Members know, have ongoing significance in terms of building economic infrastructure.
Frankly, the number of jobs in the long term is inestimable at this time. What contribution will the biotechnology centre in Montreal make to bringing industries into that sector or to creating economic stimulation in that sector? Similarly, what about the toxicology centre and the pulp and paper institute in Vancouver? The Hon. Member is aware that many of the projects are taking place in his own Province. At the same time shovels are in the ground, cement is being poured, and steel girders are being erected all across the country. Clearly direct construction jobs are being created. The national procurement program, covering the waterbombers in Canadair. defence electronic equipment purchases, frigate and Coast Guard vessel programs, and shipyards that are filled with work because of the program, is creating thousands and thousands of jobs.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 think the Hon. Minister has answered the question.


PROJECTED CREATION OF JOBS
Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the Minister of Finance called this program an integral part of an action plan to generate more jobs. In fact the number of jobs to be created can be estimated at something like 10,000 for the present year and 50,000 over the full three-year to four-year duration of the program. Will the Minister confirm these figures and that in fact the cost to produce each job is approaching $50,000? Will he also confirm that his own officials pointed out that these jobs were capital intensive rather than labour intensive, and that this is why the Minister of Finance refused to divulge these figures?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary. Although I do not know upon what the Hon. Member's numbers were based, I would say that they are very modest in terms of the number of jobs sites and the nature of the work being undertaken. Clearly many jobs are being created. When the Minister of Finance rose in the House to deliver the budget, he pointed out that this part of the program was to fill an investment vacuum, that the private sector was not responding in terms of investment and that this investment was necessary to create the much needed economic infrastructure which, in the long term, would provide a very sound basis for economic recovery. These projects are projects of recovery; that is specifically what they are.
The Hon. Member knows, for example, that in his own riding of Richmond-South Delta $7 million is being put into the airport to improve that facility. This is something which 1 understand the local residents, his electors, have wanted for some time. Is the Hon. Member suggesting that project is not a valuable one, that it will not create jobs and is not going to improve activities at the Vancouver terminal, and that it is not-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 1 believe the Minister has answered the question.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Economic Development as well. In spite of his recent reaction, he will know that the Minister of Finance last week stated there is nothing inevitable about a strong and continuing recovery. As a matter of fact the Minister will also know that groups such as the Economic Council, Statistics Canada, and the Conference Board all have pointed to specific government policies which have acted to hinder economic recovery, specifically, the real-
November 14, 1983


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please ask his question?


Nelson Andrew Riis: My question, Mr. Speaker, of the Minister of State for Economic Development is: would he not agree that it is now time for the Government to move its attention more away from the fighting of inflation, which has been the number one priority, and that, as the winter months approach, job creation and putting Canadians back to work should become the number one priority of the Government?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, putting Canadians back to work and the creation of jobs have always been the number one priority of this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: If the Hon. Member would go back to the issue of inflation, he would find that inflation was directly related to the problem of interest rates and the lack of investments which were going to create jobs. Interest rates have now been brought down and investment intentions are improving. Jobs are being created every day. The Hon. Member knows very well the number of jobs which have been created over the past year, and that trend is continuing. However, those purveyors of gloom and doom will always see the glass as half empty rather than half full.


Mr. Fraser:: We are paying for a full glass.


Donald James Johnston: It seems to me that the economic recovery is well under way and that the expectation of Canadians-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Economic Development will know that the number of jobs in Canada last month shrunk by 25,000. Those are statistics from his own Department.


EFFECT OF INTEREST RATES
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, with more attention now being turned to consumers in terms of leading the recovery, will the Minister not agree that real interest rates have tripled since the beginning of this year, from 1.5 per cent to 4.5 per cent? Will the Minister not agree with that? And, if that is the case, why will the Government not take action to drop those interest rates in order to encourage a consumer led recovery?


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, we again have the same old song which is sung by the New Democratic Party, the control of interest
Oral Questions
rates. 1 presume the Hon. Member would be putting forward as well the imposition of foreign exchange controls-


John Edward Broadbent: Ask Herb Gray.


Donald James Johnston: -at a time when international capital flows are so important, when our relationships with our trading partners are so important. Is that what the Hon. Member is suggesting, that foreign exchange controls be imposed, because there is no other way, as Hon. Members have in the past admitted, and as his Leader, 1 believe, has admitted, that it could be accomplished without the imposition of foreign exchange controls?
With respect to interest rates, certainly real interest rates are too high. That has been a problem in the United States and in Canada. However, our real interest rates-at least the last numbers I looked at-indicate that our real interest rates are in fact lower than they are in the United States at this time.


John Edward Broadbent: Tell it to Herb.


Donald James Johnston: That is how successful the anti-inflation program has been.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs. The Minister recently travelled to five Middle East countries. A number of reports have suggested a shift in Canada's Middle East policies, and have-


Mr. Stevens:: Order.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: -raised serious concerns at home and abroad.


John Carnell Crosbie: Straighten it out, Allan.


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Will the Minister assure the House and many concerned Canadians, first, that recent events demonstrate that higher level contacts by Canada with the PLO are out of the question; second, that the simultaneous withdrawal from Lebanon of all foreign forces, including PLO and Syrian, and not just Israeli, is a precondition for peace in Lebanon, and third, that all countries in the Middle East must recognize Israel's right to exist as a sovereign and independent nation?


John Carnell Crosbie: Give us the Syrian speech, Allan.


Mr. Nielsen:: You never expected that question, did you? It is a very good question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the

November 14, 1983
Oral Questions
Hon. Member has asked a series of questions about Middle East policy.


John Carnell Crosbie: We agree.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The first general response I would like to make is that, in the course of my very useful visit to five Middle East countries, I have stated Canadian policy, as it has been stated in the House of Commons, before the Senate Committee, and in various speeches I have made as long as I have been Foreign Minister. With respect to the first question raised by the Hon. Member, namely, the upgrading of contacts with the PLO, 1 would remind him that on February 17 1 indicated that there was no intention on the part of the Government of Canada of recognizing the PLO. That policy still stands. I did say that Canadian Government officials had contacts from time to time with PLO representatives and that 1 was considering the possibility of upgrading those contacts-


John Carnell Crosbie: So you went to Syria.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I repeated that statement in reply to a question from a journalist in Damascus.


John Carnell Crosbie: Order.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I also added, Mr. Speaker-and this is very important-that any such upgrading would depend upon the circumstances and the requirements. It is rather self-evident, with the struggle which is currently going on within the PLO, that the time is not quite propitious to give implementation to that particular policy question.


John Carnell Crosbie: Go to Tripoli, Allan.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed the the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On September 19 the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt announced on the Minister's behalf the establishment of the STAMP Program, short for the Sudbury-Timmins-Algoma Mineral Program. The Program was announced in order to put some of the hundreds of labourers back to work in their career-related field. However, after speaking with officials within EMR and the Minister's Department, I have been told that the $1.4 million program has become a "bureaucratic nightmare" because it was announced prematurely by the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member please ask his question?


John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, the STAMP Program, because it was announced too far in advance, has been forced to reorganize, and employees who were supposed to be hired for 29 weeks have had the time dropped to 26 weeks. This has
happened because of political and bureaucratic ineptitude. Can the Minister tell the House today what he is going to do for those other three weeks in which those employees should be working?


Hon. Judy Erola (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to say that the STAMP Program was not announced prematurely. There are people working today. 1 say with some regret that we lost one of our employees in the STAMP Program today due to a car accident. However, there are people working. The Program has been received enthusiastically by prospectors and by people involved in the mining industry. I am, quite frankly, shocked, Mr. Speaker, that this-


John Horton McDermid: You are shocked at every question asked you.


Judith A. Erola: -Hon. Member would find time to criticize a program which is taking place on his doorstep. It is finding jobs for people in his riding.


LENGTH OF EMPLOYMENT
John Alexander Frances MacDougall: Mr. Speaker, my question was directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. What is he going to do about the three weeks which those employees lost because he was playing politics- not the 29 weeks, the 26 weeks?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe there is anything I can usefully add to the answer just given. Quite clearly, the Hon. Member does not have anything useful to add to the question.


FUNDING OF PETROLEUM INCENTIVES PROGRAM
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Energy, who has been in his seat but has disappeared behind the curtains.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Government's April fiscal plan indicated the Minister would be asking Parliament for an additional $200 million to cover approved PIP grants this year. We now learn from the Supplementary Estimates that he wants $484 million, twice his earlier estimate, which will bring the total for this year to $1.6 billion. Can the Minister assure this House that there is some limit to the hand-outs he is prepared to give the oil and gas industry? Is he prepared to cap this Program which has become a financial running sore to Canadian taxpayers?
November 14, 1983


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, 1 think for the Hon. Member to complain that I am in the lobby when she has not been in the House for a couple of weeks is a bit exaggerated.
One problem we are having with this program is that it is working very well. The oil and gas industry is drilling in the north, the Newfoundland offshore, and the Nova Scotia offshore. There is a lot of activity in the Canada Lands and that is why it is costing the Government money. In fact we have a grant program because we wanted to give an opportunity to Canadian industry to participate and drill in the Canada Lands, not just the multinationals. We have replaced a tax incentive with a grant program which favours Canadians because we want to Canadianize the industry.
In terms of the Government's balance sheet, it is exactly the same, because if the drilling were done under the old rule of super depletion the cost to the Treasury would be exactly the same as the cost through grants. If the Program is successful we are on the way to attaining self-sufficiency in Canada, and I am very pleased to know that the Tory Party is opposed to being nice to the oil industry.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, may I say that I was representing this Parliament at the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association meetings along with two of his colleagues.


POLICY OBJECTIVES
Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, oil and gas companies in Canada tell us they are being squeezed by the Government's contradictory energy policies. On one hand, the Minister's Department is telling the industry to keep the lid on run-away frontier exploration costs, and on the other, it is telling the industry to utilize Canadian services which may be uncompetitive. How does the Minister propose to resolve these conflicting objectives so the industry can get on with the job of tapping new energy resources?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think it is possible to achieve these two goals. We want the industry as much as possible to use Canadian goods and services. That is the policy of this Government. But at the same time the Canadian Source has to be competitive. We have to pass judgment there. Of course, when it is not competitive we have to have services or equipment come from abroad.
There are some Members of our own Party who always complain because, for example, some rigs are coming from abroad and they are not made in Canada. So we are passing judgment on this. When Canadians are not competitive, we will let the rigs come from abroad. In every case 1 put a cap on the amount which can be spent. When the Hon. Member says the cost is too high, it is the duty of the Minister to make sure the costs are as low as possible, but at the same time to attain in Canada the self-sufficiency and security of supply that the Canadian economy and Canada as a whole must achieve.
Oral Questions CUSTOMS AND EXCISE


AMWAY CORPORATION FRAUD-DROPPING OF CHARGES AGAINST EXECUTIVES
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for the customs service. When ordinary Canadians fail to declare goods at the border they often have the book thrown at them by customs officials, yet when the giant Amway Corporation systematically defrauds Canadian taxpayers of millions of dollars for 15 years, charges against the individual corporate executives are dropped in a glaring example of the double standard in the Canadian justice system.
Will the Minister indicate to the House his views on this travesty of justice, and will he assure the House that in the pending civil action by his Department there will be no deals whatsoever with these corporate crooks?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows perfectly well that the Department of National Revenue has filed a statement of claim against this company before the Federal Court. There are a number of technical problems to be settled with the Appeals Division of the Federal Court before we can go any further, but we have no intention of dropping the proceedings.


AMOUNTS OWED BY CORPORATION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 learned this morning from a source within the Minister's Department that negotiations are now under way between his officials and Amway to make a cozy deal on the $150 million civil lawsuit. Given Amway's guilty plea in the criminal proceedings, will the Minister clearly assure the House his Department will seek full recovery of all amounts outstanding, with penalties and prejudgment interest, and that there will be no more cozy deals made with that great bastion of Conservative free enterprise, the Amway Corporation, which has shown such contempt for Canadian law?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Speaker, I have previously indicated to the House the procedures provided under the Customs Act in similar situations. We have filed our statements of claim. The company in question may submit new evidence, and under the arbitration procedures provided under the Customs Act, this new evidence is taken into consideration but it certainly does not mean the company will be allowed to escape the normal application of the laws of our country.

November 14, 1983
Oral Questions


TRUST COMPANIES
Mr. Bill Kempling (Burlington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Minister's Department has had an investigation under way for something like six months into the high interest rates charged by trust companies. I understand officials have interviewed over 1,000 people. The Minister said she was going to release the report. When will it be released?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is quite right. Our Department has been investigating reports of so-called misrepresentations made to people who have been buying mortgages. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that this is a rather exhaustive study. We have to investigate each report, and it has taken some time. I would like to assure him, though, that we will not be able to release the entire report because this matter, of course, is confidential, but we will be producing the results of this investigation very soon.


DRUG-TAKING TESTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
M. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Fitness and Amateur Sport who announced not long ago, in an exclusive interview, that she intended to make it compulsory for Canadian athletes taking part in the Olympic Games in Los Angeles to be given drug screens before they go back to Canada. Does the Minister intend to make the tests compulsory only for the games in Los Angeles or will the decision cover all international competitions where Canadian athletes will be participating?


Hon. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. gentleman for his question. In fact, after recent events in which athletes taking part in international competitions abroad were arrested upon their return to this country on a charge involving prescription drugs-I am not referring to drugs like cocaine or otherwise-we now have an interdepartmental committee which, with the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Canadian Olympic Association, the Medical Council of Canada and our national sports organizations has set up a task force which, by the end of this year, will be formulating measures to be taken by the Government in this respect.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I can assure Hon. Members that tests will be compulsory for international competitions of
Olympic caliber, including Sarajevo, Los Angeles, the Pan American Games and the Commonwealth Games.
As for other international competitions, as soon as we have the facilities, I can assure the hon. gentleman that consumption of this kind of drugs is absolutely prohibited by my Department.


TRUST COMPANIES
William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. When the Minister stated that she would not be releasing the full report on interest rates charged by trust companies, stories began to circulate that a considerable amount of pressure has been put on her Department by certain financial institutions to scratch this report. Would she comment on that please?


Judith A. Erola: Mr. Speaker, there have been no such pressures. We have been able to pressure some of those institutions into doing something about their practices.


PETITIONS
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of two, presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, November 3, 1983, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petitions presented by the Hon. Members for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) and Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo) do not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I merely wish to designate tomorrow as an Opposition day, and ask my hon. colleagues to bear this in mind.
November 14, 1983


POINT OF ORDER
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, a very brief point of order. If you will take the time to examine the record today you will note that you allowed the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mrs. Erola) to answer a question dealing with an unemployment matter in northern Ontario, notwithstanding the fact that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) was in the House. Is Your Honour now allowing Members to ask Ministers regional questions in their capacity as regional Ministers?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will examine the record. The Chair has followed the practice of allowing the Minister seeking to answer a question to do so. The Chair would like to reserve on the point raised by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).
Petitions
petitions, all indicating their opposition to changing the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. These petitioners add their names to more than 75,000 Canadians who have already indicated their opposition to the Crow change by this Parliament. The undersigned humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the Crow rate in perpetuity as presently guaranteed by statute. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


MR. FLIS-HUNGER STRIKE OF POLISH CANADIANS
Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and duty to present the petition of approximately 800 undersigned residents of the constituency of Parkdale-High Park and other regions of Ontario who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the undersigned citizens strongly support the hunger strike staged by ten Polish Canadians and urge the Canadian Government to help the spouses and children of the strikers to join them in Canada. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that post-secondary education must be acessible to all, that adequate funding should be available to ensure quality education, that appropriate measures should be taken to reduce the high level of student unemployment.
Wherefore the undersigned, the representatives of the Canadian Federation of Students, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to request the Government of Canada to act immediately to ensure that post-secondary education is accessible to all, that adequate funding is available to ensure quality education, and that appropriate measures be taken to reduce the high level of student unemployment. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and the duty to present to the House of Commons in Parliament assembled the petition of undersigned residents from almost every Province of Canada, more than 700 residents in all. This presentation is made up from 21 different


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a number of petitions on two or three different topics. The first petition has to do with the Crow rate issue.
To the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled the petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan, who now avail themselves of their ancient anmd undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that your honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that the undersigned have carefully considered the alternative plan presented by the New Democratic Party, that the Crow rate must be maintained, and that therefore the railways of all of Canada must be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transportation system.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternative plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate but which will provide upgrading to the railways. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I have a number of petitions from various points in my constituency with basically the same message. I will read the first one. To the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, the petition of the undersigned residents of the town of Allan-and there are some several dozen other towns mentioned as well-in the Province of Saskatchewan, who now exercise their right to present a grievance humbly sheweth that

November 14, 1983
Petitions
they are opposed to testing the Cruise missile on Canadian soil and call upon the Government to refuse to test the Cruise missile. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The last petition is from the Province of Alberta. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Alberta. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Alberta, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that the Crow rate is an important benefit to western Canada and one of the earliest incentives granted to settlers; that the changes of the Crow rate will reduce farm incomes contributing to the breakup of communities on branch lines and increase trucking and road costs; that three royal commissions have recommended retention of the Crow rate.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the Crow rate in perpetuity as presently guaranteed by statute. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Axworthy) I have several groups of petitions. The first has 80-some signatures of citizens of Canada in Unity, Lashburn, Lloydminster, Maidstone, Swift Current, Mortlach, Mossbank and Moose Jaw. The undersigned have carefully considered the alternative plan presented by the New Democratic Party, that the Crow rate must be maintained, and that the railways of all Canada must be upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transportation system.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the New Democratic Party alternative plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by 17 people in places like Luseland, Scott, Rockglen, Humboldt, Wilkie and Kelliher, in which they humbly petition the House of Commons assembled to present their grievance that the changing of the Crow rate will reduce farm incomes, contributing to the breaking up of communities on branch lines and increased trucking and road costs, and that three royal commissions have recommended retention of the Crow rate.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the Crow rate in perpetuity as presently guaranteed by statute.
Mr. Speaker, I have a group of petitions with 237 names from Saltcoats, Stornoway, Roxton and Churchbridge. They humbly petition Parliament assembled that western farmers have paid $131 million to move export grain in the 1981-82 crop year, that this grain contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade, the undersigned believe this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times the Crow rate. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon
Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
Mr. Speaker, I have a group of petitions with 330 names of residents from Glentworth, McCord, Mankota, Swift Current, Waldeck and many other communities in Saskatchewan. The petition is addressed to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petitioners state that they too believe that the $131 million to move export grain is their fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate.
Mr. Speaker, I have a further group of petitions with more than 1,000 names, addressed to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now exercise their right to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that they have examined the New Democratic Party alternative plan. Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory grain rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of citizens of Canada addressed to the honourable House of Commons in Parliament assembled. The petitioners humbly sheweth that whereas the federal Government has stated that it is committed to ensuring that post-secondary education is available to all Canadians, that the problem of our youth has now reached crisis proportions as thousands of qualified students have been refused entry to universities and colleges this year because of inadequate financing and a lack of space, wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament assembled that the federal Government live up to its commitment to the goal of accessibility by immediately establishing an emergency fund with the Provinces to deal with this crisis. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.


Mr. Lyle S. Kristiansen (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by a number of people in the agricultural community from Cut Knife, Saskatchewan addressed to the honourable House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled. The petition of the undersigned residents of the Province of Saskatchewan, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance common to your petitioners in the certain assurance that Your Honourable House will therefore provide a remedy, humbly sheweth that they have carefully considered the alternative plan presented by the NDP and that the Crow rate must be maintained, and that the railways of all of Canada must be
November 14, 1983

upgraded and developed into a modern and efficient transport
system.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to adopt the provisions of the NDP alternate plan which will not change the Crowsnest Pass freight rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray.
I also have a group of petitions signed by some 200 residents of Swift Current, Saskatchewan; Shamrock, Saskatchewan, Chaplin, Saskatchewan; Cut Knife, Saskatchewan; Hodgeville, Saskatchewan; Morse, Saskatchewan; Enfold, MacNutt, Rush Lake; Main Centre, Saskatchewan and some residents from both the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario. The petition of the undersigned residents of Canada, who now avail themselves of their ancient and undoubted right thus to present a grievance, humbly sheweth that western Canadian farmers paid $131 million to move export grain under the Crow freight rate in the 1981-82 crop year, that this grain, in turn, contributed $6.3 billion to the balance of trade, and the undersigned believe that this is the farmers' fair contribution to the Canadian economy and that western farmers will pay one times Crow.
Wherefore the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to maintain the present statutory Crow rate. And as in duty bound your petitioners will ever pray. I hope someone over there is listening.
* *


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Motions. The Chair now has to ask for unanimous consent of Hon. Members to dispense with the reading of a rather lengthy series of motions.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we might follow the past practice in this case as well. Rather than dispense with them, the Chair could simply ask if any Hon. Member wishes to call a motion standing in his name. He might stand to do so; otherwise we might pass on to the next order of Routine Proceedings.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid 1 just cannot agree to that today. We have had those motions standing on the Order Paper for some time now. I am reluctant to allow a precedent to be established. I mentioned the last time we sat that I felt we were establishing a precedent. Therefore, I would prefer that you deal with them in the normal fashion.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) might reconsider that, since it is quite a lengthy list and there is some very important fisheries legislation before us waiting to be discussed. Perhaps we could follow past practice without establishing any precedent, as the Chair so stated, so that without prejudice to the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain taking the same stand he seems to be taking today at some other time, we could proceed in order to allow us to get on with the fisheries legislation. It is clear that it would not establish a precedent, particularly if we were reassured to that effect by the Chair.
Order Paper Questions


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the intervention of the Opposition House Leader. I have given some thought to what he has had to say since rising previously. However, I think we should follow the normal practice and read the motions in the way they are intended to be read.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I shall go through the list.
Motions stand.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 4,913, 5,014, 5,136 to 5,232, inclusive, and 5,304.


Mr. Deans: 1.	How many residents of the Federal Republic of Germany derive income or capital which may presently be taxed in Canada and in the Federal Republic of Germany?
2.	How many residents of Canada are at present required to pay tax in both Canada and the Federal Republic of Germany on profit, income or gains arising in the Federal Republic of Germany?


Pierre Bussières: The
Department has no statistics on these two subjects. To obtain them, it would be necessary to re-examine all personal income tax returns since there is no other way of isolating only those relevant to this issue. Since there are 15,000,000 personal income tax returns in a year, the cost would be prohibitive.


Mr. Herbert: Is it intended to convert tourist exemption provisions of the Customs Tariff to metric measure and, if so, what will be the date of the change?


Pierre Bussières: Bill C-90, which was approved by Parliament on December 16, 1982, provides the Government with the authority to introduce the metric system into the Customs Tariff by Order in Council. Officials of the Department of Finance have begun drafting amendments to the Customs Tariff in consultation with interested parties, including officials in this Department. Imperial measures which appear in the personal exemption tariff items will be converted to metric within the next few months.

November 14, 1983
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Peter J. E. Cole, of the firm of Wiens & Cole, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,137-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to W. C. Middleton, Q.C. of the firm of Middleton & Boni, or to the Firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,138-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Warren G. Barber, of the firm of Meighen, Haddad & Co., or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,139-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Garry T. Miller of the firm of Hirschfield, Hunt, Fjeldsted & Miller, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,140-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Joseph A. Mullally of the Firm of Carroll, Mullally, Paterson & Midwinter, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,141-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to James H. Treble of the firm of Treble & McRae, or to the Firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,142-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to E. W. Hawkins of the Firm of Hawkins & Sanderson, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,143-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Sydney Perlmutter of Hamiota, Manitoba, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,144-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Duncan E. Geisler of Ashern, Manitoba, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,145-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to D. D. St. John, Q.C. of the firm of St. John & St. John, or to the Firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,146-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Kenneth R. Hanssen, of the Firm of Duncan & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,147-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to G. David Greenberg of the firm of Greenberg & Greenberg, or to the Firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,148-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Orest W. Pressey of the firm of Miller, Miller & Pressey, or to the Firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,149-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Marcel J. J. R. Gregoire of Roblin, Manitoba, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,150-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Ernest R. Goossen of the firm of Plett, Goossen & Co., or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,151-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Robert P. Smith of the firm of Smith, Neufeld & Stewart, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,152-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to C. W. Buckingham, Q.C. of Virden, Manitoba, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,153-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Alain J. Hogue of the firm of Teffaine, Monnin, Hogue & Teillet, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,154-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Morris Kaufman of the Firm of Margolis, Kaufman, Cassidy, Zaifman & Swartz, or to the Firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,155-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to E. M. Shewchuck of the firm of Monk, Goodwin & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,156-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to P. W. A. Westbury of the Firm of Inkster, Walker, Westbury, Irish, Rusen & Hughes, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in i 981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,157-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Paul Lewans of the firm of Lewans & Associates, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?
November 14, 1983


Hon. Mark MaeGuigan (Minister of Justice):: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: No.


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Roderick MacDonald of the MacDonald Law Firm, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84 to June 17$2,439.50	$7,993.10	$4,913.50	$470.02


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to James I. Ulmer of the firm of Coxworth & Ulmer, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,160-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Paul D. Elash of the firm of Kohaly & Elash, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,161-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Dennis P. Ball of the firm of Hill, McLellan, Ball, Cundall & Bridges, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in
1982	(d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,162-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Louis E. H. Stringer of Gravel-bourg, Saskatchewan, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17,
1983	and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,163-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Marilyn Scott of the firm of Sutherland, Behiel & Scott, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,164-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Donald J. Roberts of the firm of Roberts & Setrakov, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,165-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Edward A. Komarnicki of the Komarnicki Law Firm, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,166-Mr. Benjamin:
Were fi*nds payable by the Government to Alex G. Robertson of the firm of Robertson, Baynton, Moskal, Stolniuk & Strilchuk, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b)
Order Paper Questions
in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: No.


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Raymond G. Cariou of the firm of Cariou, Partyk & Francis, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84	to June 17$490	$4,250.25	$1,110.23	$652.25


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Jacob Eisner of the firm of Eisner, Eisner & Associates, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84	to June 17$968.09	$622.50	$1,732.41	$310


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Grant Carson of the firm of Carson & Co., or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84$4,300	$2,292.25	$490	-


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to John D. Hillson of the Hillson Law Office, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,171-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to C. Mervin Ozirny of the firm of Ozirny, Wrubell, Fisher & Tourney, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: No.

November 14, 1983
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to John D. Cooper of the firm of Grayson & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84$4,911	-	-	-


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Roy A. Dickinson of the firm of R.A. Dickinson & Associates, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84$1,784.84	$1,136.46	$4,875.85	-


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Terrance W. Ocrane of the firm of Chow, Ocrane, Walper & Hagan, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84-	$336.71	-	-


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Donald J. Osman of the firm of Goliath, Osman & Gardner, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84-	-	$1,036.29	-


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to James Eremko of the firm of Eremko & Eremko, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,177-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Brian M. Fitzpatrick of the firm of Taylor & Fitzpatrick, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: No.


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to R. Dennis Maher of the firm of Maher, Lindgren & Blais, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84 to June 17$3,838.30	$5,860.47	$6,648.06	$2,126.25


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to David W. Shury of the firm of Shury, Migneault & Miller, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,180-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Calvin J. Clark of Outlook, Saskatchewan, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,181-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to J. H. Clyne Harradence of the firm of Harradence, Longworth & Zatlyn, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,182-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to D. E. Wayne McIntyre of the firm of Balfour, Moss, Milliken, Laschuk, Kyle, Vancise & McIntyre, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,183-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Ian McLellan of the firm of Gerrand, McLellan & Mulatz, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,184-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to E. F. Anthony Merchant of the firm of Pedersen, Norman, McLeod & Todd, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?
November 14, 1983


Question No. 5,185-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to William James Serne of the firm of Serne, McKenzie & Miller, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,186-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Tom Malloy of the firm of MacDermid & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,187-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to John A. Stack of the firm of McKercher, McKercher, Stack, Korchin & Laing, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,188-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Donald J. Dermody of Shaunavon, Saskatchewan, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January I to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,189-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Warren J. Holland of Swift Current, Saskatchewan, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: No.


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Donald K. Krueger of the firm of Krueger, McLaughlin, Forrester & Rittinger, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84$1,152.45	-	-	-


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Frank A. MacBean of the firm of Wilson, MacBean, McIntosh, Wiebe & Tessen, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84 to June 17$677.59	$7,502.42	$8,249.31	$243.33
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Harold T. Hepting of Unity, Saskatchewan, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,193-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to James E. Young of Unity, Saskatchewan, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,194-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Philip L. Kotyk of the firm of Kotyk & Zawislak, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,195-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Thomas A. Schuck of the firm of Nimegeers, Schuck, Wormsbecker & Bobbitt, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,196-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Walter Bieber of Wilkie, Saskatchewan, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,197-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Walter Paulson of Wynyard, Saskatchewan, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,198-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to W. Arliss Dellow of the firm of Dellow & Greenhorn, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: No.


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Stanley G. Kyba of Yorkton, Saskatchewan, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84 to June 17$5,095	$12,788.49	$17,454.42	$11,273


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Wayne M. Rusnak of the firm of Rusnak, Balacko & Kachur, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

November 14, 1983
Order Paper Questions


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84	to June 17$191.10	$456.50	$1,267	$475.50


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to R. B. Logan of the firm of Logan & Co., or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84	toJunel7_	-	$250	$204


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to E. P. MacCallum of the firm of MacCallum & Ritter, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84	to June 17$2,544.80	$9,693.43	$16,627.97	$3,502.99


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Dale Wilson of the firm of Fraser & Co., or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: No.


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Kenneth W. Lutes of the firm of Crerar & Lutes, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to G. J. Burrell of the firm of Walsh & Young, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84 toJunel7
$125,126.45 $476,661.08 $457,656.81	$88,665.97


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to G. R. Knaut of the firm of Knaut, Johnson & Sawle, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84 to June 17$1,158.75	$4,068.42	$5,301.35	$200


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to W. Harry Gough of the firm of Ross, Todd & Co., or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,208-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to R. G. Wheatley of the firm of Wheatley, Sadownik & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: No.


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Stuart Campbell of the firm of Cox, Trofimuk & Campbell, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84 to June 17-	$2,404.75	$18,715.28	$1,100


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to David J. Cooke of the firm of Cooke & Thompson, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

November 14, 1983


Question No. 5,211-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Gerald Eherer of Fairview, Alberta, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,212-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to J. W. Freeland of the firm of Freeland & Co., or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: in so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: No.


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Charles A. MacDonell of the firm of MacDonell & Sutcliffe, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84-	$635.49	$1,420	-


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to D. B. Todd of the firm of Ross, Todd & Co., or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: No.


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to R. H. Scammell of the firm of Johnson & Ming, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January I to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84 to June 17$610.77	$1,097.61	$804.44	$865.44


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to James Dixon of the firm of Herbert, Fielding & Co., or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84 to June 17$18,611.87	$17,316.90	$11,619.02	$5,990.28
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to P. G. Flanagan of the firm of Flanagan, Sully & Surkan, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,218-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to J. I. Boras of the firm of Boras, Hogan & Co., or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,219-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to F. S. Peta of the firm of Huzil & Peta, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: No.


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to D. J. MacLean of the firm of MacLean & Wiedemann, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84-	$327.14	$320.50	-


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to D.L. Wilkins of the firm of Pritchard, Lerner & Company, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84 toJuncl7-	$332.50	$791.47	$200


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to G. C. Mathieu of the firm of Campbell & Marceau, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84 to June 17-	$15,554.13	$23,017.46	$971.55
28844

November 14, 1983
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to J. W. Fowler of the firm of Fowler & Cardwell, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,224-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to J. F. Ulan of the firm of Ulan & Associates, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,225-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Richard Holeton of the firm of Holeton & Langager, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,226-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to Charles A. Webb of the Charles A. Webb Professional Corp., or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,227-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to D. P. MacNaughton of the firm of Sloan & MacNaughton, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: No.


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to J. A. Blonsky of the firm of Blonsky & Co., or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84
- $100 - -


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Duncan Crerar of the firm of Reynolds, Crerar & Hurdle, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: Yes.
(a)-(d)	1980-81	1981-82	1982-83	1983-84-	$177.11	-	-


Mr. Benjamin: Were funds payable by the Government to Alex G. Robertson of the firm of Robertson & Baynton, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,231-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to David Mercer of the firm of Nickerson, Roberts & Hilborn, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?

Question No. 5,232-Mr. Benjamin:
Were funds payable by the Government to P. L. Adilman of the firm of Adilman, Sirrs & Watson, or to the firm itself, with respect to any work rendered for or on behalf of the Government (a) in 1980 (b) in 1981 (c) in 1982 (d) from January 1 to June 17, 1983 and, if so, in each case, what was the amount?


Mark R. MacGuigan: In so far as
the Department of Justice is concerned: No.


Mr. Young: 1.	Does the Department of Communications plan to encourage international standards on magnetic compatibility between telephones and hearing aids and, if so, in what manner?
2.	Has TAPAC indicated its willingness to deal with questions of compatibility between hearing aids and the telephone?
3.	Does TAPAC have any mechanism for consulting with hearing impaired consumers and, if so, what is it?


Hon. Francis Fox (Minister of Communications):: In so far
as the Department of Communications is concerned, the reply to the above question is as follows:
1.	The Department of Communications (DOC) has supported and will continue to support the development of domestic and international standards or mechanisms which will ensure universal access to the telephone networks by hearing-impaired persons. Canadian industries and laboratories, with the assistance of DOC, also actively participate in various domestic, North American and international activities. As an example, participation in The International Electrotechnical Commission and the Electronic Industries Association is aimed at finding technical solutions to the problems encountered by hearing-aid users.
2.	As encouraged by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) in its Telecom Decision 82-14 regarding the attachment of subscriber-provided terminal equipment to the networks of the federally regulated common carriers, the Terminal Attachment Program Advisory Committee (TAPAC) is monitoring domestic and international technical developments in order to assess additional means by which the access of hearing-impaired persons to telephone service can be improved. TAPAC is primarily involved in the development of technical standards for telecommunications equipment which is connected to the public switched telephone network; such standards must ensure adequate protection to the network against potential harm. To the extent that compatibility standards relate to network protec-
November 14, 1983

tion, TAPAc would be mandated to deal with this particular
issue.
3.	Hearing-impaired consumers or any other interested party may make representations to TAPAC or attend TAPAC meetings as a mechanism for consulting.


John Leslie Evans: 1 ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. McKinnon:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to a question I asked on June 1, 1981. The question is No. 2,568. It is a very simple question. It reads:
What was the increase in real terms in the Department of National Defence's expenditures, including statutory costs and expressed in percentages, for each fiscal year 1970-71 to 1979-80?
In budget terms it means that question is three years old and I would have thought that in three years the Department would have been able to figure out how much it spent even in the most recent of these years. Would the Parliamentary Secretary be kind enough to chase that question up?
At the same time, to make his day, 1 would like to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that starred question No. 4,336 about which I have spoken to him several times and which has been on the Order Paper for a year and a half, has now been resolved outside of this jurisdiction. 1 would like that question withdrawn from the Order Paper.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I would also draw the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to question No. 3,216 which 1 asked on October 23, 1981. It reads:
Did the Prime Minister travel to New York in March 1981 and, if so, what was the total cost of the trip and what percentage will be paid by the taxpayer?
Could the Parliamentary Secretary indicate now after three years whether there is any particular reason why his office could not have given this information?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, first, if the question was asked October 23, 1981, I think it is two years and not three years.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Just two years.


John Leslie Evans: The former President of the Treasury Board should know that.
With regard to question No. 2,568, I will get on to that one immediately. 1 understand the Member's concern that it has not been answered in the period of time, given the nature of the question. I will see what 1 can do about it.
I am not sure what the procedure is concerning the request that question No. 4,336 be withdrawn from the Order Paper. I think we have to go through the Chair or the Table Officers for that.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It needs the unanimous consent of the House.


Erik Nielsen: No, it does not.
Order Paper Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is related to this question?


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Could the Parliamentary Secretary explain to the House why it would take a year and a half for the Government to answer a starred question which, by tradition in this place, is not only answered orally but on an urgent basis?


Erik Nielsen: In 48 hours, it used to be.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, here we go around that mulberry bush again.


Erik Nielsen: It is a Grit bush.


John Leslie Evans: As we have indicated before and in looking through the precedents, there is no precedent that a starred question is treated any differently from another question other than the fact that when the answer is given it is read orally in the House. That is what Beauchesne says and that is the precedent that has been before this House.


Erik Nielsen: Rubbish.


John Leslie Evans: There is no precedent whatsoever that requires that a starred question be answered on any more urgent basis than any other question. The Government tries to give as urgent attention to these questions as possible in order to get answers back to Members. We have up to this point answered 85 per cent of all questions that have been asked. I think that is a very good record for the Government, Mr. Speaker. Certainly we will do our best to make sure that all these other questions are answered as soon as they possibly can.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, as we are talking about the question I asked which had to do with a lieutenant the Department of National Defence was refusing to readmit to the reserves, let me say that I took the matter up with two Ministers and two Parliamentary Secretaries and the problem was eventually resolved to my satisfaction.
I care little whether the question is withdrawn by a motion of mine, by unanimous consent or by waiting for this interminable session to end, because the question will disappear from the Order Paper one way or the other.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the Hon. Member for Victoria to withdraw from the Order Paper the question to which he has made reference?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is a follow-up to the original point 1 raised with the Parliamentary Secretary. The Prime Minister's trip was almost three years ago. I asked the question a little over two years ago. Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in our frustration we went to the access to information and privacy co-ordinator of the Privy Council office? His officials have now informed us that the Prime Minister's trip in 1981 cost $5,607.75. If he is aware of that,

November 14, 1983
Order Paper Questions
will he indicate to the House why they have chosen to withhold this information from the House? It is the co-ordinator under the access to information laws of this land that has made the information available.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has the answer to the question, I cannot see the urgency of standing up here today and asking when it will be answered. He has the answer.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, this is a terrible reflection of the attitude of the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government toward this House with respect to the answering of questions. The thrust of my question is whether the information that we now have, the $5,607.75 cost given to us by the co-ordination for access to information and privacy, is correct, or is there some information to be added to his report? In short, why will the Government not level with this House concerning not only these questions but the cost of other trips by the Prime Minister? Do we have to go through the same co-ordinator to obtain information which, incidentally, we received within two months?


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, as 1 said, we will do everything possible to answer the Hon. Member's question. 1 will certainly check why the answer was not available in the House and tabled at an earlier date if in fact it was available through the information commissioner. I will check on the other questions and see if that information is available through the commissioner. If it is, it certainly should be tabled in the House.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order which was addressed by the Parliamentary Secretary a moment ago with respect to the practice of answering starred questions. The Parliamentary Secretary, who seems to view this whole exercise of denying information to Parliament very gleefully, would not in my view know a precedent if he tripped over it, like he does with most things, if he would get his nose out of Beauschesne and out of the Standing Orders and go back over the debates of this House, he would learn that starred questions were, at one point, before the changes for the worse were brought about by the practices of the present Government, answered in 48 hours. At the very latest, they were answered in three days. That has been the practice in this place. He and 1 have had this exchange before. Madam Speaker has taken it under advisement. She was going to look at it and get back to us. You, Mr. Speaker, have been around here long enough to appreciate the significance of starred questions. They do have some significance. The significance that attaches to them is that any normal self-respecting Government would treat them as urgent and bring forward the answers on an urgent basis, not hide them for a year and a half, as in the case of the question of the Hon. Member for Victoria. Otherwise, there is no purpose for starred questions. They are there for a purpose, the purpose is urgency. Rather than changing the practice, we should abide with past practices and distinguish urgent questions from those which require in some cases volumes of
statistical information which takes time to produce. A question as simple as the one the Hon. Member for Victoria starred certainly could have been answered within three days, but was not.


Mr. Forrestall:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on somewhat the same point of order to ask the Parliamentary Secretary about Question No. 5,038 regarding the number of ships permitted into Canada under special authority to participate in offshore oil exploration.
The question was starred because it was anticipated that the Government would in fact add additional revenues to the PIPS Program. We noted today in the House the question by the Hon. Member for Vancouver Centre and the response by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. If we had had the answer that 1 sought on September 21, we would have been in a much better position to evaluate the Minister's response to the Hon. Member.
In the years that I have spent in this Chamber, the practice of starred questions was to identify those questions which Members felt were urgent, topical or pertained to business either before the House or shortly to come before the House. This practice has not been abused. From a random review of the last 10 or 15 years, we find that the practice of starred questions has not been abused. That procedure has not been abused. It is a procedure used by Members in an attempt to obtain information which they believe to be of importance and necessity concerning matters currently before the House. With regard to the Parliamentary Secretary's attempt to indicate to the Chamber that there is nothing in the Standing Orders, Beauchesne's or House rules to indicate urgency with respect to this, I join with the Hon. Member for Yukon. If the Parliamentary Secretary does not want to do it himself, he can have someone else look up the practice of this Chamber over the past 40 or 50 years. He would perhaps then have a different view and would appreciate that the procedure is not one that Members have traditionally abused.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I would very much like to go back and look at the last 40 or 50 years of practice in this Chamber. In the last 10 to 15 years, it certainly has not been the case that they were considered to be a matter of urgency. They were read here in the House. The Hon. Member for Yukon certainly has a means, if he wishes, to change the procedure from the way it has been for the last ten years or so. He can raise this with the House Leaders. If that is a practice that the House wishes to undertake and the Chair agrees it is proper and the House Leaders can agree, I am sure it can become a procedure. That is not the way it is done now and it has not been done that way for some time.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak to this point of order as well. I find offensive the attitude which the Parliamentary Secretary takes on behalf of the Government with respect to the responses he has given on behalf of the Government to written questions on the Order Paper. 1 find it offensive for two reasons. First, if one listens to what the Parliamentary Secretary is saying, one finds he is trying to
November 14, 1983

find every device to avoid the responsibility to answer. He does not take an affirmative point of view with respect to disclosure of information. He says he has been searching precedents. That is for the purpose of finding why there should be no early or immediate response to questions on the Order Paper. There is a second and more serious problem. During the course of discussion on access to information legislation, the direction of the Government to all Government Departments was that, in terms of answering questions, the principles to access to information legislation were to be observed even before the Act was passed-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair has listened attentively to the Hon. Member. The Chair has a concern at this point about the point of order. The point of order concerns delays in answering questions. The Parliamentary Secretary indicated that he would do his best to reply. The whole question of Government policy enunciated at other times, in other ways and in other places which the Hon. Member is raising, raises a difficulty with the Chair. The Chair has to proceed on the statement of the responsible officer to the House, in this case the Government spokesman, that an effort will be made to answer the questions. The Chair has difficulty entertaining a point of order beyond that point.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point is that asking questions on the Order Paper has become something of a joke in the House of Commons. In other words, when my colleague, the Hon. Member for York-Peel, points out that he has had a question on the Order Paper for over two years and then puts in a request under the freedom of information legislation and gets a response in something less than a few weeks, we must ask ourselves whether this demonstrates contempt on the part of the Government with respect to a very serious and integral part of our responsibilities here. We ask serious questions in order to disseminate publicly information with respect to Government activities.
I believe that the point of order I am raising, Mr. Speaker, is very germane and appropriate. More and more Members of Parliament are simply not using the opportunity afforded to them of asking questions on the Order Paper because of the derelict way in which the Parliamentary Secretary and his colleagues have dealt with these matters. Questions have been on the Order Paper year after year and I can cite those questions chapter and verse.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary if his guidelines with respect to answering questions on the Order Paper from Members of Parliament are the same as those guidelines indicated in the freedom of information legislation. In other words, can we in the House of Commons expect attention that is at least as urgent and immediate as the attention that is paid to inquiries made under legislation that is available to all Canadians? When asking questions on the Order Paper, we do not have the power to have an information commissioner require the Parliamentary Secretary to comply with any requests for information here in the House of Commons. The
Order Paper Questions
only thing we can do is to point out to the Parliamentary that he is not fulfilling his function and that the Government is reluctant to give this information. We can only take a political approach on the floor of the House of Commons because there is no other way that we have-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made his point. It is difficult for the Chair to oblige the Government to answer questions. The Hon. Member appears to have a grievance but it is difficult for the Chair to entertain it as a point of order. 1 think the Hon. Member has made his point on the Hansard record.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say briefly that it seems to me that if there is a point of order, it might well be taken under advisement. As you know, Mr. Speaker, today we are attempting to deal with a very important fisheries Bill.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: I would very much like to see the House deal with that Bill as quickly as possible.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could not tell me when he intends to answer my starred question. Can he tell me whether it will be answered now or at some remote time in the future? If it is not answered shortly, I might follow the lead of my dear colleague, the Hon. Member for Victoria, by having the question withdrawn. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might respond and tell me precisely when he will answer that question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair had earlier recognized the Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax East on precisely the same point of order.


J. Michael Forrestall: No, but he did not answer my question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair will not recognize the Hon. Member again on the same point of order.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, I will look into the matter and I will try to have the question answered at the earliest possible moment. The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West indicated in his tirade that the Government did not take this issue seriously and that it was not putting forward answers. There are now, or have been in the past, 5,361 questions on the Order Paper. The Government has answered 85 per cent of those questions. Some questions are more difficult to answer than others; some questions take more time to answer than others. Perhaps administrative problems have occurred while answering other questions. However, the Government will do-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair asks Hon. Members to bear in mind that there seems to have been a lengthy debate on this

November 14, 1983
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act
matter. The Hon. Member for Mississauga South is seeking to be recognized. I ask him to be brief.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to be brief. Three weeks ago, I raised the matter of Question No. 1,741 on the Order Paper, a question of November 20, 1980, with the Parliamentary Secretary. At that time, he said he would contact the CNR immediately with respect to the passes and gifts from Air Canada for its directors and what was paid for those passes. Three weeks have now gone by and I would have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary would now have that answer, particularly in view of the fact that the question has been outstanding for nearly three or four years.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I have looked into that matter. I have put a tracer on that question in order to find out why it has not been answered. To this point, I have not heard back.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Stand.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans) moved: that Bill C-170, An Act to authorize investment in and the provision of financial assistance to the Atlantic Fisheries for the purpose of restructuring certain fishery enterprises, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
He said: Mr. Speaker, speaking on second reading of Bill C-170, I wish to seek the support of the House for this Bill. I would say it is not merely a Bill but a historic milestone, if we consider the impact the legislation will have on the future of our Atlantic fisheries. I would even go so far as to say that this Bill is as important as the Fisheries Act and the measures taken in 1977 to extend our jurisdiction over fisheries to the 200-mile zone.
This legislation must also be seen within the historical context of our Atlantic fisheries, part of which goes back several decades, while another part has materialized during the last six months. Mr. Speaker, 1 do not intend to dwell at length on past history. Nevertheless, I think we could usefully review some aspects of the history of our Atlantic fisheries over the last ten years, to illustrate the sequence of events that has brought us to the present situation, and to explain how the
measures that are about to be taken by the Government of Canada, with, we hope, the support of all parties of this House, are a logical consequence thereof.
First, a quick look at our Atlantic fisheries at the beginning of the seventies. Hon. Members will recall that at the time, the fisheries were in a crisis situation as they are today. Foreign fishing fleets were devastating the fish stocks off our coasts. The abundant stocks of groundfish that had been the mainstay of the fishing industry for generations were threatened with depletion. The federal Government was called in and provided very substantial assistance in keeping the industry afloat, as it were.
We were aware that the fish stocks that formed a vital part of our economy in the Atlantic provinces were in very serious danger. We were also aware that this was due to uncontrolled fishing. On the basis of our experience of international controls, we knew that the only answer to these problems lay in establishing Canadian sovereignty over these resources.
Let us now look at the year 1977, when Canada proclaimed its authority over the 200-mile zone and we started on the long and difficult task of rebuilding the resource that forms the basis of this industry.
We find our next historic milestone in more recent years, namely, 1981, when our country had been exercising control over fish stocks within the 200-mile zone for five years. I think we may be proud of the manner in which we have discharged this responsibility. Our success both in safeguarding and reestablishing fish stocks is undisputed and worthy of mention. In fact, our achievements in this area have been cited the world over, and rightly so, as prime examples of excellent fisheries resource management. In 1981, however, we were once again facing a very serious situation in the Atlantic fisheries. Companies were on the verge of bankruptcy, fishermen and processing plant workers were laid off or about to be, shareholders were worried and businessmen reluctant to invest. However, there was no shortage of fish, there was no overfishing by foreign fleets and no operation of factory ships beyond our control.
There is a paradox here that is clear to even the most superficial observer. Here we have an industry that is fortunate in being able to draw on some of the richest fisheries resources of the whole world. It is located nearer the United States, one of the main markets for this product, than any of its competitors. We have people whose fishing and ocean-going traditions are as good if not better than anyone else's. We have a country that since 1978, in terms of volume, has become the biggest exporter of fish and Fish products. Nevertheless, the industry was once again in dire straits and in danger of disappearing once and for all.
The obvious question is: How can an industry that has so much going for it manage to get itself into such serious trouble? More than once, my predecessor at the Department
November 14, 1983

of Fisheries and Oceans reminded the industry that by extending our jurisdiction, we had acquired new borders but lost one excuse. We could no longer blame our problems on overfishing by foreign fleets, and so if our problems continued and would not go away, we would have to change our own procedures. In other words, we would have to look at the problem from within.
Mr. Speaker, it was clear that we now had an entirely different situation. Financial assistance would have been justified when there was overfishing by foreign fleets. However, in the 80s, this reason was no longer valid. The time had come to define our international problems and try to correct them. That is why the Government established the Atlantic Fisheries Task Force headed by Mr. Michael Kirby. As Hon. Members are aware, the terms of reference of the task force were not only to describe the symptoms but to establish the cause of the disease. Furthermore, this could not be done in a vacuum but required frequent consultation with industry, fishermen, and the provincial governments concerned.
The task force made its report early this year. Its findings were sobering and instructive, but they were also basically very positive, very upbeat. As other studies before it have indicated repeatedly, this one found that whatever Atlantic fisheries might lack, they were very rich in potential. This, the task force confirmed, is a Canadian asset of immense and renewable value. The task force also found-and observers within and outside the Government have agreed with the finding- that although external influences were involved, the industry's problems were structural. They stemmed from inherent defects and internal causes. The boat had not capsized just because of the storm; it capsized because it was not built to withstand heavy weather.
Since early this year, as Hon. Members know, the Government, along with the Governments of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, the large deep sea companies and financial institutions, has been attempting to come up with a plan to keep the industry afloat. In the Province of Quebec the large co-op, United Fishermen, which has for the last two years been promised financial assistance by the Quebec Government, at the end rightly despaired. So it came and struck a deal with my Department also.
The agreements we have reached with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and with this large co-op in the Province of Quebec reflect to some extent the recommendations made by the task force. They envisage work on many fronts.


John Carnell Crosbie: To what extent, Mr. Minister?


Pierre De Bané: If the Hon. Member would just give me the chance to finish my speech, I will gladly answer any questions he may have.
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act


John Carnell Crosbie: Aren't you going to answer that in your speech? It is very important.


Pierre De Bané: The partners in these consultations agree that the industry needs to change. It needs to improve its marketing arrangements. It needs to become leaner and more efficient ashore and afloat. However, more basically, it needs to be a different kind of industry. It is not enough to beach the existing vessel and patch it up for another voyage. The industry needs a new design, one with enough built-in strength and stability to stay afloat even when the economic barometer falls.
The Bill which 1 have the honour to bring before the House represents one major step in that process. In the course of long, sometimes difficult negotiations this year, I reached agreements with the Governments of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, with the industry and with financial institutions on a plan to reorganize or restructure, as the Bill puts it, the Atlantic fisheries.
The plan calls for, among other things, a substantial investment of Canadian taxpayers' money. The purpose of the Bill is to authorize the federal Government to play a major part in a co-operative effort to restructure the industry. Specifically, it would authorize the Government of Canada to invest in the industry and to make loan guarantees.
Before discussing the Bill itself, I want to tell Hon. Members why the legislation is necessary and desirable. Of course, the most basic reason is that without action the industry will go under. There is a funding vacuum. No private investors have come forward to fill it. Given the industry's present financial state, it is simply not able to take that kind of risk.
Fet me begin my review of the situation with Newfoundland. All observers, Government and private, agree that without exception the deep sea processing companies in that Province are in a state of terminal financial distress. Several at this point are already in receivership. As Hon. Members know, the Governments of Newfoundland and Canada signed an agreement on measures to restructure the Newfoundland deep sea industry. The agreement was not easy to achieve, but we have it now. It was signed in an atmosphere of cordiality and united resolve. I understand that the Government of Newfoundland and labrador is at the moment discussing in the legislature of that Province a Bill, the object of which is to ratify the agreement which has been reached between our two Governments. I might add that it has been hailed by the Premier of that Province as the most important bilateral agreement reached between that Province and the central Government since its entry into Canada in 1949. I am happy to note that, like all other major achievements in Newfoundland, it was done under a Fiberal Government in Ottawa.
What our Governments hoped to accomplish together is summed up very concisely in the preamble to that agreement. That document says, Mr. Speaker, that our objective is to find a just and lasting solution for the rebuilding of the deep sea

November 14, 1983
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act fishery, one which recognizes the fundamental role which the fishing industry plays in Newfoundland and Labrador.
In the course of consultations which led to this agreement, practical measures were agreed upon by both Governments and by the financial institutions which will provide part of the funding. It was agreed specifically that the logical and effective course would be to combine the assets of John Penny and Sons, the Lake Group Limited, North Atlantic Fisheries, Fishery Products and some other companies. Certain assets of H. B. Nickerson and Sons in Nova Scotia would be merged with these Newfoundland elements to achieve a balanced mix of products.
In our opinion, and those of our partners in these consultations, this would produce the basic structure for an economically viable company-lean, efficient and able to compete with any fishing nation in the world. One component of the new structure would be an operating company. The other would be a holding company.
In Nova Scotia we have reached an agreement in principle with the provincial Government and with the Bank of Nova Scotia. In this case we are talking about consolidation of two main elements. National Sea Products and certain parts of the H. B. Nickerson and Sons operations, into a restructured National Sea Products Company. In this case, financing will be achieved by conversion of some debt to equity by the Bank of Nova Scotia and by the Province, and injection of new cash for equity by the Government of Canada.
A presentation was made to the board of directors of National Sea Products on October 17 on behalf of the federal and Nova Scotia Governments and the Bank of Nova Scotia, proposing a merging into National Sea Products of certain Nova Scotia fishing assets of H. B. Nickerson and Sons. This proposal includes provisions for an estimated $90 million of common share equity to restructure the balance sheet of National Sea Products. The equity is to be provided by a consortium composed of the two Governments and the bank through a company which will, as a result, probably own in excess of 75 per cent of the common shares of the restructured National Sea Products. The exact percentage will depend on the price at which the new common shares will be issued.
As Hon. Members will know, National Sea is a publicly-owned company with publicly-traded shares. The board of directors of that firm is considering the proposal submitted to it and will be seeking the approval of its shareholders for any recommended response. I should also add that discussions and negotiations have taken place which will result in the sale of the total H. B. Nickerson and Sons interests in fish processing operations in Atlantic Canada-including a controlling interest in National Sea Products-to a company owned by the two Governments and the Bank of Nova Scotia. The Nickerson assets located in Newfoundland, plus the Riverport, Nova Scotia facilities and 12 scallop vessels, will be transferred to a company to be incorporated in Newfoundland as per the agreement made between the Government of Canada and the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador on September 26, 1983.
I remain hopeful that we can secure full agreement of all parties involved in the Nova Scotia restructuring plant in the near future, and that implementation of the agreements can proceed.

With respect to Quebec, the situation is quite different. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, we have in the Province a huge co-operative-Pecheurs-Unis-which represents close to 50 per cent of plant workers of Quebec's fishing industry and accounts for nearly 40 per cent of catches in terms of volume. As everyone knows, for two years now this leading co-operative which is affiliated to the Desjardins group has been promised by the provincial Government that it will solve those problems and provide assistance. The simple truth is that in the past two years the Canadian Government, represented by my predecessor the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) and myself since last year, has made it possible to rescue Pecheurs-Unis during the last two fishing seasons, those of 1982 and 1983, twice in a row. In my opinion, the Pecheurs-Unis case is one of the most telling examples of Canadian federalism. Those fishermen and plant workers had been told by the provincial Government that it would help them and solve their problems, but they finally realized that if they really wanted action, if they really wanted a solution, they had to ask the Canadian Government. However, I must admit that certain aspects of the Pecheurs-Unis case remain unclear to this day. Under extreme circumstances, one can understand why the Government of Quebec would refuse to shoulder its responsibilities, but what is impossible to understand is why that Government not only denied help to Pecheurs-Unis but did everything it could to destroy, even to the extent of questioning the personal integrity of their leaders, even questioning the personal integrity of one of the senior Desjardins officials. The Government even made references to police investigations and threatened fishermen who sought the assistance of the Canadian Government with the loss of their rights-and these are Quebec taxpayers-which belong to all Quebec fishermen.
Why is that? Mr. Speaker, I confess that I do not understand, just as the fishermen and those who looked into the case of Pecheurs-Unis do not understand either. In any event, the Canadian Government did rescue Pecheurs-Unis during the last two fishing seasons. Should anyone ask me why, I would answer simply that it was our duty to intervene.
History will note that in the case of all those commercial undertakings which I mentioned-National Sea Products Ltd., Nickerson, Fishery Products, Penny & Sons, North Atlantic, Pecheurs-Unis-hundreds and thousands of creditors agreed to wait and did not take any action because they knew that we were trying to find a solution. The one and only creditor who behaved like a common finance company and who seized the assets was the Quebec government. The one and only creditor! Of course, I could not let this opportunity pass by without
November 14, 1983

thanking all the creditors, large and small, who have demonstrated considerable patience over the past two years, especially towards the Pecheurs Unis, and I am sure I am speaking on behalf of all hon. members when 1 say that 1 cannot understand how the Quebec government, which is supposed to be closer to the taxpayers, could be, of all the creditors, the only one to seize the assets of the Pecheurs Unis. And as everybody knows, it seized Madelipeche, a plant, most shares of which belonged to the Pecheurs Unis.
I have examined the contract which the Quebec government had forced at the time upon the Pecheurs Unis whereby, for all practical purposes, the Quebec government was buying the Madelipeche assets for a ridiculously low price. Mr. Speaker, you have there an example of the great social conscience of the Quebec government. It has done something which no financial company would have dared. In so doing, the Quebec government has attacked the personal integrity of the Pecheurs Unis leaders as well as the Desjardins movement, and it has passed a legislation to take over the assets of the Pecheurs Unis; it has even threatened the fishermen and the plant workers with retaliation if they accepted the offer of the Canadian government, and in spite of all the threats and intimidation tactics, I am happy to report that all those concerned, namely, the fishermen, the unions, the plant workers, the creditors and the leaders of the Desjardins movement, have accepted the offer of the Canadian Government. As evidence of this, I should like to read into the official report the letter which Mr. Pierre Lefebvre, my Assistance Deputy Minister in charge of the Pecheurs Unis file, has just received from Mr. Jean-Paul Paradis, the fisherman who is the President of the Pecheurs Unis of Quebec, and I quote:
Dear Assistant Deputy Minister;
I have acquainted myself with the results of the 2nd Information Meeting which was held with you in Newport last Tuesday evening, and I feel that these results are very satisfactory.
I emphasize the words "very satisfactory", Mr. Speaker.
Some 25 fishermen in attendance thus reasserted their agreement to the restructuring plan of the Canadian government, which means that they do not question the value of the first consultation in which they had taken part last October 19.
Up to now, the official and private consultations going on in Newport indicate and lead us to conclude that a major part of the local fleet still supports your restructuring proposal.
Indeed, we are speaking about a cooperative where each member has one vote.
In addition, the members of fisheries cooperatives throughout the northern Gaspe area still maintain their acceptance of your plan, while our organized workers continue to have a very favourable response.
However, some confusion seems to subsist as to the firm desire of your government to proceed with this plan, which confusion is encouraged by those who oppose it.
I therefore wish to reaffirm our full and complete acceptance of your offer as made last October 16 in Gaspe, and I sincerely hope that you will submit in the near future the contractual agreement sealing the transaction through which the assets of Pecheurs-Unis will be transferred to a new corporation, still to be
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act
established and in which your government will probably have a majority of shares.
Sincerely yours,
Jean-Paul Paradis Chairman
Pecheurs-Unis du Quebec
I would like to say to the chairman of Pecheurs-Unis, as well as to all the fishermen, all the plant workers, the unions, the Desjardin movement, the small and the large creditors, all those who stood up to the threats, the blackmail, the overstatements-and I see that my hon. predecessor is coming in, he who has done so much in relation with Pecheurs-Unis-I would like to tell all those people who stood up to all that and to these attacks on their reputation, that the Canadian government will not abandon them and that we shall do exactly as promised by my predecessor, the Hon. Minister of Public Works. We are going to act and to establish this corporation which will also make its marketing services available to all other Quebec businesses. When I think that this is being called an ideological conflict! Mr. Speaker, we only have to look at what was done in the case of Madelipeche. This company was not seized, taken over or appropriated to be given back to the people of the Magdalen Islands. The Quebec government appropriated the company for itself. This goes much deeper; we might as well recognize that it is an ideological conflict. The Quebec government is refusing to behave as a government which favours dialogue. As avidence, the Canadian Saltfish Corporation Act provides for one representative to be designated by the Quebec government to defend the Quebec viewpoint. That seat is still vacant, and this goes to prove to what extent the Quebec Government is ranking its ideology above the welfare of its fishermen.
The case at hand is a good example of how much federalism benefits Quebec fishermen more than 95 per cent of whom have supported the Canadian Government program that was sprinkled with no threats, arm-twisting or upmanship. When 1 think of the Quebec Minister of Fisheries and Minister of Agriculture going to Riviere-au-Tonnerre to offer them $800,000, ten times more than he offered last year! This is what he offered them to try and get their support. Despite everything, I invite them for the last time to accept the Canadian Government's offer and become a shareholder as all other partners did, in that new organization which we are going to set up.
Some elements of restructuring the Atlantic fishery are specific to the Provinces involved but some are common to all, and I would like to touch on some of these principles now. This is not nationalization. This is not the beginning of nationalization. We are not creating Crown corporations. All of the Governments involved hope their participation is temporary. We are convinced that the interests of the industry and the

November 14, 1983
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act
communities which depend on them will be best served by returning the Atlantic fisheries to the private sector as soon as possible. This is our stated and explicit aim. Indeed, we would be ready to do so immediately except that at this low point in the fortunes of the industry no private investors are willing to take the risk alone.
In entering into this agreement, the Government is acutely aware of the need to consider the situation of smaller companies in the five Provinces and the way they will relate to these three new large entities. These three new companies will be among the largest fishing industry enterprises in the world, particularly those whose headquarters will be in Halifax and St. John's. They will be doing business in all four Atlantic Provinces and Quebec, which are home also to a number of much smaller independent companies. Some of these are watching developments with a certain degree of uneasiness. I understand their concern, Mr. Speaker. They want to know that this restructuring exercise, conducted after all in part with their tax dollars, will not work against their interests.
Our message to these independent companies is clear. From the start of negotiations we have kept their interests in mind. This Government believes that a vigorous and independent small business sector is indispensable to the long-term health of the Atlantic fisheries. We need a balanced mix here as much as we need it in, for instance, the airlines. The use of Government support and participation to create an unfair advantage over small and efficient companies will not be permitted. Certainly, great size will endow the new entities with new strengths, but we are taking steps to ensure that those advantages which are derived directly from size are made available to the smaller companies. One area in which size confers a strong advantage is in marketing capabilities. The three new companies would be required to make their marketing capability available on request and on mutually agreed terms to smaller independent companies.
The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that the action we are proposing offers the best hope we have of containing financial disaster before it spills over and engulfs the independants too. It is not hard to imagine the chaos, the shock of unemployment, economic slow-downs and the dumping of fish inventories at distressed prices which would follow a total collapse of the larger companies. This Government recognizes its responsibility to consider the social as well as the economic side of the equation. We also recognize that the new companies formed under this agreement must compete effectively in world markets. To do this they will have to plan and perform in conformity with business realities. Their decisions must make commercial sense. There is an implied division of roles and objectives here to which we give explicit recognition in this plan. If actions such as keeping a plant open that loses money are required for social reasons, then Government, not the company, will pay the cost of the action. Those companies will have to be run as efficient businesses.
We decided to follow the path I have outlined because the others, upon examination, led either nowhere or back to where we started. One such option was to make loans or guarantees to the companies in distress. This was impossible. The companies in question are incapable of carrying more debt. What is the use of more loan guarantees to those companies? They are already overburdened with debt. For obvious reasons, we rejected the use of public funds as grants to bail out shareholders and banks because there is no rationale to take taxpayers' money and give it to some companies without making the same favour to the 700 plants in eastern Canada. We cannot give grants to some when we are using taxpayers' money. As I was unable to extend that largesse to all companies, that band-aid could not be considered. It would not have gone to the root of the problem. It would have been another bail-out.
We rejected the option, if we can call it an option, of sitting passively by and watching the Atlantic fishing industry go down the drain. Such a course would be socially irresponsible and economically insane. If those companies had to go under and their huge inventories sold at distressed prices, as in any bankruptcy, it would have a domino effect of bankruptcies that would have touched and affected hundreds of other plants in eastern Canada.
The need of the hour is not only to rebuild a devastated industry but to rebuild sorely damaged confidence. The industry needs a reasonable degree of certainty about the seriousness of our commitment to restructure. The people in Atlantic fishery, fishermen, plant workers, managers, shareholders, investors, all need to know that the new structure rests on a solid base of public agreement. They need to know that the decisions made today are not subject to political shifts of the wind. We have made a strong start toward building that confidence in the agreements with Newfoundland, Nova Scotia and United Fishermen, that large important co-op in the Province of Quebec.
By coming to the House with a Bill which expresses clearly, specifically and openly what we plan to do, we build on that base. We certify that commitment with the seal of the Parliament of Canada.

It has sometimes been stated, Mr. Speaker, that periods of severe crisis were also periods of unequalled opportunity. As Arnold Toynbee suggested, a crisis is in a way a spur that stimulates healthy societies to new summits. The difficulties faced by the Atlantic fisheries already have prompted two positive responses. One is a commitment to study the underlying causes, the second is the willingness in various public and private sectors to work together to bring about changes and improvements that cannot be realized in isolation. To that extent, we can state that what appears to be a troubled period for the Canadian fishing industry can also be viewed as a period of unprecedented opportunity. This is how we are viewing the situation. We have the fish, the markets, the expertise, the willingness to work and the traditions. And now,
November 14, 1983

for the first time, we also have the means to put all those assets to intelligent use.
Before I conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would have this to add. If we seem to be viewing this legislation with some sense of urgency, it is because it is indeed a matter of urgency. Much time already has been wasted. We would have preferred debating the question in this House six months or even three months earlier. The industry has been in a difficult situation for quite some time. Each day has added its burden of economic hardship and anxiety for those in the industry. But the fact is that only a few days ago could we reach with our partners and Pecheurs-Unis in Quebec the agreement that was needed to act. As long as that agreement was not forthcoming we could not place the project before the House as long as we had no precise knowledge of what would be needed, or how much co-operation our efforts would be met with. We now have those answers, and we have a plan of action. Mr. Speaker, we know what must be done and how it must be done. 1 urge this House to deal with this Bill within the shortest possible timeframe.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order please. I see at least two Members rising with the intention of asking questions. May 1 remind them that, following the speech of a Minister on a Bill, the Standing Orders do not provide for the usual ten minute question and answer period. Perhaps the Hon. Members might like to seek unanimous consent of the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: 1 wanted to ask if the Minister would permit a question on the speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The Member from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) seeks unanimous consent, and so does the Hon. Member for South West Nova (Miss Campbell), that some limited questions, in terms of time, be asked of the Minister. Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of his speech the Minister spoke of urgency. Indeed, the Newfoundland legislature, which has before it a similar Bill, is treating it as a matter of considerable urgency. I understand the Minister of Fisheries for Newfoundland is coming to Ottawa with the expectation of appearing before a committee this week. Would the Minister tell the House why the Government is not proceeding with this Bill tomorrow? As the Minister knows, his colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), announced today that tomorrow would be a designated Opposition day.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm to the Hon. Member, who is one of my distinguished predecessors, that this Bill is indeed a very high priority. The reason is very simple. Until it is passed, I am unable to invest the substantial
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act amounts of money needed to restructure those companies. Since that amount of money is fixed and cannot be increased, the longer we delay the longer we will have to pay interest rates to the financial institutions. Therefore, 1 urge the House to pass it very quickly.
With respect to the Hon. Member's question, I think I will have to relay it to my colleague, the President of the Privy Council. But I am sure that all Members will have ample occasion to prove their dedication to this Bill and have it passed this week if they want.


Miss Campbell:: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the House for the unanimous consent. My question deals strictly with the problem of the small, independent processors. I noticed that the Minister did mention them and I will be discussing this matter later when speaking to this Bill. However, in reference to page 3 of the agreement with the Province of Nova Scotia, why has the Minister not made any mention of the fact that there will be a multimillion dollar Nova Scotia fisheries developing program to assist the fishing industry in a major effort to assist the smaller sector of the fishing industry? I raise this because there are as many small companies hurting today as there are large companies. Although this Bill gives the Minister wide power to provide financial assistance to the large companies with restructuring, I do not see any provision in the Bill for the small companies.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very happy that my colleague, who is also Chairman of the parliamentary committee, has mentioned one particular clause of the agreement I signed with Nova Scotia. She is absolutely right. I could have told her of other very good agreements reached with the Government of Nova Scotia but the Speaker was pressing me to conclude.
The example given by the Hon. Member is one among others of things I am committed to do. The assistance I would like to give the small independent processors will go to all of them in all of Atlantic Canada. I see in the House my colleague, the Chairman of our subcommittee, the Minister of State for Economic Development (Mr. Johnston). We are committed to helping the independent sector in Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick and Quebec.
This Bill will enable the Department to establish a general program that will apply to all of the industry in Atlantic Canada. As well, those companies will have to put their marketing capability at the service of the independents who request it. I am also committed to signing an agreement on development of the fisheries of Nova Scotia with the Government of Nova Scotia.
Therefore, those are some of the reasons I think it is imperative that Members, particularly of the Official Opposition, give speedy passage to this Bill.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, 1 welcome the opportunity this afternoon to speak to Bill C-170, an Act to authorize investment in the Atlantic fisheries for the

November 14, 1983
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act
purpose of restructuring that industry. I do so more in sorrow than in anger, for the fishing industry over the years has been the hallmark of private enterprise. It was known as the one established industry which had been the hallmark of our private enterprise system and one that was established and survived because it was built upon what we in Atlantic Canada call wooden ships and iron men.
In my hometown of Lunenburg we are known as bluenosers. We carry that name with pride. We do so because it not only describes a breed of independent master mariners, it is also a name that was carried by the fastest sailing schooner in history, the Bluenose. It continues to sail on, on the back of Canada's ten-cent piece.
Our forebears worked hard to build up the fishing industry. They gave little quarter and asked for none. In the early days when codfish were caught, the fleet left port early in the New Year. The codfish were caught and brought back to port where they were dried in the sun. Later in the fall, these same codfish, now dried, were taken in the same ships that caught them out to the Caribbean where they were traded for molasses, salt, tropical fruits and sometimes even rum. Barter and trade was the order of the day. There was no thought of involving provincial or federal Governments in any of these operations, other than for the provisions of shipping and customs regulations.
All this has changed over the years. Many old mariners, or old salts as we like to call them, must be turning over in their graves today over the nationalization of Canada's fishing industry.
Despite what the Minister has stated, the Bill that is presently before the House calls for the total nationalization of the fisheries in Atlantic Canada, not just Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, but New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Quebec as well, as witnessed by the wording in the interpretation of that Act in Part II, page 2. If there are any doubts about this nationalization program, they are completely dispelled when we read of the immense powers that are being given to the Minister in paragraph 4 of page 3.
I know that the Minister does not like the nationalization term. However, the incontrovertible fact is that within one week $75 million was pledged for the fisheries in Newfoundland, and $70 million pledged for the fisheries in Nova Scotia by the federal Government alone. The provincial Governments added some $60 million and the Bank of Nova Scotia added an estimated $100 million under guarantees from the federal Government. It is no wonder that Mr. Kirby, who seems to carry more force and strength with the Government than the Minister, when commenting on what I call fisheries "mission impossible", is reported as saying, "Whatever happens now, what we have pulled off, namely restructuring the industry and at the same time creating a new federal fisheries policy, can never be undone". Is it any wonder that the private operators and Canadians generally, especially those in Atlantic Canada, are afraid?
Some people are asking when all this began. The Minister gave a good outline. According to the record on September 26, 1983, both the federal and provincial Governments in Newfoundland signed a restructuring agreement. They heralded it as the most significant agreement signed between the two Governments since Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949. Time, Sir, alone will tell. Then on September 30, 1983, a federal-provincial agreement was announced in Port Hawkes-bury indicating both Governments would co-operate in restructuring two major Nova Scotia deep sea fishing companies. When I read both agreements I could not help but be concerned for the people of Newfoundland, for the people of Labrador and for the people of Nova Scotia. I would remind the people of both Provinces that it was the Liberals who initiated a process that led to complete federal control over the salt fishing industry in Newfoudland, and that same process led to the destruction of two or more major salt fishing companies in the Province of Nova Scotia.
It seems to me that the present group of Liberals in office have now indicated a process that will ultimately lead to the complete takeover of the fresh and frozen industry in all of Atlantic Canada as well as Quebec. I am concerned because it is obvious that this Government cannot run the railroads. It cannot run the post office. It cannot even manage its own bureaucracy. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, and to this House that this Government cannot run the fishing industry because, more than with all the other industries in Canada, it requires the expertise, the initiative and the hard work of each and every individual connected with it.
The Minister may not look like the great white shark in the movie version of Jaws, but his teeth must be rather sharp because in the last few months he has gobbled up more fishing companies, enough to make Jaws look like a piker-perhaps since we are talking about fish I should say, a pike.
Both restructuring agreements contain a clause to the effect that the Governments intend to return the fishing industry to the private sector as soon as economic viability is achieved. Let me repeat, "As soon as economic viability is achieved". I would caution provincial Governments and private shareholders that granting this federal Government a major voting position on their boards of directors may introduce such inefficiencies into their companies' operations that privatization will become an ever receding goal, a mirage, a goal more difficult to attain as time goes on. If you have any doubts about that statement, Mr. Speaker, just look at what has happened to Canadair, to de Havilland, to Consolidated Computer and to other private companies taken over by this federal Government.
Our Party certainly recognizes the serious need for a restructuring of the fishing industry because many years of Liberal mismanagement have finally overwhelmed that industry and has left it no alternative. The Government is now forced to pour hundreds of millions of Canadian tax dollars into the fishery because the Government has failed, and failed miserably, to provide a consistent policy environment that
November 14, 1983

would allow private enterprise to flourish and provide meaningful jobs for Canadians.
To be factual, Canadian companies got into debt over their heads and provincial Governments licensed too many new fish plants. But I ask, who was behind it all encouraging this madcap expansion of the industry? None other than this federal Government. And if co-operative federalism had not been dead and if there had been greater consultation between federal Government and the Atlantic provincial Governments, this economic misery, heartbreak and heartache certainly could have been avoided.
With the fishery policy based more upon politics than upon sound resource management, the Liberal Government freely doled out fishing licences and it freely doled out DREE grants for plant construction and other largesse, can anyone really wonder that the Provinces, the fishermen and the companies took advantage of these handouts? So today our fishing industry is burdened with massive debts, constricted by government regulations and crippled by an inability to market all of its product.
One of the most important problems faced by Atlantic Canada's fishing industry today is, I submit, fear-fear of big government. In fact, the political influence on these new companies in Newfoundland and in Nova Scotia is today much greater than previous Government influence over the private companies. The Newfoundland super company, for example, is 85 per cent owned by Government. Eight of the 11 members of its board of directors are Government appointed. The chief executive officer is a joint appointment by both Governments. So-called significant corporate decisions are subject to the veto of the federal and provincial Governments.
Most critical of all was the fact that management must consult both Governments and the Governments consult with each other before the company's business plan may be submitted to the board of directors. Think about what 1 have just said, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure you will agree that this represents nothing more than confusion confounded.
The Minister told us of the companies he had bought out. But I ask him what did he pay the Lake group; what did he pay the Penny group; what did he pay the shareholders of Fisheries Products of Canada; what did he pay the Nickerson group for what was little more in many cases than co-operation for transferring their huge debts to the new company? Is it any wonder the secret methods that have been employed by this Government are causing independent companies and taxpayers some concern and many sleepless nights?
Throughout all of this confusion the Minister keeps saying, bragging in fact, that what he has established is not a new Crown corporation in Newfoundland or Nova Scotia. Of course, it is not. We understand that. Crown corporations have more independence than these new companies, including the ability to set up their own business plan. In a highly political industry, like the Fishing industry, this Government is more likely to be concerned about jobs and about votes than about economic viability. This is what is worrying us. We in our Party do not believe that this Government exhausted every
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act available possibility of securing equity capital, either from Canadians or from foreign interests, before nationalizing the Atlantic coast fishery. To follow this course would not fit in with this centrally minded Government that wants to control all Canadian industry. However, I am led to believe that private capital was available from Canadians-


Mr. Tobin:: Where?


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: -and from foreign countries, foreign interests, but little or no effort was made to tap these sources. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister calls out, where. I will take him aside some day and tell him something about the fishing industry.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Tell the House.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Through the work of its Foreign Investment Review Agency and its ideological hostility to private industry, both foreign and domestic, this Liberal Government has ironically left the Atlantic fishery with nowhere to turn for aid but to the federal Government that helped drive it to ruin in the first place. That, to answer my young friend, is why there was no foreign capital brought forward. Take the teeth out of the Foreign Investment Review Act and then see what happens to some foreign capital. In fact, I am confident that if a proper search had been made, it would be found that Canadian capital was available. After all, we are only talking here of a couple of hundred million dollars. That is peanuts in an industry the size of the one of which we are speaking, an industry that represents to foreign nations, to European countries and to the Americans, a massive resource that has not really been tapped.
In my opinion, it is only through a fundamental shift in Government policy that stability and certainty can be returned to the fishing industry, thereby creating an environment in which free enterprise can survive. Unless this is accomplished, Sir, and I say this in all seriousness, similar problems to those which this Bill seeks to address cannot be avoided. Moreover, without the creation of a more positive business environment, private investors, either Canadian or foreign, will not risk their capital in the Canadian fishing industry. Those who remain in the industry do not believe in this Government and they do not believe that the present Liberal Government is genuinely committed to the eventual privatization of the two new restructured companies. They believe that you are only making such statements to reduce opposition to your actions and to hide your real intentions which are, in effect, in time to nationalize the entire industry.
I will give this Government a way out. In the event that it is acting in good faith and wishes to allay the fears of smaller companies and wants to make the commitment to privatization meaningful, it must establish from the very beginning a clear schedule for divesting itself of ownership in the fishery. This schedule should either be written into this Bill or at least written into agreements with the Provinces. If the Government

November 14, 1983
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act wished to take the strongest step along these lines, it could commit itself to holding only non-voting shares in these companies.
Once this step is taken, the smaller processors and fishermen would no longer have the same fears about unfair Government-controlled competition. This would also have the effect of making investment in the two companies more attractive to private investors, because the two companies would be seen as private enterprises run along sound business lines.
As private investors bought the Government's shares, they could be turned into voting shares. This would ensure that the buying out of Government shares was an attractive investment. It would also ensure that the people of Canada would recover their money. They have a stake in this too.
Another approach would be to require by law that the Government annually sell, regardless of the price, 20 per cent of its shares to the public. This would ensure that at the end of five years the two companies would be fully privatized. At the outset, the Government would not recover its investment because the share prices would be low, but under that system there would be a requirement for them to make these companies economically viable and profitable. If they did that, by the end of a five-year term the increase in equity share value would give the Government back the money it is now putting in, which is what I call pump-priming money.
At the present time, our Party intends to support this Bill at the second reading stage. However, we want to make sure that there is a full hearing on the restructuring program in committee in light of the major changes that it threatens to impose upon the Atlantic fisheries, and in fact the entire Atlantic economy. In our opinion, the Bill raises more problems than it solves.
1 thought there were only 500 independents. The Minister told us today that there were 700 independents in Atlantic Canada who do not as yet come under the socialist umbrella of this Liberal Government. They are very reticent about making public statements about the effects of this restructuring plan. They fear reprisals-imagine, reprisals from the federal Government.
I asked them what were their fears. They said that the Province grants them a licence, but the federal Government has the right to carry out dredging operations in their area. It has the right to set the fishing quotas. It has the right to determine, yes or no, whether it will repair a decrepit federal wharf which has not been repaired since 1962 when the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker was in power. They fear that if they make objection to what is being done, there will be reprisals against them in that regard. This fear demonstrates that Canadians have lost some of their basic freedoms.
At present most of these independents are relatively sound financially. They quite rightfully ask how they can compete with this monstrous tax-supported Government-financed conglomerate. The bail-outs buried in this Bill and the secret agreements are not fair and they are not above-board. The federal Government is not a minority shareholder. No matter
what this Government calls its actions, in my view it is nationalization of the fishing industry. The big unanswered question is, what is the time frame for de-nationalization? Search as you will, you will not find the answer to that question in this Bill.
It is not my intention to pre-judge entirely the outcome of the restructuring that has taken place in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. I simply wish to remind the provincial Governments, the fishermen and the industry throughout Atlantic Canada and Quebec that negotiations have really just begun. There are many pitfalls ahead. For example, 1 cannot help but wonder how the Government proposes to develop a large cooked fish production line at Burin, Newfoundland, when the present plant in my home town of Lunenburg and the one at Lachine, Quebec, can supply the total Canadian demand for cooked fish products while operating at only 50 per cent capacity.
International tariffs on cooked fish are so high at present that these products cannot be exported. 1 remind the Minister that unless you increase the market for cooked fish products, any increase in employment in Newfoundland in this field will only be at the price of further unemployment in Nova Scotia and Quebec.
This, of course, cannot be considered progress in the industry. I cannot help but wonder as well what will happen to the fishermen and the industry which evolves around the large dragger fleet based just six miles from my home town in a small place called Riverport, Nova Scotia. The Minister stated today that a new company is being formed and these ships will be transferred. I wonder as well why that action is being taken. In light of what I have said, is it any wonder that the independents and the communities in which they are located are very much concerned? They have many sleepless nights over the many aspects of this Bill. The pressure on them is already taking its toll in different forms. They ask what will be the extent of their quotas and their licences and how they will replace their aging ships.
The banks have already given the independents a signal. They have cut back on loans to independents in the fishing industry. Instead of lending them 75 per cent of their working capital, they have been told to cut their loans to 50 per cent. This is literally putting some, not all, of the independents out of business.
I ask the Minister, what is in this Bill to protect the independents? 1 have read it from cover to cover and I see nothing. They are saying that if you are going to nationalize the fishing industry, take our business now while it is worth something. The independents are comparing the Liberal actions in this Bill to those they would expect in a police state. They are asking, who is going to pick up the losses for the restructured companies? What if these companies are not privatized? What if these companies are not run on a commercially viable basis? What is the Government's definition of economic viability?
The independents are asking, since those who have been inefficient are being bailed out, what are the rewards for those
November 14, 1983

of us who have been viable? Is this to be a society where the incompetent are rewarded and the competent are penalized? 1 would like to hear the answer to that question. They ask, are you, for example, going to reform the tax legislation for independent processors and fishermen and give them a better opportunity to write off some of their valid expenses and their excessive fuel costs?
I wonder how many in this House realize that a trip from my home town of Lunenburg, to the St. Pierre area and return costs $6,000 for fuel oil. A trip from that same port to the Hamilton Bank off Labrador costs double, or $12,000 in fuel oil. There has been no change. That almost doubles the landed cost of the catch for that crew of 18 men on a 150-foot ship. When is the Government going to recognize that and give these fishermen an opportunity to write off valid expenses and their excessive costs which are driving up their costs for landing fish and lowering their net return? When some of these questions are answered either in the House or in committee, we will all have a better understanding of this Government's real plans for the future of the Atlantic fishing industry.


The Acting Speaker (Mir. Blaker):: As I indicated earlier, there is no allowance for a ten-minute question and answer period following lead speakers. However, as I also indicated, if Members wish to seek unanimous consent for an exchange of questions and answers, the Chair will put that to the House.
Is there a wish on the part of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary that the Chair seek unanimous consent for questions to be put?


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and I thank Hon. Members of the House for allowing me this opportunity to ask a question. I ask this question bearing in mind the tremendous respect that I have gained for the Hon. Member opposite during the many hours we have shared on the fisheries committee. However, I have a great concern that the partisan nature of his speech would call into question an action which was deemed not only appropriate but absolutely necessary when introducing this Bill at this time.
I would remind the Hon. Member that, although he uses partisan phrases and describes this action as a form of nationalization or socialization, this Bill results from an agreement reached between the Government of Canada, the Government of Nova Scotia and the Government of Newfoundland. I think that that is all that needs to be said. However, if we must be partisan, Mr. Speaker, and I do not suggest we should not-


John Carnell Crosbie: Where is the question?
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act


Brian Vincent Tobin: I have a question. I do not suggest we should be partisan. I would remind the Hon. Member that two of those Governments are Conservative Governments. I would then ask my question quite seriously. We come to this stage of this Bill because there are no other options.


Some Hon. Members:: Question!


Brian Vincent Tobin: I say to the Hon. Member opposite that if he believes there to be private capital out there, I can assure him we would gladly avail ourselves of it before taking this action. Can he now tell us categorically where that private capital is?


Mr. McCain:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe that these last remarks constitute an abuse of a privilege extended by the House. Those remarks were debate much more than they were a question. I would be very happy to give unanimous consent to a question.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) and I waited as patiently as I could until he finally got around to asking his question. I regret that the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe was obviously not listening to what I said. I know that there is Canadian investment capital available and there is Japanese investment capital available to invest in the fishing industry. There is American capital that is willing to invest in the fishing industry, and those countries are afraid to invest on account of the teeth in the-


An Hon. Member:: Oh, the bogeyman.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: No, there is no bogey-man. The facts hurt those people opposite. They cannot stand the truth, and that is the trouble with them. I say through you, Sir, to the Members opposite that there is plenty of money available in Canada for investment in properly organized and taxed companies. However, there exists the heavy hand of the tax man who is so greedy for tax dollars that he must come down on the shares-men from a fishing crew at the rate of 60 per cent in order to get a few dollars to keep this decrepit and ailing Government operating. That is the problem, Sir. Change the Government, put us in power, and we will cut the teeth out of the Foreign Investment Review Act and see that that foreign money is invested in the fishing industry. We will privatize the industry at that time.


Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise and discuss what is certainly the most important fisheries legislation dealt with in this session of Parliament. The Bill has been placed before us at the end of this session and the House of Commons must deal with it with a certain amount of haste. It is a Bill of a mammoth nature that will affect Atlantic Canada and its fishing industry governed by the federal Government.
I believe that Hon. Members of all Parties understand the critical nature of a Bill that will provide $138 million to Atlantic Canada in terms of capital investment in Nova

November 14, 1983
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act Scotia, Newfoundland and the other Atlantic Provinces. However, Mr. Speaker, this Bill gives an all-encompassing power to the federal Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. De Bane) when dealing with almost all aspects of federal involvement in the fishing industry and therefore gives him both direct and indirect involvement in capital funding and control over the fishing industry. This Bill really does require a great deal more attention than the Government seems to be prepared to give to it at this moment.
It is necessary to proceed with this Bill because the future of the next fishing season in Atlantic Canada relies on it. If this Bill is not passed, if there is not a restructuring of the industry and if a board of directors is not appointed to the new companies in Altantic Canada, there will be a great deal of uncertainty about markets and our ability to sell the product that is harvested over the next year. As well, the matter of negotiations between the fishermen's unions and the company for contracts in Atlantic Canada depends upon this Bill and suppliers must know whether the debts that are owed to them at the moment will be repaid. There are a great many other uncertainties in almost every community in Atlantic Canada and hundreds and hundreds of those communities are dependent upon the fishing industry.
The restructuring of the Atlantic fisheries industry through the Kirby task force was done in a great deal of secrecy. We are dealing with a Bill that arises out of a task force that was set up on January 8, 1982. It is now almost January, 1984, and we in the House of Commons are expected to deal with a Bill without a great deal of past involvement.
Hon. Members of Parliament who represent ridings in Atlantic Canada have gone through two years of uncertainty when dealing with the fishing industry. Plants have been shut down and whole communities have been out of work for over a year in some instances. We must now in the next few days deal with a restructuring Bill which requires a great deal of debate and a great deal of input from the people who are most directly involved. I would include in those concerns the concern that was expressed by the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) for all of the smaller independent processing companies that do not have the same kind of economic debt as the major processing companies in Atlantic Canada.
The Hon. Member for South Shore indicated that the failure of the fishing industry is mainly the responsibility of the federal Government and the Liberal Party. 1 think there is a great deal of truth to that, but there are other failings in the industry in Atlantic Canada. I think it is worth while to look at those failings to see exactly where, if we must put blame, the blame must lie.
I believe that one of the things that led to over-capitalization in the industry was the tremendous expectations of the fishing industry when the 200-mile limit was declared. There were expectations of greater access to stock and therefore greater access to processing capabilities and markets. The economic recession in the 1980s certainly contributed significantly to a reduction in the amount of product that was sold and the prices that were paid to fishermen. Management decisions led
to over-capitalization, and those included management decisions made by companies that were attempting to meet their expectations in terms of greater quantities of product and access to a great deal of federal and provincial money to expand the processing capabilities and the harvesting sector. Those expectations and offers of assistance were taken up by fishermen and processors, resulting in over-capacity both in the harvesting and the processing sectors.
I believe that at that time, both the federal and provincial Governments were attempting to create greater employment in the industry and generate greater wealth in Atlantic Canada. However, the expectations were far too high to meet the capacity of the stocks that could be produced. As much as anything else, I believe that the failure of the Atlantic fishing industry can be related to the high interest rate policies that were supported by the Liberal Government when it did not attempt to put any controls on the rate of interest that was to be paid.
Basically, the previous Government followed that policy-a rate of interest set by the Governor of the Bank of Canada which followed United States rates. Those rates themselves had a great deal of effect on how much product in terms of the groundfish resource could be sold to the United States. It soon became apparent that the expansion had gone too far. Companies may have doubled their catch but they also doubled and, in some cases, tripled their debt. Companies had paid little enough attention to increasing the quality of their catch or improving their marketing strategies. This led to a decline in the ability to sell fish and the ability to support the economics of the industry. Again I think the interest rate freeze affected expansion and was a major problem for Atlantic Canada. Companies found it necessary to switch from the goal of expansion to contraction and began to close plants. That has been going on since 1981.
Unfortunately, as always, in areas where one industry dominates, dozens of communities in Newfoundland in particular and in the Maritime Provinces were locked into the economic well-being of these large companies. They were completely reliant on the continued operation of plants and fishing operations for their own economic health. The closure of plants and fishing operations was tantamount to a death sentence for many of these communities.
The Government's response was to launch the Kirby task force, which culminated in this Bill. The process of negotiating the restructuring agreements leaves much to be desired. As I indicated earlier, there was really very little input by Members of Parliament in the restructuring. Everything was done in secrecy. This led to many suspicions between Provinces, between Provinces and the federal Government and, more important, suspicions within the communities, with plant workers and fishermen themselves. The relations among fishermen processors, plant workers, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the provincial and federal Governments, strained at
November 14, 1983

the best of times, became more strained as a result of the way in which the negotiations were handled.
The Minister is quoted as saying that this was the hardest thing he had ever done in politics. Of course he was referring to the restructuring. I can well believe it, because as well as the incredibly serious and complex problems of the industry itself, the negotiations also had to contend with Governments that could not make up their minds on what they wanted, with one Department or Minister overruling another, with agreements signed then subsequently thrown out, with companies, especially Government-influenced companies like Fishery Products Ltd. controlled by CDC, doing everything they could to torpedo the negotiations.
Under these conditions, we are fortunate to have reached any kind of an agreement on Atlantic fisheries restructuring at this time. The fundamental difference of opinion was over the matter of priorities for the restructured companies. Some left that the number one priority should be the economic viability of the companies. Others felt that maximization of employment should take precedence. Unfortunately, I did not hear about any of the major parties taking a broad enough look at the role of the industry in the context of the economy of Atlantic Canada. They did not realize that these two objectives are not necessarily opposing forces, that depending upon one's parameters, both objectives can be achieved. It is only if one looks at the economic viability of the processing sector in isolation that it cannot include the concept of maximum employment. Unfortunately, if the company is in private hands or is intended to be returned to private hands, the only possible way it can be viewed is in isolation.
The joint agreement announced on September 26 by the Minister and Premier Peckford of Newfoundland and the subsequent agreement on September 30 with Premier Buchanan are far more responsible in this respect than the unilateral announcement of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans on July
4.
The federal Government's insistence on making economic viability its primary concern is somewhat disturbing, in face of the need in Atlantic Canada for massive employment in the fishing industry. I am pleased to see the clause in the agreement regarding the future of those plants which may be deemed uneconomic, although knowing the federal Government's attitude toward these plants in the past, the security of their future and of their communities, the clause leaves a lot to be desired. The most disturbing element of the agreements is the stated objective of returning these companies to the private sector once they have become viable. If the success of these companies is to be measured in such terms that it would be seen as viable to the private sector, then I am afraid that over time we would see the complete dominance of the concept of economic viability over maximum employment. Under the terms of the agreements, the economic viability of the company could be maintained very easily by dumping off its uneconomic elements to one or another of the Governments involved. Other companies do not have this option, so it could
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act be expected that the two new companies would certainly have a distinct advantage.
There is some question as to whether any of the other companies operating in the Maritimes or Newfoundland could stand up over time to the increasing economic and marketing dominance of these two super companies. Many of the smaller companies, as well as the Governments of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, have expressed their concern over the matter. I believe they have legitimate grounds for concern. This is a question which the Minister should address. He should give some assurance to smaller companies that they will not be forced out of the fishing industry in Atlantic Canada, particularly companies that have shown restraint and good management in their operations and have developed markets to continue ongoing employment for the communities in which they operate.
If the Government attempted to sell off its economically viable companies, would it not be essentially selling off a monopoly position in the processing sector of such an important and essential industry? There is no guarantee that both companies could not be acquired by the same buyer, nor is there any guarantee that controlling interests could not be sold to non-Canadian buyers. We in our Party would not like to see the Atlantic Canada fishing industry sold to foreign buyers, even if they were available, as the Hon. Member for South Shore seemed to indicate.
I am concerned about the position the Bank of Nova Scotia holds in these two companies. In the first place, the bank is in the business of lending money, and as such its allegiance is to its shareholders. It has little or no experience in the management of the fishing industry. It has no stake in the success of the industry in terms of the well-being of communities, only in terms of the dollar return on its investment. Yet, it has a veto power the same as that of the federal or provincial Governments when it comes to divestiture of company assets. The union, whose members have more stake in the success of the company than any of the other partners, has no such power of veto.
The Minister seems to be fairly proud of the agreements he has reached with the Provinces of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. Under this Bill he will essentially become the czar of the Atlantic fishing industry. It is all encompassing and gives almost total control to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The Bill will give the Minister authority to "acquire, hold or dispose of or otherwise deal with shares, debentures or other securities of, or any security interest in, any fishery enterprise". In other words, the Bill does not deal just with the restructuring of major groundfish trawler companies in Newfoundland and Nova Scotia-the agreements which have already been mentioned-but it applies to every fishing enterprise on the East Coast, from the super companies to individual fishermen and everything in between.
In addition to the $138 million specifically allocated and acquired for the restructuring agreements already announced and a further $100 million available for the provision of loan guarantees, Clause 5 of the Bill indicates that the Minister

November 14, 1983
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act may, on such terms and conditions as he specifies, make a contribution or loan to a fishery enterprise with no specified limits. Thus it can be seen that with this Bill the Minister acquires almost unlimited powers to become involved in or finance virtually any fishing enterprise in eastern Canada, at his discretion and on his terms.
I have outlined many of the concerns of our Party with this Bill and with the restructuring agreements it is intended to finance. The problems I have mentioned are all potential problems. They are of concern because very few safeguards are built into either the Bill or the agreements. However, these problems do not have to arise. The key is what the Government and its partners do with the powers they have given themselves. I want to make it clear that neither the Bill nor the agreements on restructuring, nor the extensive investigations into the problems of the East Coast fishing industry, have in any way solved the problems of either the industry or the communities dependent thereon. All they have done is to keep the industry alive. The key is what happens from here.
Mention was made in the agreements of such things as the Burin Peninsula development fund, in order to find alternative sources of employment and income for the area, and the northern development fund in Newfoundland and Labrador. If such programs are not initiated quickly and managed in such a way as to produce concrete results for the people of the area- and that includes at least involving the local people in the development and operation of the program-then all of the restructuring work will have been done in vain.
The new company can provide an opportunity for community development, the involvement of the fishing industry and the plant workers. Serious attention has not been paid to marketing in Atlantic Canada to its greatest extent. The new fish company gives us that opportunity, and an opportunity to face and meet a critical factor in selling the product we produce in Atlantic Canada. More attention must be paid to fish stocks and their enhancement. This also includes protection of the habitat, both marine and freshwater, and limitation or restriction of development in areas of sensitivity to these stocks.
It is not only the processing sector which is in severe crisis. The fishermen as well are in desperate financial shape and are in need of immediate help. Such piddling programs as the $15 million Canada works program announced on November 4 by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Roberts) will not even dent the surface of the problem. It is incumbent upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to embark now on a program aimed at improving the financial position of the individual fisherman, giving him at least as much attention as was paid to the processing sector.
A long-term plan of action must be developed with respect to the divestiture of the assets of these two super companies if, indeed, the Government is committed to returning them to the private sector. 1 would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that once these companies have been formed, it is very unlikely that there will
be the divestiture of these companies into private hands, as the Minister indicated this afternoon. I have already pointed out the danger of simply selling these companies off in a block to the highest bidder. To maintain the social benefits of public ownership, while still complying with the free enterprise objectives of the Liberal and Tory Governments and their partner, the Bank of Nova Scotia, plans should be developed for these companies to be turned over to the communities involved, in order to allow them locally and co-operatively to own and control the companies. That is the alternative to turning those companies back to the free enterprise companies which have, partly through their own mismanagement and partly through the mismanagement of Government, failed the East Coast fishing industry and many of those communities which are dependent upon them. Communities such as Burin and Grand Bank themselves have made some initiatives to attempt to get control of their fish companies and to operate them as a co-operative with input from fishermen and plant workers in the community itself.
Our Party, rather than seeing Government investment in the fishing industry, would prefer it be turned back into private industry hands if and when these corporations become profitable and investors are again interested in investing in the Atlantic fishery. We would be far more interested in seeing the possibility of co-operatives developed within Atlantic Canada which operate and control their own fishing industry and their own employment. This, of course, would require the development of local management expertise. However, given time, this could be done through our college and university networks with the development of marine colleges and by tapping the expertise already at hand in many of the communities in Atlantic Canada.
What I am advocating is a comprehensive approach to fisheries management which sees the industry not as an isolated enterprise, which must make it or break it on its own, but rather as an integral part of the social and economic way of life in Atlantic Canada. It can provide long-term economic security as well as satisfaction and social harmony.
We understand, Mr. Speaker, the nature of this Bill and the critical time frame under which we are operating with a Bill of this kind. It is really a Bill which will save many thousands of jobs in Atlantic Canada. We are disappointed that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has not been able to present us with the Bill sooner. He has not given us an opportunity to take the Bill through committee and deal with it in a way in which we could satisfy many of our constituents in Atlantic Canada who have some serious concerns about it. We also recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there are many people in Newfoundland, in particular, who are anxiously awaiting the passage of this Bill, and our Party will not do anything which would unduly delay the passage of Bill C-170. However, we do wish the Minister would be more forthcoming in the future with the House of Commons and the Fisheries and Forestry Committee in presenting us with the opportunity to deal with Atlantic Canada and western Canadian fisheries matters in more detail.
November 14, 1983


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I am aware that the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) has some pressing time requirements. I had indicated that perhaps he or someone representing his Party might consent to an exchange of speakers. At the moment, the Chair will have to recognize an Hon. Member to my right.


Fred Alward McCain: The Chair appreciates my problem with respect to time and I would ask for unanimous consent to be given consideration at this moment in time, despite the fact that it would involve the reorganization of speakers in the debate.


Mr. Simmons:: Mr. Speaker, I understand the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) will not be here on Thursday. I will yield my place in the order of speakers on the understanding that I will be the first speaker to be recognized on Thursday.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: That is agreed.


Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I do want to extend my very sincere appreciation for the consideration which has been given to me. I shall remember it and respect the Hon. Member concerned.
I suppose there is no way, Mr. Speaker, that anyone who has a distinct difference in principle with the philosophy of this Bill, can speak without being accused of being partisan. If principle and basic philosophy make me partisan, then that is what I am, and I acknowledge that before 1 begin my remarks. I am not a socialist. I do not believe for a minute that a Crown corporation of this magnitude can be established and can operate and manage more effectively and more efficiently than those who have had difficulties with the market, those who have had, for instance, generations of experience in the fishing business and who have floundered in their management practices. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, we will be hard-pressed as Hon. Members of the House of Commons, regardless of the side of the House on which we may sit, to find people with that kind of experience and knowledge of the market to make this a viable operation. From that point of view, I am partisan.
We are looking at more than 100 countries which represent possible marketing capabilities for us. We are looking at a multitude of different products, different trademarks, to which world trade has become accustomed. If we undertake a very major change in management under these circumstances, we may do more harm to our market structure than we may do good.
I look on this Bill, in reflection, as being one which might almost have come by design before this House, by choice of policy, because the policies of the Fisheries Department have not been conducive to the viability of the fishing industry at any level whatsoever. I come from a constituency in which fishing is one of the three major industries. It is not the only one, but it is one of the three major industries. I would like to give you an example of where I think the planning did not go
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act
as soundly as it should have. The Government of Canada encouraged everyone to have the highest possible expectations of the impact upon our economy of the 200-mile limit and the management thereof. The Government gave DREE grants to build two herring fillet plants in Carleton-Charlotte. These two plants required a minimum of 11-inch fish to be viably processed in their filleting operations. I guess that in the 11 years it has been my privilege to be here we may have had three or maybe four years in which the supply of herring of that size was adequate to maintain full operations of those two plants and the other plants already in existence. The history of the herring industry shows that the various schools of fish which develop in that ocean do not consistently give you the size of fish necessary to make those two plants viable in the long term. So the expectation was that, with the 200 mile limit, anything we do will be viable.
I come from a constituency in which there are communities whose only source of income is the fishery. Those communities have watched Minister after Minister impose regulation after regulation. They have watched those Ministers issue additional licences for the species fished by my island constituents, to the extent that we had to impose such catch limitation on the island fishery as to make it no longer viable. We now say we have too many fishermen after too few fish, when in fact it was not that bad 15 years ago. But with the extension of fishing privileges and the division of the species among other Provinces and fishermen, the herring fleet which pioneered the industry has now been constrained by regulation to the point where its viability is questioned, even with the 200-mile limit. These are the problems facing the fishing industry, and the area I represent is finding it very difficult to remain viable under those circumstances.
So these regulations have transferred from my constituency to other areas the fishing opportunities which historically belonged to those island communities. This is because in the Minister's office and among his personnel there is the belief that any regulation applicable to the Atlantic fishery is practical for all the Atlantic fishery, but that does not apply to the outports of Newfoundland, or the East and South Coasts of New Brunswick.
We have heard from the former Minister of Fisheries and Oceans that the expectations are such that the fishermen should buy a bigger boat, make a greater effort, put more capital into the plant because there are lots of fish and we are going to nourish and nurture all species. Therefore, there will be markets and you will be rich. But in the process of developing the 200-mile limit we issued international licences and extended to the international fleet the privilege of fishing in our waters, but we did not extract in return a single improvement for ourselves in any market in the world. There might be one possible exception, that of the over-the-side sale of herring. But when we did that, we also gave additional quotas to the Russian fleet in other species, which kept our people sitting on the shore, not working.

November 14, 1983
Atlantic Fisheries Restructuring Act


Mr. LeBlanc:: Species we did not use.


Fred Alward McCain: You will have your chance, Mr. former Minister, and 1 have mine. These things have happened.


Roméo LeBlanc: Speak the facts.


Fred Alward McCain: I am speaking the facts. In your remarks, Mr. former Minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, indicate a single market which has been improved, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) mentioned. Name a single market which has been improved for fillets or for cod. These things have not been improved. What happened? I agree we got larger catches, we expanded our processing capability, but we did not expand our markets, and therein lies the weakness in the policy which has brought us to this point and this legislation.
1 want to know, Mr. Speaker, why the hurry? The Government of Canada has put a gun to the head of the fishing industry of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia and said that this is the only way we will help resolve this problem. I submit that is not the way to solve anything, except, 1 suppose, in a very expensive fashion. The information I pick up is that the Provinces found themselves in such a desperate economic and social position that any proposition placed before them by the federal Government, after its mismanagement of policy, had to be accepted. I reiterate, Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friend from Nova Scotia has just said, I know there were people who would have invested private money to revitalize some, if not all, of the fishing industry had it not been regulated the way it is.
1 must now come to the independents. Virtually all of the New Brunswick fishery is processed by independents except for one or two branch plants of the Nickerson family of companies which had plants in New Brunswick. These people are giving exactly the same reports as you have already heard, namely that the banks are scared of the fish processing industry, and they will only extend their credit line to the value of 50 per cent of the processors' inventory. That is a one third cut, and 1 want to ask the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. De Bane), what pressure the Government of Canada is going to put on the banks, or what substitute is it going to offer to the processors who have been treated in this fashion by the banks? The banks are scared. They may be a participant, but once burned, twice shy, and these independents need all the credit they can get to function competitively. I have suppliers to the industry who are asking me questions about whether they, as an independent oil dealer, refiner or whatever, would have an opportunity to get the business of this Crown corporation. Or will they finds themselves out in the cold without even an opportunity to compete with the Crown corporation? Call it whatever you like, but it is controlled by a Crown corporation and the five directors of the board are appointed by the Government. Will the Minister assure us that this corporation will put its business out for tender, that the little guy who has been servicing and repairing boats, or maybe the medium-sized guy, is in fact going to have the same opportunity to tender for work under this corporation? Will it be independent of Government in its allocation of benefits to the supplier to the fishing industry? That is what so many people want to know.
The Minister has said we would be able to compete with any nation in the world. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the companies competing with other nations have run afoul of a great many competitors and run afoul of duties which we are still going to have to pay. As a matter of fact, there is strong reason to believe that we may have more difficulty in trading in some parts of the world with a Crown corporation than we would have had in the private world. The moneys which the Government may be pouring into this structure may make others look at us with a rather jaundiced eye, shall we say, because of the fact it is no longer an independent private industrial competitor but, rather, a government supported competitor.
These people have been the victim of another policy of Government, namely the interest policy. Few, if any, of the small industries in Canada have been able to cope. Those who required huge inventories, in a world oversupplied with product, could not afford the 20 per cent plus interest rates which they experienced, which started the decline and the unprofitable situation in which they find themselves. It was cost of capital as well as cost of operating capital that have, to a large degree, put them in this situation.
Mr. Speaker, 1 hope that we will not have a stream of independents coming before the fisheries committee of the House of Commons saying that they have been put out of business by this huge conglomerate which has been created by Government, as came to us from the western part of Canada in the case of the freshwater fisheries. In that instance, there was no opportunity for a private dealer and little opportunity for a fisherman who did not do business with the Crown corporation. Are we going to find ourselves with another corporation financed by the Government operating under comparable principles? My fishermen are concerned about their markets through their independents. My processors are concerned about the opportunity to do business. They are wondering what additional regulation they may be facing when this conglomerate begins to function.
Mr. Speaker, on this side of the House we are faced with an ultimatum. This is the only solution which the Government of Canada offers to put fishermen, processors, processing people, marketers and transporters back into business. This is the only way. This industry was not worthy of the same consideration as the Chrysler Corporation or Massey-Ferguson or even White or Maislin. 1 am very concerned that this industry was not given comparable treatment in view of the fact that it employs many times the number of people that were employed by Ferguson, White, Chrysler and Maislin all put together. We are going to nationalize this in virtually every situation and we are going to compete with the little guy. What the opportunity will be for the little guy has not been clarified.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am partisan because my philosophy tells me that this is not the route the Government should have followed. This is a palliative which is being applied to the
November 14, 1983

Western Grain Transportation Act
fishing industry too late. This is a predictable situation which any businessman who had been in the fishing industry would have told you was going to happen. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have to support it because we have so many people that would otherwise be totally out of work and without any opportunity. We are voting for a social reason, but if this company is operated as a social company for social purposes, then all the fears of all the independents are very, very real. The catastrophe with which we are dealing now is minimal as compared to the catastrophe that we will have to deal with if we operate this as a social operation. That would be very alarming.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: I indicated earlier to the House that an exchange of speakers had taken place. I would like to remind Hon. Members that on Thursday the Chair will recognize two Members to my right seriatim because of having accommodated earlier the Hon. Member for Carleton-Char-lotte.


WESTERN GRAIN TRANSPORTATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 4, consideration of the motion of Mr. Axworthy that Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and do pass; and the amendment of Mr. Mazankowski.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker);: It being 5.45 o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Friday, November 4, 1983, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the amendment to the motion for third reading of Bill C-155, an Act to facilitate the transportation, shipping and handling of western grain and to amend certain Acts in consequence thereof. Call in the Members.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Shall I dispense with the ringing of the bells?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a serious point of order to raise with respect to what I conceive to be errors in Hansard- in recording votes at report stage which I think should be put on the record now so the Chair might examine my observations overnight and perhaps comment tomorrow. Before doing so, though, I noticed there was a second member of the animal kingdom who rose with the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). Both were stuffed and I was wondering which vote was counted.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: In the recording of the report stage votes in Hansard of Thursday, November 3, in group C the Speaker read "90A" but Hansard recorded it as "98". This is at page 28709 at the bottom right-hand corner. Thus Motion No. 90A is not recorded as having been mentioned. Motion No. 90A is
November 14, 1983

the amendment of the Hon. Member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) to Clause 43 on the rate freeze.
Secondly, in group E the Speaker called out "160A" but Hansard reported it as "168", which is on page 28712. Motion No. 168 was already voted upon and read into the record in group A on page 28707, thus Motion No. 168 is recorded as having been read twice by the Speaker. Motion No. I60A is missing from Hansard, which motion is the Government amendment to Clause 59 establishing the inquiry into the method of payment. However, Sir, the actual recording of
Western Grain Transportation Act votes do indicate "90A" at page 28745 and "160A" on page 28768 as having been voted upon.
1 leave that with the Chair and the Table for their observations tomorrow.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 appreciate the effort of the Hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in bringing these matters, which are serious, to our attention and they will certainly be investigated.
It being 6.30 p.m. the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, November 15, 1983