1973-07-05

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders in the two official languages-Mr. Duquet.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings]

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity arises from the revelation today that housing starts for the month of May dropped to 263,000 from 278,000 in the same month last year, in flat contradiction of the bland assurances given by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier):
That this House
(1)	invites the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to explain his statement made on television last night that the $100 million which he proposes to allocate to the Federal Mortgage Exchange Corporation would be used for the building of houses when, as the minister knows, these moneys have no such legislative purpose; and
(2)	instructs the government to take immediate steps to ensure that mortgage money is available to Canadians at an interest rate not exceeding 7 per cent.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.


SUGGESTED INCREASE IN MONEY ALLOCATED TO FAMILY PLANNING AND VENEREAL DISEASE CLINICS- REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43.
In view of the rapid increase in the rate of venereal disease in Canada, which rose by 12.5 per cent during the period 1970-1971 and 20.7 per cent during the period 19711972, and in view of the increasing need for family planning facilities and education and the inadequacies of federal funding in this area-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has to take exception to the kind of motion which the hon. member is now proposing to the House under the terms of Standing Order 43. I suggest to the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), and other hon. members who propose such motions, that they are entirely out of order when they contain argument, when they are debate or when they propose to give information or factual details to the House. Hon. members know what the feeling of the Chair is in relation to what I think is an abuse of Standing Order 43 in a general way. I am not making a particular reference to the motion proposed by the hon. member, but I think an effort should be made by hon. members to indicate what the subject matter of the motion is without debate and argument.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will now propose the motion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That this House immediately increase the amount of money allocated to family planning centres and venereal disease clinics by the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Mr. Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent, so the motion cannot be put.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, keeping your words in mind and not wishing to try your
5314

July 5, 1973
Protein Feeds
patience, I have a very parsimoniously worded motion under Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that Pacific rim nations have felt the effects of radioactive fallout resulting from the nuclear explosion by the People's Republic of China, and in view of the fact that the Republic of France apparently intends to ignore World Court opinion and explode atmospherically a nuclear bomb in the South Pacific which would further jeopardize the world environment and increase world tensions, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House urge the government to despatch a Canadian Armed Forces vessel to join those of New Zealand and Australia in a symbolic peaceful anti-nuclear protest.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I agreed yesterday to make a statement on the oil seed and protein feed situation.
Our assessment is that over-all protein supplies for livestock and poultry will be adequate until the new crop. As a result of action by the United States, our supplies of soybean meal will be less than normal and substitutions will have to be made.
Considerable information has been assembled on supply and export commitments, but more accurate figures will be available respecting export plans when my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie), has received actual details on contracts. Such information has been requested from all exporters. The deadline for transmission is midnight tonight, July 5, 1973.
Apart from soybeans and soybean meal, we are optimistic that we will be able to export previously contracted normal supplies to traditional customers.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the minister's statement is very much appreciated, but somewhat ambiguous. It is very difficult to understand how it will be possible to export protein material according to prior contracts made and at the same time suggest there will be limited supplies, perhaps not enough, of protein from soybean to look after the protein requirements of the livestock industry.
It would be necessary for the government to state it would be prepared to see that proteins of all kinds will remain in Canada in adequate supply to make it possible for the livestock industry to fit it to its normal production rates, particularly in view of the present price of foods.

Meat production costs cannot do anything but adversely affect meat prices in an already expansive market.
The minister did not say anything with regard to the protein sources which come from the fishing industry, such as herring meal and fish meal, but it seems these must have been included in the normal export structure mentioned in the latter part of his statement. It might be necessary under the circumstances for the government to give further consideration to a restriction on commitments of export of protein material in the fish meal area. We sincerely hope that when this inventory is made, the total protein requirement, including the actual requirement from vegetable sources, will be protected for Canadian customers and producers throughout this land in the interest of the consumers of Canada.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief. The statement by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) is that the supply of protein products in this country will be adequate until the new crop year. I hope that not only the supply of protein in this country will be adequate, but the price the farmer has to pay for those supplies because of the United States embargo will not become sky high. This not only affects the farmers in terms of their own business of producing poultry, livestock and so on, but it affects the consumers because of what they have to pay for these products at the retail level.
I hope the minister can guarantee not only an adequate supply of soybean and protein materials, but that they will be available to the farmer at a decent price so the effect on the consumer will be minimal. I also think the government and the Minister of Agriculture should protest loudly to the United States against the embargo they have placed on the export of soybeans to Canadian mills to the great inconvenience of farmers and consumers.
One other thing is very clear. It is the need in this country for the orderly marketing of all grains, and I cannot let this opportunity pass without suggesting to the government that the time has now come to put all grains under the control of the Wheat Board so that all grains may be subject to orderly marketing. If this had been done earlier, we probably would not find ourselves in a situation such as exists today.
[ Translation]


Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, we thank the minister for making a statement as he had promised. Still, there is one thing we fail to understand. The minister says the reserves will be adequate until the next crop and, at the same time, that this year's crop will not be as bountiful as he had expected.
I cannot understand that point of view, seeing western Canada has had the reputation in the last few years of being the world's second granary. I fail to understand why the minister did not convince farmers that the production of proteins is profitable, and encourage them to seed more protein grains that might be obtained at a reasonable price, and that the consumers might not have to face another increase in food prices next year.
To my mind, the minister's statement is a prelude to a probable increase of a few cents in the cost of red meats next year.
July 5, 1973

[ English]


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Terry Grier (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough West, under the provisions of Standing Order 43:
That this House instruct the Minister of Communications to order the government telecommunications agency to halt the installation of PBX equipment in the new manpower offices at 2180 Yonge Street in Toronto now being undertaken by supervisory personnel of Northern Electric whose employees are engaged in a legal strike.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion of the hon. member cannot be put.


FARMERS' CREDITORS ARRANGEMENT ACT
Mr. Speaker:: I should like to say to the hon. member for Peace River that some aspects of the bill he proposes for the consideration of the House have perplexed the Chair, but after due reflection I think it might be put for consideration at this stage of the proceedings.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-209, to amend the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act.


Mr. Hees:: Explain!


Gerald William Baldwin: I thank Your Honour for giving me the benefit of the doubt with regard to the bill. Very briefly, it is one whose purpose is to reinstate legislation passed by a former Conservative government but allowed to lapse. It would provide a remedy for efficient, producing farmers who because of inclement weather, high interest rates or other disasters, are unable to meet their payments as they fall due, and would provide for the orderly payment of their debts as is done in the case of businessmen under the provision of the Bankruptcy Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Motion to Adjourn

Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport) moved: the first reading of Bill S-9 (from the Senate), to enable Canada to comply with a Convention on the International Recognition of Rights in Aircraft.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


NATIONAL PARKS ACT
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: the first reading of Bill S-4 (from the Senate), to amend the National Parks Act.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the prevailing uncertainty concerning oil and gas in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimous-ki (Mr. Allard):
That this House adjourn immediately pursuant to Standing Order 26, first, to consider the possibility of building a pipeline which would bring petroleum products to eastern refineries which are dangerously dependent on imported oil; second, to make adequate studies on the storage of natural gas and oil in the context of a storage policy so as to better serve eastern Canada and make reserves to remedy any shortage stemming from an international crisis with other producer countries; and third, to find new financial facilities at a reasonable rate of interest to assist the financing of this great undertaking and prevent an increase in consumer prices.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given the chair notice of his motion to adjourn under Standing Order 26. I must first tell him that I have some reservations about the form of the notice of motion he has given the chair as well as of that which he now proposes to bring before the House. I would remind him of the provisions of Standing Order 26(2) and (3), to the effect that an hon. member who moves that the House adjourn under the said Standing Order should briefly indicate the matter he wishes discussed.
As the hon. member knows, it is not the importance or the urgency of the question itself that the chair must

July 5, 1973
Oral Questions
consider when making a decision in a case such as this, but rather the urgency of the debate.
I would remind the hon. member that this subject has already been considered by this House last June 12, under Standing Order 58. I recall as well that the hon. member also proposed that the House adjourn about the same time, in mid-June, essentially to discuss the same question.
The hon. member for Compton will realize that under these circumstances it is difficult for the chair to accept a motion to adjourn for the purpose of debating a topic considered urgent, when it has already been debated and considered by the House only last month.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is the government prepared to institute a public inquiry into the harassment of the ITT Company last autumn by an official of the Liberal party, a director of the party in Ontario? I ask the question in light of the fact that this company or a company associated with ITT received a DREE grant in the amount of nearly $14 million, and has received the award of a $70 million contract for the purpose of mechanizing the post office.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention of the government to launch such an inquiry or investigation as the Leader of the Opposition mentioned.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the acting Prime Minister whether he or a responsible minister in the government have conducted an inquiry, or whether the Acting Prime Minister is prepared to deny that this official did, in fact, repeatedly put pressure on this company to contribute during the campaign?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, all the information I have is what appeared in the newspaper this morning. As I understand it, there was no official involved in any alleged harassment, unless there were officials of the Progressive Conservative Party.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, that was a remarkably weak thrust on the part of the hon. gentleman. As a final supplementary, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether it is the view of the government that a person whom it has been alleged did exercise such pressure against the company to contribute to party funds is appropriate as an assistant to a minister in that government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the Leader of the Opposition would accept as solid evidence what appeared as a speculative story-


George Harris Hees: Just answer the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and would be prepared to take, without further confirmation or denial, a story which appeared in the press. The view of the government with regard to election financing generally, the solicitation of funds and their disclosure, is now before the House in the form of a bill. The debate on that bill would probably be the quickest way to have an opportunity to discuss this other matter.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Acting Prime Minister. Does the Acting Prime Minister consider that the election funds which the government was able to collect from certain United States corporations were good value for the concessions the government made to those same corporations?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South on a supplementary.


SUGGESTED LEGISLATION TO MAKE UNITED STATES SUBSIDIARIES OBEY CANADIAN LAW AND OBVIATE SOLICITATION OF FUNDS BY POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, if the acting Prime Minister is not willing to make an inquiry into the subject, may I ask him whether the government is considering introducing legislation immediately that would require subsidiaries of United States corporations to obey Canadian instead of United States law so that political parties will not again go begging to multinational corporations for political assistance.


George Harris Hees: Or multinational unions.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not an authority on the question of campaign finances, as is the member who just asked the question-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -but we will have an opportunity when the election expenses bill comes before the House to deal with that particular aspect of campaign financing which it will be possible to discuss within the bill.


POSSIBLE AGREEMENT ON TIME LIMITS ON DISCUSSION OF ELECTION EXPENSES BILL
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary question arising out of the Acting Prime Minister's answer. I ask him this question in his capacity as President of the Privy Council. Will he take steps immediately to continue his attempt to get a limitation of time for the consideration of the election expenses bill so that its passage may be expedited? I hope that in view of what we are now discussing all parties in the House will agree to time limits as did our party.
July 5, 1973


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am ready to have this bill dealt with, if possible, prior to the summer adjournment in all its stages. But what I would like to have is some understanding among the parties that we will send it to a committee after a relatively short debate, and if the committee finds it possible to deal with the bill quickly, it should be sent back here and given third reading. Subject to the wish of the committee itself as to what amendments may be considered, and given an agreement on time, it would be possible to have this bill become law before we rise for the summer adjournment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE USE OF FOREIGN TAKEOVERS LEGISLATION TO APPLY PRESSURE TO COMPANIES TO DONATE TO POLITICAL PARTIES
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can he assure the House that the foreign takeover bill will not be used in a manner which would apply leverage in obtaining political donations from companies such as ITT?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will appreciate that the question put in these terms is out of order. The hon. member for Peace River.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Perhaps I could then ask the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member had the floor to ask a question. He asked a question which was out of order. I now recognize the hon. member for Peace River.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I will recognize the hon. member for Trinity in a short while, but I now recognize the hon. member for Peace River.


ALLEGED SOLICITING OF FUNDS FROM ITT BY OFFICIAL OF LIBERAL PARTY-REQUEST THAT OFFICIAL APPEAR BEFORE COMMITTEE
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the President of the Privy Council. In view of these disclosures which have been negatived by the government, will the Acting Prime Minister do his best to ensure that when the bill does receive second reading, which I do not think will take too long, these officials in question who were soliciting funds in the United States will appear before the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: And will the Acting Prime Minister undertake that such amendments as will be deemed essential as a result of the disclosures, which I am sure will take place, will be made to this bill?


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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: When the committee meets to deal with the bill it will have an opportunity to decide which witnesses will be useful to it. I would simply like to clarify a point. When the hon. member used the expression "officials" he obviously referred to officials of the various political parties and not to officials of the government.


Mr. Bell:: It's the same thing.


Gerald William Baldwin: We don't want any Watergate here.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him whether he has yet made a decision on the request of the Canadian Airline Employees Association to prosecute Air Canada for failing to bargain with that union?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, there are negotiations between the union and Air Canada, and I do not see why I should intervene at this stage in the proceeding.


David Orlikow: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My question was directed to the Minister of Labour. There is provision under the federal law for the union to ask for that right. They have asked the minister for permission. I am asking the minister whether he has yet considered it and what his answer is.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, my answer to the hon. member is that a mediator, a senior official of my department, is meeting with the parties this afternoon. I am awaiting his report before deciding what further action to take.


ALLEGED THREAT BY AIR CANADA AGAINST NON-UNION EMPLOYEES-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
David Orlikow: I should like to ask the minister whether he will have the officials of his department in Winnipeg look into charges that Air Canada employees who are not unionized have been directed to do the work which was done by people on strike and have been threatened with dismissal if they do not take on that work?


John Carr Munro: I expect information on this very point today or tomorrow.

July 5, 1973

Oral Questions AIRPORTS
that it has no jurisdiction to interfere in the location of oil ports on the St. Lawrence?
MIRABEL-RIGHTS OF EXPROPRIATED PEOPLE TO	Mr. Davis: No, Mr. Speaker.


ARBITRATION-MINISTER'S POSITION
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Since there seems to be significant differences between the prices paid or estimates of sums to be paid to land owners or owners of landed property for lands of identical or equal value, in order to make room for an airport at Mirabel, Quebec, could the minister tell this House on what criteria the Department of Transport officials base their estimations to cause so much inconvenience to the people to be moved out of this area?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me the hon. member is asking the minister information that should normally be given when motions are called. I do not believe that the question asked in this way is in order. The hon. member might perhaps ask the question in some other way.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, since there are disparities or differences in prices for those who are expropriated, can the minister ensure the House that he will carry on an investigation with the officials responsible for the expropriations in order to ascertain if there has been injustice in many cases as indicated in the complaints we receive at our offices?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, those appraisals are made by appraisers employed by the government. However, if the member who asks that question can demonstrate to the House that properties of similar value have been paid at different prices, I am prepared to answer that.


HARBOURS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the collision yesterday between two vessels on the St. Lawrence River resulting in an oil spill, and in view of the fact that there is a proposal for the building of supertanker ports upstream from the point of collision, can the minister tell the House whether the federal government will make a final determination as to whether these ports will be built?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that this matter will be worked out between the province of Quebec, the federal government and the various government agencies concerned.


John Allen Fraser: In view of the minister's answer, can he advise whether the federal government takes the position


PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF SUPERTANKER PORT ON ST. LAWRENCE RIVER-LEVEL OF PRIORITY OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS IN DECISION MAKING
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question with regard to the construction of oil ports on the lower St. Lawrence River. Would the Minister of the Environment inform the House as to what level of priority environmental considerations have in the decision making process now taking place within the federal cabinet?


John (Jack) Davis: I am
sure that the environmental considerations will be weighed along with the economic considerations.


MANPOWER
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. Can he explain what steps are being taken to arrive at a decision on the contemplated opportunities for people program, what the criteria are, and how members of parliament can participate in this crucial decision which may make permanent the federal government's underwriting of make-work projects?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that again the hon. member is asking a question which is so general in terms that it should be answered by way of a statement on motions. I suggest that the hon. member's question is much too wide in scope. Perhaps he might rephrase it and ask it in a more specific way.


Douglas Roche: I will be glad to rephrase it, Mr. Speaker. I asked a similar question about a month ago, and I am returning to it today because the government has not given us an indication of how the decision will be arrived at regarding permanent make-work projects which will cost this country millions of dollars and in which I want to participate.


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, there is a presumption in the hon. member's question. The fact is, as I indicated a month ago, the government is working on a merger of OFY and LIP programs and relating them to other programs of a similar kind and that work is proceeding.


Douglas Roche: I wonder if the minister would tell the House when the LIP and OFY programs are to be evaluated? Would he tell us what is the chief criteria, namely
July 5, 1973

their success in reducing unemployment figures or the social value to the communities of the projects themselves? '


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest this should be part of the statement which the minister perhaps will table later in the House.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, the head of the government being absent, I want to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council.
Since Ambassador Gauvin should be back from Viet Nam within a few days, could the minister ensure the House that Mr. Gauvin will appear before the Committee on External Affairs and National Defence given evidence particularly on the situation of political prisoners in Viet Nam and on all the circumstances and actual reasons surrounding the recent disappearance of Captain Thomson and Captain Patten?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, certainly I have no objection to the ambassador appearing before the committee if the committee wished to hear evidence. I understand that the committee in the past has had clear sailing so far as the calling of witnesses before it is concerned.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the importance to Nova Scotia of the swordfishing industry, would the Minister of the Environment inform this House whether an agreement has been reached covering the sale of swordfish to Japan, the tonnage that country wishes to buy, and whether there has been any change in the policy of the United States government covering the sale of swordfish in that country?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, swordfish cannot be sold in the United States because of the low mercury tolerance level imposed by the U.S. food and drug agency. In overseas countries including Japan and West Germany there is no such limit and exports from Canada are possible.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question. In view of the fact that shipments to Japan are possible, would the min-
Oral Questions
ister now answer my question? Would he indicate the tonnage that Japan is now seeking to purchase in Canada and, in view of the fact that the Japanese would appear to be no longer concerned about the amount of mercury in swordfish, would the minister agree to removing the ban on the sale of this fish in Canada?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, the Japanese have never placed a ban on swordfish. It has been a matter of price. I do not know the precise tonnage figures but I hope they are large.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Since my urging under Standing Order 43 a moment ago that Canada actively support New Zealand and other Pacific rim nations in their peaceful antinuclear protest which was declined by the government side, I ask whether or not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would count on the cooperation of hon. members and I would think that a preface of this kind is not necessary. The hon. member can ask the question directly.


Mark Willson Rose: I shall move directly to my question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the government of Canada is considering any other initiatives on this matter such as sending a Canadian Forces vessel into the area, perhaps including a cabinet minister aboard to lend weight to the protest.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: So long, Don,


An hon. Member:: If you want weight, put them all on.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, we have not as yet given consideration to this possibility, but we will try to consider which minister would provide the most weight.


Mark Willson Rose: On a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, I approach this matter with great seriousness because this is exactly what New Zealand has done. I should like to ask the minister whether, if some of the opposition members volunteered to go on board such a vessel, some cabinet minister weighty enough or expendable enough might accompany us?

July 5, 1973
Oral Questions FISHERIES


FISH OIL AND PROTEIN-INQUIRY AS TO POSSIBLE BAN ON EXPORT
Fred Alward McCain: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Since the export of protein and vegetable oils has been prohibited or restricted by the government on an emergency basis, can the minister clarify the position of the fish protein and oil producers in respect of export on the basis of prior contracts, and if there is a restriction relating to these products how long will the uncertainty prevail?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this would require an elaborate answer and I will get it for the hon. member as soon as I can.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware that the shuttle service of an international airline working out of Montreal to New York is charging two separate fares and Canadians travelling on that line have to pay two different fares at different times?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware but I am going to inquire and confirm or deny.



AIRPORTS


Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. Following his long awaited meeting of this morning, can the minister now advise whether the government is planning to delay any expansion of Mount Hope airport or expropriation of lands for that purpose for at least 18 months?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I did meet a delegation this morning and I think we had a very fruitful meeting. They inquired as to what kind of construction we were going to make at the Mount Hope airport at Hamilton-not Port Hope but Mount Hope. We said we were going to improve the facilities this year, and next year we are not going to do anything except acquire land if we think it suitable to do so.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the minister for realizing it is Mount Hope. I should like to ask, if the minister is only planning what he has just stated and what he indicated at this morning's meeting, why the estimates of his department for the current fiscal year show that $14 million will be spent? Is that amount neces-

sary for the limited kind of activity that the minister has just described at Mount Hope?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I said we were going to spend, I think it is $600,000, this year on the facilities, and next year we will have to acquire land. In the meantime, I promised the people that I was going to meet with them or other groups that are interested. If we do not do any construction work the amount will be used another year, that is all.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the minister's statement this morning, and in order that Canadian farmers may not depend solely on imported soya beans or imported protein, would the minister tell the House whether he would make more money available for research on high protein feed grains or other sources of protein for Canadian farmers to use?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, our research programs for other crops that may be a source of protein, like faba beans, may be expanded, but I think our programs are second to none compared with what other countries in the world are doing.



FINANCE


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the recent statement by the minister that there is an adequate flow of mortgage moneys, especially those allocated to housing, and in view of the recent increase of the mortgage interest rate by the Bank of Nova Scotia to 93A per cent, would the minister contact the bank to have them roll back the high interest rates they are charging?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: No, Sir.



AIR CANADA


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is probably best directed to the Minister of Transport. Given the urgency of Air Canada's re-equipment program or the augmenting of the fleet that Air Canada indicates it wants in operation by next summer, is there going to be any undue delay in terms of

government decision or consideration of Air Canada's purchasing plans for 30 Boeing 727-200 series aircraft?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. gentleman, I read the newspaper this morning but I had no official communication with Air Canada concerning this purchase. As soon as I have a report, I will give the decision.


J. Michael Forrestall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if I might ask the minister whether he is now indicating to the House and to the Canadian aviation industry that there is in fact not an interdepartmental committee considering, not only this purchase, but indeed probably upward of $2 billion of equipment that we will have to buy in terms of aircraft either from the United States or from some source, say over the next 18 months or two years, which will include military equipment.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that as far as Air Canada is concerned, the decision to buy new equipment is made by Air Canada and not by the department.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East on a supplementary. Hon. members, on looking around the House, will notice that there are some 30 members or more seeking the opportunity to ask questions, and we will be running short of time if there are too many supplementaries.



INQUIRY AS TO EXISTENCE OF INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON THE PURCHASE OF AIRCRAFT

J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might direct a supplementary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and ask him whether his departmental officials are involved in an interdepartmental study with respect to the purchase of aircraft, for whatever purpose, both military and Air Canada use, from some source over the next 18 months or two years, particularly since this might have some implications with respect to the balance of trade.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot confirm this with respect to Air Canada, but I certainly can with respect to military aircraft.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and ask if he would agree to amendments to Bill C-132, to provide an appeal to the courts from all
Oral Questions
decisions, including those of significant benefit, in order to ensure that there can be no hint of impropriety with respect to the operation of the act.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, we will have a full opportunity this afternoon I think in the standing committee to discuss all aspects of Bill C-132.

[ Translation]



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
As recently as yesterday, people again blocked the transport of 50,000 CIP cords of lumber which were to be floated down to Gatineau. Is the minister in a position to tell us whether the 165,000 cords of lumber involved are included in the deal concluded among Quebec, Ottawa, TEMBEC and the CIP?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the federal government is concerned, the answer is no. The corporation was composed entirely of the province of Quebec and its agencies, as well as the promoters of the Tembec project. I, therefore, am not in a position to answer the hon. member in detail with regard to the ownership of the wood, but I will be glad to make inquiries and report to him.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that the chairman of the conciliation board considering the dispute between the "non-op" employees and the railways is now preparing his report, and in view of the potential consequential strike that could ensue from it, I would ask the minister if he can assure the House that he will discuss this matter with the chairman of the conciliation board, to assure that the report will be brought down before parliament recesses for the summer.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is aware of the process that must be resorted to, which is enshrined in the statute. I think an able mediator was appointed. There is an able conciliator. The chairman of the conciliation board, in this case Mr. Justice Munro, and the other two members, I think have discharged their duties responsibly under the statute and I expect the report as soon as it is completed.
Oral Questions FINANCE

July 5, 1973



INCREASE IN MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT ACTION TO REDUCE

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that housing starts, contrary to all his recent assertions, when compared with the month of May of this year and the month of May last year, dropped off by some 15,000 units, one of the reasons for that no doubt being the high interest rate, which puts lots of people out of the market, would the minister give some assurance to the House that the government will take some action to bring down interest rates on mortgages.


John Napier Turner: I think the hon. gentleman will find the figures I have been reciting to the House on a yearly basis are right. He has taken them month over month. We will look at the June over June figures, when they arrive.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. I will ask the Acting Prime Minister if he would undertake an inquiry into the use of the certified document used in court by the Cape Breton Development Corporation, which is directly opposed to the written and expressed views of Tom Kent.


George Harris Hees: Who was Tom Kent?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I will undertake to discuss the matter with my colleagues, to see if there is any way we can provide a suitable answer to my hon. friend.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, would the Acting Prime Minister give the same consideration and the same defence to me as he has to the other Maclnnis who is involved, as this seems to concern him more than the Cape Breton miners?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that the minister stated recently that he and the previous minister of agriculture had implemented most of the recommendations of the royal commission on farm machinery prices, and in view of the fact that since that time farm machinery prices have been spiralling upward, would the minister indicate whether he intends to take
any other action to reduce or stop this upward spiral in the cost of farm machinery.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are keeping a constant eye on increases in prices of lots of commodities. If all other commodities had gone up as little as farm machinery, which has gone up, on an average, by 1.1 per cent, there would not be anything to worry about.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Some weeks ago the minister indicated that plans were afoot to improve terminal No. 2 of Toronto international airport. Would the minister report to the House now on those plans and what action he has taken?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered this question in the House the other day.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In view of the fact that the minister's report on northern Ontario recognizes a history of a lack of secondary industrial development, and those of us in the north realize that the high freight rates discourage such development, is it the minister's intention to undertake a review of the freight rate system, to encourage manufacturing industry to locate in northern Ontario.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is part of the plan and it is a matter on which a working party composed of provincial, that is Ontario, officials and federal officials are holding discussions and meetings.



AIRPORTS


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that the minister has had many representations from the owners of small aircraft concerning the recent announcement of aircraft landing fees at Canadian airports, has the minister reconsidered the structure of

July 5, 1973

changes his department announced or, in fact, the elimination of these charges.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that was re-evaluated by the standing committee. I stated that the regulations would be implemented only from October 1. As far as the rest is concerned, if there is any reason to make any modification to the proposed regulation, I will inform the House.



BANNING OF PERTUSSIN IN UNITED STATES- AVAILABILITY IN CANADA OF AEROSOL SPRAY CONTAINING TRICHLOROETHAN

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and ask him whether, in view of the recent banning of Pertussin aerosol sprays by the United States Food and Drug Department in the treatment of respiratory problems, this being the suspected factor in 18 deaths in the U.S.A., can the minister assure the Canadian people that no such medical sprays containing trichloroethan are available on the Canadian market.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Pertussin drug was voluntary withdrawn from the Canadian market in 1969. There are similar products available in Canada but they do not have the same formulation as the Pertussin product, and therefore there would seem to be no cause for alarm at the present time.


Philip Bernard Rynard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister if he can tell me, do they contain trichloroethan.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I could not give this answer to the hon. member now but I will inquire. May I also tell him that the health protection branch is investigating the other products on the market at the present time, to find out if there is any health hazard in their use.



AIRPORTS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Transport is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary. Inasmuch as the Ministry of Transport has indicated that the reason for the delay in the implementation of the revised fee structure was to consult and discuss the matter with the private flying clubs and aviation associations in general, and having regard to the fact that a number of protests have been received both by members of parliament, the Minister of Transport and ministry officials, would the minister now give consideration to recommend-
Oral Questions
ing to his department a revision of the structure previously announced by the ministry of transport.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, what I am now doing is looking at the recommendations which are made to the department and to myself, either directly or through the transport committee.



FINANCE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the unprecedented downward float of the United States dollar in world money markets, and the fact that Canadian reserves have declined this past month, indicating support of the Canadian dollar, does this indicate that the Canadian dollar would actually be lower than the U.S. dollar in a so-called "clean" float?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.
He *	*



AIRPORTS


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that two weeks have passed since the minister first announced the terms of reference of the board of inquiry on the Pickering airport situation, will he advise the House when he will be appointing the three members of that board so it can get on with its important work of examining the need for and location of this controversial project?


Jean Marchand: As soon as I have the three names, Mr. Speaker.


Ronald George Atkey: In light of the precedent set by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in granting funds to the Consumers' Association of Canada to oppose the Mackenzie valley pipeline, is the Minister of Transport giving consideration to providing similar assistance to individuals or groups that will be making submissions to the Pickering board of inquiry when it begins its work?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I indicated in the statement I made in the House that the board will establish its own regulations.

July 5, 1973
Oral Questions
[ Translation]



LAC MfcGANTIC-REPRESENTATIONS RESPECTING URGENCY OF IMPROVEMENTS

Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Does he know that the authorities of Lac Megantic have made many representations concerning essential works to be done at the airport and does he believe that there will be some opportunity to carry them out?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have the impression that the question could be put on the order paper. If the minister can answer briefly, I will recognize him for that purpose.



NATIONAL CAPITAL


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs I direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the minister's statement in this House last Friday that he would not consider use of the green belt in the national capital for industrial purposes, does the government approve of the negotiations presently going on between the National Capital Commission and the transportation commission of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carle-ton with regard to the use of green belt land for a 108-bus garage and repair shop in the west end of the national capital?


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will convey the hon. member's question to the minister. I can say that the minister has before him a proposal to use several acres of land on the fringe of the green belt for a depot for the regional transit system which is to be extended into and through the green belt. Although it contains landscaping and tree planting provisions to ensure it is compatable with its surroundings, the minister is taking a close look-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House is grateful that the parliamentary secretary did not have a reply to the hon. member's question.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add that the minister will ensure that the interests of area residents are safeguarded.


Walter David Baker: When speaking to the minister, will the parliamentary secretary remind him that this depot involves 12.5 acres of land and the National Capital Commission refused a smaller request some months ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Have any orders been issued that now forbid the type of activity in which the two missing captains were engaged at the time of their capture by the PRG?


James Armstrong Richardson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: To help clear up a great deal of confusion in the country about the duties in which they were involved, does the minister agree with the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs last Friday, that the captains were not on ICCS duty?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and I have stated quite clearly that both officers were on duty: when in Viet Nam they are on 24-hour duty.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for again raising this question, but we are not asking for a legalistic interpretation of when regular officers are on duty. We know they are on duty 24 hours a day. However, were they on ICCS duty at that time?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, they were not on a mission investigating something at the request of the International Control Commission. They were not accompanied by other members of the commission. However, they were performing duties consistent with their role in the International Control Commission.



FISHERIES


Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the absence of any international agreement governing the size and capacity of supertankers presently being built or planned, and in view of considerable concern about the danger of irreparable damage to all forms of marine life, is it the intention of the government to press strongly for inclusion on the agenda of the forthcoming Law of the Sea Conference an agreement to limit the size of such tankers?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, it will undoubtedly be raised and debated at some length at the next Law of the Sea Conference.


Gerald William Baldwin: I was going to ask if Your Honour had called orders of the day. If not, I will subside, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
July 5, 1973



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am now inspired to ask the government House leader about the business of the House for this week and next. Also, is he now able to tell us about his wants and needs for a legislative program? In view of the very great interest on both sides of the House, including hon. members who sit behind the minister, I ask whether it is the government's intention to bring forward the amendments to the Criminal Code so that all stages shall be concluded before parliament recesses for the summer.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we will continue today with the measures in the name of the Minister of Finance, specifically the income tax bill. Following that we will call second reading of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, followed by second reading of the election expenses act. That will take us into Monday at least. Following that we will call third reading of the Immigration Appeal Board bill. I expect to have the Olympics bill from the committee soon and would like to deal with that as well. With regard to the amendments to the Criminal Code, I must tell my hon. friend it is the intention of the government to complete that item of legislation before we rise for the summer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader what is now the status of the bill to amend the Family Allowances Act? Will it be placed before us before we rise for the summer recess?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am certain, or at least I am reasonably certain, that the bill will be presented to the House and made available within a week or so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is there any reason we cannot proceed with it before the summer recess?


An hon. Member:: What summer recess?


George Harris Hees: This means spending the summer here. We have enough members over here to speak for two weeks on that bill alone.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act.
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Hon. members will have noted in yesterday's Votes and Proceedings two notices of ways and means motions in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner). Perhaps at least for the sake of following good procedural form these motions should now be put under the terms of Standing Order 60(10). The Minister of Finance moves:
That a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act laid upon the table on July 4, 1973, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[ Translation]

Mr. Speaker:: The hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) moved:
That a Ways and Means Motion to amend the Income Tax Application Rules, 1971, laid upon the table on Wednesday, July 4, 1973, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
\English\
Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think the House would be prepared to waive the required 48 hours' notice between the presentation of this bill and its discussion in order that the two sections of amendments which are to be considered can be phased into the present debate.


Mr. Speaker:: My thought was that this suggestion should be made in committee and that is why I put the ways and means motion. In any event, it is difficult at this point to consider the suggestion made by the hon. member until the order for the House to resume in committee of the whole has been called. However, if I am wrong and it it is the wish of hon. members that we proceed in some other way, I am at the disposal of the House.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I made the suggestion while Your Honour was in the Chair because the provision for 48 hours' notice relates to the period between the first and second reading of the bill. We would be prepared to waive that requirement for notice so that we could move right into committee of the whole.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my understanding that if there is an order of the House, no notice is required, but should the House wish to proceed in any event by unanimous consent I can ask whether there is such consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There is unanimous consent and we can now resume in committee of the whole.


STATUTE LAW RELATING TO INCOME TAX (No. 3)
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, July 4, consideration in committee of Bill C-193, to amend the statute law relating to income tax (No. 3)-Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-Mr. McCleave in the chair.
On clause 12-
[Stage Direction]
July 5, 1973
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
The Chairman:: Order. When the committee rose last evening, clause 12 of the bill was under consideration and the Minister of Finance was making a presentation. It would be the suggestion of the Chair that after clause 12 has been discussed we revert to clause 6(1) and take up the point which was made a few minutes ago.
Clause 12 agreed to.
On clause 6-Allowance for gas or oil well, mine or timber limit.


John Napier Turner: Pursuant to the notice of ways and means having been given, and the motion having been concurred in and the order of the House, by unanimous agreement, to allow the amendment to which those motions of ways and means apply to be brought forward at the committee stage, I suppose it is in order to have my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, introduce the amendment in an official way. If that is agreeable to the Chair, I will ask my colleague to propose an amendment.


An hon. Member:: Which one?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The one on grain.


Mr. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue) moved:: That Bill C-193, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax (No. 3), be amended by adding thereto, immediately after line 11 on page 4, the following clause:
'6.1(1) Section 76 of the said act is amended by adding thereto the following subsections:
"Debt deemed not to be income debt
Meaning of
certain
expressions
(4)	Where a cash purchase ticket is issued to a taxpayer in respect of grain delivered in a taxation year of a taxpayer to a primary elevator and such ticket entitles the holder thereof to payment by the operator of the elevator of the purchase price, without interest, stated in the ticket for the grain at a date that is after the end of that taxation year, the amount of the purchase price stated in the ticket shall, notwithstanding any other provision of this section, be included in computing the income of the taxpayer to whom the ticket was issued for his taxation year immediately following the taxation year in which the grain was delivered and not for the taxation year in which the grain was delivered.
(5)	For the purposes of subsection (4), the expressions "cash purchase ticket", "operator" and "primary elevator" have the meanings assigned by the Canada Grain Act and "grain" means wheat, oats, barley, rye, flaxseed and rapeseed produced in the designated area defined by the Canadian Wheat Board Act."
(2) This section is applicable to the 1973 and subsequent taxation years.'


Robert Jardine McCleave: The committee has heard the amendment moved by the Minister of National Revenue. It is to be found on the first page of the appendix to yesterday's Votes and Proceedings. Is there any objection to the procedure being followed? If not, the Chair will put the question. There is no objection.


Mr. Murta:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the minister a question in order to clarify my mind. If a grain producer were to deliver at the start of a crop year, what is

the length of deferral allowed by this amendment? Are we thinking only in terms of the last two or three months?


John Napier Turner: I gather that the hon. member is speaking to the substance of the motion and is not objecting to the motion which has been put?


Jack Burnett Murta: That is right.


John Napier Turner: We are, then, dealing with the amendment. As I read the amendment, delivery within any crop year can be covered by a deferred cash purchase ticket, which means the deferral of cash or income until the next taxation year when payment is made.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, we are in agreement with the amendment presented by the Minister of Finance. I think it will help to make things better for the farmer in terms of paying less income tax in one year and adjusting it in the second year. It is very good for the farmer in this respect. Second, it will probably facilitate the movement of grain by the Canadian Wheat Board in order to meet customer commitments. For this reason our party is in agreement with the amendment. While on my feet I should like once again to ask the minister to consider the problem I brought to his attention the other day regarding the inventory of a farmer who dies and the averaging of it by his spouse.


William Gordon Ritchie: In view of the fact that crop and taxation years are different, might it be possible that a farmer could defer taxation for only six months to the coming year? I have in mind a crop year that begins on August 1 with delivery being made on August 1 of the following year: in that case the longest the farmer could defer taxation would be for six months in the second year; is that right?


John Napier Turner: Let us not confuse crop years and taxation years. We are talking about taxation years. At any time during a crop year, if a farmer delivers grain he has an option. He can elect to receive a purchase ticket, in which case that is the equivalent of cash and he has to bring it into income tax for that taxation year. On the other hand, he can take a deferred ticket and then he takes it into income when he receives cash on that ticket. But it is at his election.


William Gordon Ritchie: When the minister refers to a deferred cash ticket, does he mean that the farmer actually gets the cash?


John Napier Turner: No. It means that he receives a deferred ticket on delivery which does not entitle him to immediate payment in cash. He defers payment at his election, and when he receives the cash rather than the ticket he would bring that amount into income.


William Gordon Ritchie: When the grain is purchased by the Canadian Wheat Board this would seem to be very simple, but in the case of rye, flax and rapeseed there may be some difficulty because these grains are purchased by private
July 5, 1973

companies. In that case, how will this provision function? Rye, flax and rapeseed are not handled by the Canadian Wheat Board but are bought by private companies.


John Napier Turner: We are just talking about grains delivered to the Canadian Wheat Board.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Rye, flax and rapeseed do not figure in it?


John Napier Turner: No.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Why not?


Jack Burnett Murta: I think the point raised by the hon. member for Dauphin should be cleared up. Are we talking, as the amendment suggests, about all grains delivered, because flax, rye and rapeseed at the present time do not come under the jurisdiction of the Wheat Board; or are we talking only about Wheat Board grains, in which case it should be wheat, oats and barley? We have two distinct groups of grains.


John Napier Turner: Let me revise what I said. Where a cash purchase ticket is issued to a taxpayer in respect of grain delivered in a taxation year to a private elevator, and on such ticket it says that the holder thereof, or the bearer, is entitled to cash for the grain so delivered, then the amount payable is taken into income in that taxation year. If the farmer receives a ticket from anybody on delivery, whether it be from the Wheat Board or any other operator, and that ticket in its terms states that payment is to be made after the end of that calendar or taxation year, then that would qualify. I suggest it is quite clear.


Jack Burnett Murta: There is another point about which I should like to ask the minister. At the present time farmers are allowed free storage up to 15 days on grain delivered to the Canadian Wheat Board. If a farmer delivers grain on July 15 there is a free storage period of 15 days before he has to begin paying storage charges. Will that situation be affected by this amendment?


John Napier Turner: No. We are talking about bringing receipts into income and this has nothing to do with storage.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: As I understand it, payment for grain in the crop year 1973 could effectively fall into income for the purpose of taxation in 1975, provided it is delivered in April, 1974, on a deferred ticket which is held until 1975?


John Napier Turner: That is so, yes.


William Gordon Ritchie: Will this amendment change in any way the averaging provisions available to farmers?


John Napier Turner: No, Sir.


Jack Burnett Murta: Before the clause is passed I should like to make one passing comment. This amendment will certainly be received favourably by western farmers, but I should like to say it appears at first glance-and the minister responsible for the Wheat Board is not here to answer questions-that what we are saying in effect is that the
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
Wheat Board might find itself in the position of being unable to fill its customers' commitments because of a shortage of grain resulting from grain being sold at too low a price in comparison to world grain prices. I think this is apparent in the amendment introduced by the minister.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Is the House ready for the question on the amendment to clause 6(1)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Shall the amendment carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.
Amendment (Mr. Stanbury) agreed to.
Clause 6 agreed to.


Robert Jardine McCleave: We now move to clause 13, found at page 11.
On clause 13-


John Napier Turner: Perhaps we should continue to follow the procedure suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton West, as it seems to save time and is useful to the committee.
We are dealing with clause 13 which relates to paragraph 116(5). This applies to the tax required to be paid by a purchaser of Canadian property on behalf of a non-resident. This amendment allows the amount of tax to be withheld to the extent of 15 per cent of the purchase price if no certificate was issued, but in any case it is the lesser of 15 per cent of the said cost and 25 per cent of the amount by which that cost exceeds the so-called certificate limit. This refers to the estimated proceeds referred to in the certificate issued under paragraph 116(2).


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 14-Special table.
John Napier Turner: This amendment
merely changes the figure $12,000 to $24,000. The subsection being amended authorizes a special table for the purpose of computing the amount of income tax payable. This is the table which appears in the taxpayer's guide and it may be used to ascertain the tax payable instead of carrying out the multiplication and the addition in the event the taxpayer uses the ordinary rate schedule. The amendment merely increases the amount to $24,000 on the table to be used in respect of taxable income, rather than $12,000.


An hon. Member:: Another indication of inflation.


John Napier Turner: No, this is an added convenience to the taxpayer. In view of the proposal in respect of indexation, I suggest this will be increasingly useful.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 15-Annual adjustment.
[Stage Direction]
July 5, 1973
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
John Napier Turner: This clause would amend the personal tax exemptions and rate schedules that take account of increases in prices. The adjusting has been referred to as indexing and is intended to end the erosion of purchasing power resulting from the interaction of inflation with the progressive income tax system.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, this of course is one of the key questions in this bill. It brings into effect something that had been laughed at, jibed at and ridiculed by the minister in the past. I do not know whether the minister or his advisers have read the Canadian Tax Journal and some of the articles which appear there.
Mh. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton): We not only read it but we contribute to it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The minister says he contributes to it. Perhaps that relates to the part where the editors bring up the odd-ball situation in the tax system which appears from stands or positions taken by the government in some cases before either the Tax Review Board or the Federal Court and all the way to the Supreme Court. We see there some indications of contributions by the federal government through the Department of Justice.
Be that as it may, I think one must say, first of all, that even in 1972 there was an article which appeared at page 327 of the Canadian Tax Journal, by a Mr. George Vuke-lich. It is entitled "The effect of inflation on real tax rates." This article, while it deals in rather sophisticated macroeconomic and mathematical formulas which defy the laymen comes to the conclusion, however, that what inflation has done to the real rates of taxation in this country, particularly any changes in tax rates and reductions in tax rates, is absolutely fantastic.
Therefore, I shall place on record some of the comments of George Vukelich as well as the proposals of the minister at this time. This appears in the May-June, 1973, edition of the Canadian Tax Journal, which I see the minister's adviser has in front of him. It would be interesting if the minister would read what is said about this proposal. It is interesting that the authors say this proposal of the minister is equivalent though not identical to an earlier proposal advanced by the Leader of the Opposition in the May, 1972, budget debate. I think it is well worth putting these observations on the record:
It has traditionally been assumed that an automatic adjustment of tax rates to reflect the effects of price inflation would seriously weaken the macroeconomic stabilizing properties of the tax system, and that such automatic adjustment would consequently increase the price inflation for which it adjusted. Though this assumption might seem ironic in view of the recent ineffectiveness of Canadian macroeconomic policy in combatting inflation, it would (if correct) be a serious argument against the value of implementing the Turner indexing proposal.
The authors examined this from three different points of view. First of all they looked at inflation and the equity considerations underlying tax rates. We look at inflation from the point of view of the governmental sector. This is the point the Leader of the Opposition and others of our party referred to in expounding our theories. As as matter of fact, on two or three occasions in the past in committee, going back five or six years-I do not want to say, "I told

you so"-we actually indicated that the government had a built-in interest in inflation because of the type of tax system we have, the ad valorem way of computing sales tax, customs duties and other taxes levied by the federal government outside of income tax. The government benefits from increases in prices and our steeply progressive- progressive only in the mathematical sense-income tax system which yields it far more money every year due to inflation. In fact, the authors of this article prove without any equivocation that the tax reductions proposed under the 1971 income tax changes, the so-called tax reform-all those lower rates, all the elimination from the tax brackets of 750,000 taxpayers-were eliminated by 1973 as a result of inflation. I quote again:
The effect of inflation on effective real tax rates has been clearly presented in George Vukelich's article in an earlier issue of this Journal. The important effect of inflation on the tax rate schedule is to shrink the real width of tax brackets and to decrease the real value of exemptions; between 1954 and 1970 this had the effect of increasing the effective tax rate on an individual with an unchanged real gross income of $15,000 by approximately one-third. (Statutory changes over the same period caused a slight further increase in effective tax rates.)
Vukelich estimated that by 1974 the tax reduction for this same individual resulting from the tax schedule changes in the 1971 tax reform act would have been eliminated by the effect of inflation. In fact, thanks to the recent acceleration in price inflation, they have already become eliminated in April, 1973. In effect, the reductions in tax rates which partially compensated middle income taxpayers for the reform-induced expansion of the tax base were eliminated by price inflation within 16 months of their becoming effective.
That is the so-called tax reform which, frankly, as a result of inflation was totally wiped out for the broad band of income tax payers in this country. Let us see what the result of inflation is in the governmental sector of the gross national product.
The increases in effective tax rates induced by general price inflation result in an increased share of gross national product being diverted to government. The fact that the GNP elasticity of the personal income tax is substantially greater than unity is well known.
Mr. Chairman it is a most evident fact that an examination of the changes in the GNP share of the tax dollar shows a 329 per cent increase in personal income tax over the period 1961 to 1970 in which the constant dollar gross national product increased by 116 per cent. In other words, for a 116 per cent increase in GNP from 1961 to 1970-that is, in constant dollars-there was a corresponding 329 per cent increase in the yield of personal income taxes, and this all due to inflation. The article continues:
Allowing for . . . changes in rates and assuming the same elasticity of personal taxes with respect to prices as with respect to real per capita income, we can conclude that roughly 40 per cent of the increase in per capita direct personal taxes over the 1964-71 period was due to general price inflation.
What this implies is that government revenues from direct personal taxes would have grown by approximately 13 per cent per year over this period instead of by 18.6 per year, had the rates of all direct personal taxes been indexed for current changes in the consumer price index over this period.
In other words, the proposal if it had been in force would have seen a substantial decrease in the share of personal income taxes paid by private individuals in this country over that period.
July 5, 1973

The indexing proposals advanced by finance minister Turner in his February, 1973, budget call for indexing only the rates and exemptions of the personal income tax, and would have an effect equivalent to perhaps four-fifths of the effect of indexing all direct personal taxes completely. They clearly reduce substantially the growth in tax revenues that is built into the structure of the current tax system.
This was the proposal put forward by the Leader of the Opposition well over a year ago which was ridiculed and scorned by the Minister of Finance from June right through until after the election as being a bankrupt policy for Canada. Yet on the basis that now this is academically approved-Professors Bossons and Wilson give it their full approval-and now that it has been put forth by the minister in his budget of last February, the whole idea, instead of being bankrupt lunacy has become totally acceptable and is now the orthodox policy of this government. This is a clear indication of just how far this government is prepared to be a man for all seasons at all times. In whatever direction the wind may blow, we will find the government lining up. Why? Merely to keep in power.
Although they do not make the statement that one can draw such conclusions from the proposal, I am satisfied that it will be complicated; there is no doubt about it. On the other hand, I am glad that the minister came to his senses and that his colleagues, who perhaps did not understand any of it, went along with him. Now we find the government once more having done a more than 180 degree swing around and accepting a proposal from the opposition. I am glad to support this clause.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 16-
John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, this amendment increases the amount from $1,600 to $1,700. The change is consequential upon the increase in the basic exemption from $1,500 to $1,600.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 17-Additional Deduction from Tax.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, this is the tax deduction clause. The amendment provides for a new deduction from a tax that is otherwise payable. It applies in addition to increased personal exemption. A taxpayer would compute his federal basic tax using new exemptions, but from his basic tax he will then deduct the greater of $100 or 5 per cent of the basic tax. If 5 per cent of the basic tax calculation produces an amount that is more than $500, he will deduct $500; in other words, it is a 5 per cent deduction with a minimum of $100 and a maximum of $500.
Since the provincial tax is computed on the basic tax before making the new $100 or 5 per cent deduction, the provincial tax will not be affected by the new deduction and it will not bring into play any aspects of the fiscal arrangements act. The fact that there is a minimum deduction of $100 results in this measure giving much more than a 5 per cent reduction for over 85 per cent of Canadian taxpayers. A taxpayer's basic tax must be at least $2,000 before the 5 per cent thereof exceeds $100.
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
The income levels at which 5 per cent of the basic tax becomes greater than $100 are as follows: a single person with no dependants earning $11,090; married people with no dependants, $12,491; and married persons with two dependants, $13,091. If the deduction at 5 per cent of the basic tax did not have a ceiling it would produce a large reduction in the tax for those with very high incomes. The income levels at which the $500 ceiling becomes effective are as follows: a single person with no dependants earning $33,786; married people with no dependants, $35,186; and married people with two dependants, $35,786.
In addition to the reductions in tax resulting from increased exemptions and the new $100 or 5 per cent deduction from tax, the tax reform amendments passed in December, 1971, provided new reduced rate schedules in 1973 to 1976 inclusive. These rate schedules remain in the act. A new schedule for 1973 provides that the rate of tax on the first $500 of taxable income shall drop from 17 per cent to 15 per cent. This gives nearly every taxpayer a reduction of at least $10 compared with 1972.
In other words, what we have done here is to introduce a very progressive reduction in tax worth $1,300 million to Canadian taxpayers, putting that back into the pockets of Canadians, and of that $1,300 million in tax cuts $900 million, or 70 per cent, goes to those who are in the $10,000 income bracket or less.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, even this Minister of Finance cannot help but do the right thing once in a while.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: He has been told he should do it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It even gives me pleasure to congratulate him on his recognition of the fact that he has done the right thing. In principle, this is the way to make a tax reduction-to do it in effect by granting a tax credit. I do not wish to detract from the boasting of the hon. member for Edmonton West with respect to the indexing procedure, but I suggest that in principle this is something far more to boast about, namely, the kind of tax reduction that gives benefit to those in the lower brackets, as we have advocated for a long time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: This was part of the bankrupt policy.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have not noticed that the country has gone bankrupt and certainly, despite all the taxes that they have to pay, the banks and the corporations of this country do not seem to be going out of business. I suggest that what happened was that there was an election on October 30. It made a tremendous difference in many respects, and I am glad to see that even the idea of a tax credit as a way to meet the income tax problems of those in the lower income groups has at last got into the head of the Minister of Finance. I hope he will practise it even more.

July 5, 1973
Income Tax Law (No. 3)


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, for once I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on the fact that this tax reduction is certainly an improvement; it will of course affect the ordinary, low-income workers. But I would ask the hon. minister whether, in addition to this reduction he has not also considered giving the workers permission-and I stress the word permission-to deduct from their taxes the cost of the tools or special clothing needed for their work, in some cases, in short, to give them the same advantages given to professionals or others.
For example, a construction worker is not allowed to deduct the cost of the tools he needs. Noranda mine workers are not allowed to deduct the cost of the special clothing they need to go down the mines to depths of 5,000 to 7,000 feet, whereas a dentist can deduct the cost of the little white overall he wears, or of his instruments, such as his drill, or an accountant can deduct the cost of a chair, or a desk used for his work. Is the hon. minister therefore considering granting to the working man, to the small wage-earner, as we call him, the same advantages now granted to others? That is the point I am making.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I can briefly answer my friend, the hon. leader of the Social Credit Party, that this has already been done.
For example, a $150 deduction is provided for each worker, in respect of tools or clothing. This is already a provision of the Income Tax Act. So I agree in the principle with the hon. member.


David Réal Caouette: But it is limited. The allowed deduction is only $150, while professionals, dentists, doctors, etc., deduct 100 per cent of their expenditures.
In my business, for instance, when I buy equipment and tools, these expenses are included in my operating costs, while the workman is not entitled to deduct such expenses. Therefore, it seems to me that this $150 deduction should be replaced by the total expenses of the workman, the miner or the construction worker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, this clause is probably the basic part of the changes that are before us today in terms of a real change in direction in the principle of taxation that is based on equity. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, the $100 minimum for every taxpayer is a tax credit. The minister has also imposed a ceiling of $500 in this clause. This is a new and very important step, and I hope it is only the first step toward a tax credit system in our country.
I want to take two or three minutes to urge the House to get away from the system of exemptions and go to a system of tax credits. That system benefits the low and middle income earner much more than a system of tax exemptions. To give three examples of what I mean, hon. members will recall that Bill C-259 which came to this House last year increased the exemption from $1,000 to $1,500 for single taxpayers. That meant a saving for all

Canadians, but the tax saving was greater for those with a higher income. Take a single person earning $2,000 as a gross income: by increasing the exemption from $1,000 to $1,500 the single person is indeed saving $33 a year, but a person earning $4,000 gross income is saving $160 a year. A person earning $25,000 gross income who is single saves $297 a year. This is indeed a much greater saving than for the person earning $2,000 or $3,000. To a person earning $50,000 the $1,500 exemption would mean a saving of $364 annually.
The argument advanced by members of this party is that it would be much more equitable for the low and middle income earner if a new system of tax credits could be devised. Instead of having a $500 increase in exemptions, it would be better to have a $100 or $200 tax credit for everyone paying tax. This would mean a lot more to the low and middle income earner. The clause in the bill before us is a start toward that type of system. I should like to encourage the minister to conduct studies into the transfer to a tax credit system as quickly as possible, because it is a step toward the low income earner reaping the benefit, and in the long term I think the whole economy would benefit.
The hon. member for Edmonton West was concerned about who pays the tax, the upper income level and the corporations, but I suggest that a tax credit system would put more funds into the hands of the low income earner. These funds would be used for food, shelter and clothing and in turn would create jobs, stimulate the economy, provide much greater impetus in general and also put more tax dollars at the other end of the economic scale. I urge the government to continue in this direction. The $100 minimum tax credit is an important principle and one which we certainly commend.


Mr. Barnett:: Mr. Chairman, I am sure you will recall that I raised a certain matter yesterday in the hope that the minister might take some initiative in dealing with the problem that I brought to his attention, but judging from the resolution he put before the House earlier today I am afraid he did not.
I am rising at this point to ask the minister if he would be good enough to give an indication of why he resists what to me would obviously be a step in the direction of providing equity in our tax system. While I certainly do not quarrel with the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville about this forward step in our tax system, it is but a small step in the right direction. I am completely at a loss to understand why the minister and some of his predecessors have failed to recognize that if we are to have equity of income tax, those who derive income from wages or salaries should have applied to their gross earnings the same principles as are applicable to farmers and to executives of corporations in respect of expenses.
If the approach that I have suggested is not in the minister's view the most appropriate way to deal with this problem, I would certainly welcome some concrete suggestion from him on what approach might be taken to overcome this very long-standing discrimination against workers who go to isolated sites in Canada and while engaged in producing the basic wealth of our economy spend a
July 5, 1973

large part of their working lives away from their homes and families. At the same time, in the course of their employment they take cuts in income because of the rigid application of the income tax rules with regard to deductibility.
Within the last year or so the Prime Minister has made a number of statements urging workers to leave the welfare and unemployment rolls in the cities and go to places where work is available. I tell the minister that at this very time in many areas of the country, including the forest producing areas of my constituency, employers are finding it increasingly difficult to man their operations because of the reluctance of people to engage in difficult and arduous work and, at the same time, incur the kinds of penalties to which they are subject, some of which stem from our income tax laws. Such people are expected to go to areas in which there are not the amenities to which we are accustomed in our urban-oriented society. I am referring to amenities which Canadians take for granted and which ordinarily go with life in this country. Let me mention here the lack of television and radio entertainment, lack of access to libraries for those who are interested, and that sort of thing.
I could mention, as well, the lack of adequate health care facilities in the immediate vicinity of these isolated sites and the dangers that go with that. There is a danger of permanent disability because of the time lapse in obtaining adequate medical care. If one adds to these kinds of things the fact that these people must pay a penalty for the privilege of working, because they must pay for extra board and travel expenses-in many cases expensive air travel if they want to see their wives and families occasionally-one can see the difficulty. This is a situation which I suggest we should explore if we are to restore some balance in our economy and maintain the productive capacity of which we are capable and undoubtedly need in our resource-producing industries. We can do that only if these inequities in our tax system are eliminated. For the life of me, I cannot understand why they are not eliminated. The only excuse I have heard from ministers of finance is that there is difficulty in administration. This matter goes back a good many years. I remind the minister that today there are such things as data processing centres and systems. If that objection was valid 20 years or 15 years ago, I submit it is no longer valid.
Certainly, administration would be no more difficult than administration of the long-standing provisions of the Income Tax Act with regard to the deductibility of medical expenses. If only administrative difficulties stand in the way of the Minister of Finance acting in this area, I suggest he should say to the responsible people in the administration. "This has to be done. You figure out a proper administrative way to do it." I am sure, considering the trained minds that are available to the minister, we could come up with a rational and reasonable system that would not lend itself to abuse but would provide some real equity in the matter I am putting before the minister. I should like him to give me some response other than the sort of suggestions he has made in a genial way across the floor, because this is an important matter not only to the
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
individuals concerned but in the long term to the economy of Canada.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully. We put in the $150 general deduction, we have put in a deduction for moving expenses and we have put in an allowance for child care expenses, as well as an allowance for distant employment site expenses. I will certainly take the hon. member's comments into consideration.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, I have one more point. The matter of expenses for distant and remote sites is applicable only if those costs are paid by the employer. This applies, to my knowledge, fairly generally in the construction industry. I am referring mainly to our resource-production industries where work is carried on at remote sites. Of course, I am also talking about mining and forestry and, in some cases, the fisheries. In most cases those expenses are payable by the individual out of his gross pay cheque. In some cases the rate of board is fixed under union contract. I am talking of the over-all figure. Certainly that applies in the forest products industry of British Columbia.
We have gone beyond the original arrangement which applied only to construction workers and which was brought in by Hon. Donald Fleming in 1957. Having made that provision generally applicable to all workers on remote sites, if the employer pays the shot over and above the wage-and this is the point-the employer is not obliged under the law as it now stands to consider that as part of the earnings of the employee. On the other hand, if the employer pays the whole shot as part of the gross wage directly to the employee, the employee is stuck with his air fare and paying board because they are part of his taxable income. That is a remaining discrimination which applies to one person but not to another doing identical work; and it results from a decision made by the employer, not by the employee. That is the conundrum to which I am drawing the attention of the minister and I should like to see it answered.
I think the most rational way of doing it would be to make a slight change to the Income Tax Act. There would have to be proper administrative safeguards, of course, so that nobody could make a claim out of thin air. Claims would need to be substantiated in the normal way, just as medical expenses over and above the generally allowed deduction need to be substantiated. Expenses could easily be certifiable, in some instances by a supplementary return from the employer. That is what I ask the minister to look at, if he will.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 18-"Business income tax."
John Napier Turner: Subsection 126, paragraph 7, provides definitions of terms used in the preceding subsections. The definition of "business income tax" in paragraph (a) has been amended to refer to taxes paid to a political subdivision of a country outside Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 19-Investment income from associated corporation deemed to be active business income.
[Stage Direction]
July 5, 1973
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, this amendment will prevent a private corporation from artificially converting its business income which is subject to full corporate rates of tax to investment income on which one half of the tax may later be refunded to the corporation.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 20-"Capital gains dividend account."
John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, this is a relieving amendment to mutual fund corporations and investment corporations for an additional 60 days after the end of the given year to pay a special capital gains dividend and to be eligible for refunds of capital gains back to that year. It was proving very difficult for these corporations to compute for capital gains and actually distribute them before the end of the given year. This amendment will give them some leeway.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 21-
John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, section 148 provides for the taxation of a gain on disposition of a life insurance policy. This amendment would extend the exemption to gains arising on termination of a policy by reason of the total and permanent disability of the person insured.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I recall raising with the minister or his colleague the Minister of National Revenue the question of survivor pensions paid by police associations, and so on.


John Napier Turner: It has nothing to do with that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I know, but the point in this case is whether subsequent marriage or change in status of the insured person is affected under these circumstances. I know that here the termination of the policy in consequence of the death of the person insured, or total or permanent disability, is becoming tax exempt. Would the change in the status of a single person to a married person being a dependent alter it in any way?


John Napier Turner: No, sir.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 22-Undue hardship.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, clause 22 adds two new subsections both of which are of benefit to a taxpayer. Subclause 1.1 would authorize action that is now taken under the authority of section 106 of the income tax regulations. It is considered preferable to have this delegation of power to the minister provided in the act rather than the regulations. Under this provision, the Department of National Revenue may instruct an employer to reduce or cease to make deductions of tax from an employee's pay or could instruct the payer of a benefit from a pension plan to reduce the tax reduction. Subclause

1.2 provides the taxpayer with the right to elect to have increased his deductions of tax at source.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Chairman, my point here arises out of deductions that must be made by an employer with regard to the Canada Pension Plan. This has created a headache for employers. Employers with a partly rotating work force, or known regular work force have to make deductions with regard to their employees even though the total contributions by employers during the year will far exceed the entitlement of the individual concerned. If the individual concerned has an overpayment he can claim a refund from the Canada Pension Plan. This is done on his income tax return. However, the employer is not entitled to any refund. There is a windfall gain to the Canada Pension Plan of millions of dollars a year.
Situations crop up where an individual is self-employed; for example, doctors and other professionals. As a selfemployed person he has to make the full contribution to the Canada Pension Plan. If he attends university on a very limited, part-time basis, addresses seminars or teaches summer courses, in many instances he receives a nominal stipend. The university authorities are compelled to make a deduction for the Canada Pension Plan. However, as a self-employed person he has already made his total contribution. There is a maximum amount that you pay under the Canada Pension Plan; it is not dependent upon your total earnings but upon earnings up to a certain level.
The individual can claim a refund of the excessive contribution that has been deducted from his stipend and paid by the university, college or whatever body it may be. It may be a professional body. He may receive a stipend for appearing at an annual conference. Under the Canada Pension Plan there is a level to the contribution under those circumstances. However, the so-called employer, whether it is a national association, university or community college has made a contribution to the Canada Pension Plan fund for no reason. There is no way of reclaiming it.
Some members may wonder why I am talking about the Canada Pension Plan under these circumstances. It is because the overpayment of contributions to the Canada Pension Plan are recoverable. In the case of deductions for unemployment insurance, and so on, the minister has authority to make adjustments if there are particular hardships. As a matter of fact, this amendment speaks of particular and undue hardship. This is not an undue hardship upon these associations except for the bookwork, added expense and the dishonesty of it. It is dishonest to take this money from the employer for an employee who is already totally covered and will not have his benefits increased one iota.
The Minister of Finance and his colleagues must bend their attention to the unnecessary gouging of millions of dollars a year from employers which merely go into the Canada Pension Plan. I put it earnestly to the minister that it is not enough to dismiss it by saying it is administratively difficult. That is a lot of poppycock. There is no administrative justification for gouging Canadian employers of millions of dollars a year for an unnecessary pur-
July 5, 1973

pose. In fact, it is totally superfluous to the entitlement of the employee under the Canada Pension Plan.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I will ask the officials to look into this question very seriously.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is the minister's colleague, the Minister of National Revenue, who is charged with this responsibility. Both of them have to bend their very serious attention to this point.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 23-
John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, this clause would add new sections to impose a special tax in respect of non-qualified investments held by a trust, deferred profit sharing plan or registered retirement savings plan. Although the amendment provides for a special tax, this tax is part of an arrangement to help certain trusts and corporations sell their units or shares to deferred income plans during periods when the trusts or corporations have not yet been able to qualify as a mutual fund trust, mutual fund corporation or pool fund trust within the meaning of the act.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: One question arises here, Mr. Chairman. I refer to page 22, subparagraph (2) and particularly to the provision relating to the liability of a trustee. Where there is a failure to remit to the Receiver General for Canada the amount of tax specified under the previous subsection, the trustee is personally liable to pay the full amount on behalf of the trust, not merely for failure to remit but in the case of a default in time. If there is a right of recovery, why is the trustee personally liable merely in circumstances where there is default in time? And then he may recover against the trust. Well, I would hope so.
I emphasize that it is not failure to pay which is in question here, but failure to pay within the time allowed. I will admit that if a trustee fails to pay a tax which is due, and if he has undertaken an obligation to pay, then the trustee would be obliged to pay. But it is another matter to say he is personally liable for failure to remit within a time limit. Is he personally liable to pay one day after tax is due? And why say in this section that he is entitled to recover? It is not the Income Tax Act which allows him to recover.


John Napier Turner: The reasons the words "within the time" were used here is that otherwise the department would never know whether an obligation would be satisfied or not. Once the tax is paid, of course, the liability is discharged even if it is paid beyond the time limit.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am suggesting that this is scissors-and-paste from another section, something thrown in.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: This may not be relevant, Mr. Chairman, but I was wondering why August 25, 1972, should be the date chosen in connection with property acquired by the trust.
Income Tax Law (No. 3)


John Napier Turner: That was the date of the original news release announcing the intention of the government.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 24-
John Napier Turner: Life insurance companies are subject to tax at 15 per cent on that portion of their investment income which is deemed to be interest on the savings element of life insurance policies other than policies which are issued, or pursuant to, registered pension plans and similar deferred income arrangements. In calculating the investment income subject to the 15 per cent tax, the legislation provides first of all for the determination of the total investment income related to Canadian life insurance business. This is followed by the deduction of certain expenses and interest payments and interest allocation to the deferred income plan. One other deduction which is the subject of this paragraph is the insurance business income from deducting life insurance business. If the business part of it is subject to corporate tax under part I of the act, it should not also be subject to the investment tax of 15 per cent. This is to avoid duplication.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I know that the minister's predecessor by two was the man who first moved in on the life insurance companies, taxing their income under the Income Tax Act as though there had been in the past wilful and wrongful evasion of a duty to pay tax. But I suggest to the minister that what the government started then was a wrongful act in terms of economic strategy for Canada. On the one hand we do all sorts of things, go through the Canada Development Corporation, all sorts of foolhardy schemes which are not going to come up in so far as Canadians investing to a greater degree in Canadian equities and in the Canadian economy is concerned. Since most major insurance companies are mutuals, which means that the profits belong to the policyholders, the funds are invested in Canadian equities, Canadian obligations, a great deal of them in government obligations, and so forth. In these circumstances I cannot see why the government has been skimming off revenue and intends to skim off more to the extent that income which is available for addition to insurance policies which are of benefit to Canadians is reduced.
The only way this can be counteracted is by increasing premiums or reducing dividends, or the income which is allowed in lieu of premiums. Who pays the shot? Canadian citizens. Who is the gainer? Why, the government. The thing is self-defeating. The minister knows that the payment of a premium on a life insurance policy is a form of saving for a non-governmental purpose. Yet millions of dollars are being siphoned from the pockets of Canadians into government pockets. This has only resulted in an increase in premiums on life insurance policies. We are proud of our life insurance schemes here in Canada. Here, again, is another step by government to discourage thrift and responsibility.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 25-Timber royalties.
[Stage Direction]
July 5, 1973
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
John Napier Turner: Section 212 imposes a withholding tax on certain categories of payments to United States residents.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 26-Deemed payments.
John Napier Turner: Subsection 214(3) provides that certain amounts which are deemed under part I of the act to be received shall be deemed to have been paid for the purpose of non-resident withholding tax provisions. Paragraph (b) of the subsection now permits regulations to be enacted to reduce the amount of withholding tax on discount paper. Amendments to section 214 make this paragraph no longer necessary.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 27-Regulations reducing amount to be deducted or withheld.
John Napier Turner: I think this is the point at which to bring in an amendment. I am looking at page 30. It will come in as clause 27.1, just before clause 28, under the heading "Income tax application rules, 1971." I would ask my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to move this amendment.


Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale):: Mr. Chairman, I move:
That Bill C-193, an act to amend the statute law relating to income tax (No. 3), be amended by adding thereto, immediately before line 1 on page 30, the following clause:
'27.1 Subparagraph 21(1) (b) (ii) of the Income Tax Application Rules, 1971 is repealed and the following substituted
therefor:
"(ii) the amount, if any, by which the portion described in subparagraph (i) exceeds the greater of
(A)	the aggregate of all amounts each of which is an outlay or expenditure, made or incurred by the taxpayer as a result of a transaction occurring before 1972 for the purpose of acquiring the government right, or the taxpayer's original right in respect of the government right, to the extent that the outlay or expenditure was not otherwise deducted in computing the income of the taxpayer for any taxation year and would, if made or incurred by him as a result of a transaction occurring after 1971, be an eligible capital expenditure of the taxpayer, and
(B)	the fair market value to the taxpayer as at December 31, 1971 of the government right or the taxpayer's original right in respect of the government right, if no outlay or expenditure was made or incurred by the taxpayer for the purpose of acquiring the right or, if an outlay or expenditure was made or incurred, if that outlay or expenditure would have been an eligible capital expenditure of the taxpayer if it had been made incurred as a result of a transaction occurring after 1971."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Explain.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think the motion really speaks for itself, Mr. Chairman.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Does it ever!


John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who is one of the members of the government most familiar with agricultural problems in this country, for moving this amendment. As a matter of fact, I did speak to the

amendment when I was speaking on clause 1 and I have nothing further to add.


Mr. Jarvis:: Mr. Chairman, I really have not the time to tell the minister what a rotten job he has done and is doing as far as the farmers of this country are concerned, but in the limited time available I should like to make a few comments. I would like to have been able to compliment the minister on the lightning action he took in correcting these inequities.
Earlier this year we had legislation which was hopelessly complex. It was inequitable and retroactive taxation. The minister seems to have seen the light of day, at a very late date, indicating here, subsequent to the passage of Bill C-170, that he is aware of the situation. This is a remarkable discovery in view of the fact that many of the briefs that were presented to the minister and his colleague, the Minister of Agriculture, were presented before the passage of Bill C-170.
I do not know that I have any immediate solution to offer except to say that it would seem to me to be in the interest of Canadian farmers if the minister would abrogate his responsibilities to the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other farm organizations in the country who are certainly much better equipped and more able to represent the interest of farmers than the Minister of Finance. In any event, if the minister can fault members of my party for spending too little time in respect of Bill C-170 in pointing out the error of his ways, I can only say we spent our time dealing with the provisions for the transfer of family farms and finally were able to convince the minister of the inequities.
I am concerned about one or two things in this amendment and I wonder whether the minister could assist me. One thing that comes immediately to mind is the fact that all representations made to me in respect of marketing quotas have been in the form of requests in respect of qualification of quotas as capital farm assets. This is important in terms of transfer from father to son. Under the amendment to Bill C-170, as I read this particular section and the definition sections, I am unable to satisfy myself that a farm marketing quota is in fact a capital asset for the purpose of a transfer from father to son. I wonder if at this time the minister could explain that?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Let me say that the agricultural community is getting a better deal under this amendment. If they want this classified as a capital asset, I would suggest they would not be able to write it off on the basis of 10 per cent as suggested here. I think this is a better deal, and I did explain this to Mr. Munro, the president of the Canadian Federation of Agriculture, and his executive.


William Herbert Jarvis: Perhaps the minister would also explain the restrictive nature of this measure which results from zealous officials of the Department of National Revenue making assessments in the last few months up to 221/2 per cent of the total proceeds from the sale of these quotas.


John Napier Turner: I suggest it is quite clear in the terms of this amendment that this is retroactive to January 1, 1972, so all these assessments can be vacated or amended.


The Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. Perhaps we should proceed in a more orderly way. The minister has not really moved an amendment to clause 27; he has moved an amendment to the bill introducing a new clause, 27.1. If hon. members indicate they have completed their discussion on clause 27, I will put the question on that clause and then perhaps we can move to clause 27.1.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: We will now move to the consideration of the proposed amendment to Bill C-193 as moved by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Chairman, this proposed amendment is well received by this hon. member. I am sure there are a number of members who have been concerned with taxation on production quotas, and the fact that they are classified as "goodwill" or "nothing". When someone tries to acquire one he soon finds out that their value is not nothing; he discovers it requires a great deal of capital to make such an acquisition.
This is particularly important to me and my constituents because in my riding there exist perhaps more of these production quotas in respect of dairy products, eggs and broilers then in many other ridings. I should like to remind the committee and the minister that the acquisition of a dairy or any type of production quota implies the right to produce, but it also implies an obligation to fulfil that production. I think that is a very important aspect in terms of supplying food to Canadians. As you can see, this is not a one-sided thing at all.
Under Bill C-170 the acquisition of quotas after December 31, 1971, or January 1, 1972, was changed with the result that taxes on gains went up by 2 Vi per cent per year, but was not as onerous as had been contemplated. I felt this was a step forward. Many representatives of farm organizations and a number of members of parliament have been in communication with the minister in an attempt to get the government to recognize the fact that these quotas which were acquired before 1972 should be treated in a manner that was similar. Very often the interpretation of an amendment is different from the expectation of the Minister of Finance. To cite an example I would refer to clause 30 of the Income Tax Act, which refers to the assessment in respect of a part-time farmer. This is interpreted quite differently, in my view, by the national revenue department. We have had a great deal of discussion about this with the Minister of National Revenue.
The only way to acquire a quota is to purchase one or inherit it. Those acquired before that particular date were in a different category. I presume the minister envisaged an evaluation day as has been requested by the Canadian Federation of Agriculture and other farm groups. There are three ways to acquire a production quota; you can inherit one, you can buy one or you can marry one, and sometimes that is not the greatest way. I looked very diligently, with the assistance of my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the parliamentary legal officer, to find a way to amend Bill C-193 with just
Income Tax Law (No. 3)
such an amendment as the minister has proposed, but I found it could not be done.
The minister, as a matter of fact, had trouble himself and was able to smuggle it in this way-and I am grateful to him for having done so-as an amendment to the ways and means motion. I think the fact that he responded in this way makes it possible for me to be more gentle in my criticism and to forgive him for past sins. Certainly I am more gentle than my colleague from Perth-Wilmot on this matter.
I am certain that the government has considered this matter for some time. I have a document from the deputy minister of finance which indicates that at least for one month the government has been seriously considering this particular change. Ordinary members of parliament, unless they have the power of ministers in terms of presenting amendments or making changes, undergo a great deal of frustration. What is a person supposed to do? He can make speeches, he can bring in private members' bills, he can present motions under Standing Order 43, and he can rise during the oral question period. After many efforts to bring this kind of inequity to the attention of the minister I am glad he has now come to what is a more sensible position.
I want to point out that there were great inequities which resulted from this particular point of view in respect of the production quota and the sale of that quota. While it costs money to acquire it by a purchaser, the vendor who may have inherited it was certainly eligible for a tremendously heavy taxation, and I hope this will change it in favour of that particular producer. Often his quota is tied up as is his pension. So I am pleased the government has seen the light here and I am pleased, along with many other colleagues, to have been a part of the representations made to the department on this matter. I think it is a step in the right direction.


Mr. Reid:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We have made arrangements to proceed to the question of the objection to the Manitoba redistribution commission changes. I understand there is a disposition on the part of the House to continue for another five minutes and take up this matter when those five minutes are over.


Gérald Laniel: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: Shall new clause 27.1 carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Amendment (Mr. Macdonald, Rosedale) agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 28-Shares received on amalgamation.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Chairman, this new subsection deems that the new shares that were acquired on amalgamation be the same property as the old shares given up, and in this way any capital gain which may be construed as arising prior to 1972 should not be subject to tax.
5336

July 5, 1973
Redis tribu tion


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 29-Limitation.
John Napier Turner: This is a relieving amendment to expand the provision of the income tax application rule which permits certain single payments from a pension plan or a preferred profit-sharing plan to be taxed at the option of the taxpayer at a special rate of tax calculated by reference to the average income and tax for the preceding three years of an employee who was a member of a pension plan or deferred profit-sharing plan.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
On clause 30-Capital gains dividend of a mutual fund corporation.
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this is a consequential amendment.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall the title carry?


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Gérald Laniel: Shall I report the bill?
Bill reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: When shall the said bill be read a third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: By leave, now.


John Napier Turner: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the proposal made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) concerning the order of business between now and five o'clock. The House will proceed to the consideration of this business.
* * ' *


REDISTRIBUTION
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: On June 14, 1973, a notice of objection in the form of a motion was filed with Mr. Speaker in the following terms:
That, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970), consideration be given by this House to the matter of an objection to the provisions of the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Manitoba, laid before this House by Mr. Speaker on May 22, 1973, on the grounds set forth hereafter:
1.	The failure of the commission to recognize the tolerance percentages allowed under the act and the drawing of the boundaries so that rural representation is numerically equal to urban representation as to the numbers of voters in each riding.
2.	The drawing of the boundaries of the electoral districts fail to take note of geographic, trading and social structures, particularly of the rural ridings.

3.	The drawing of the boundaries so that the city of Winnipeg, comprising approximately one-half of the population of Manitoba, is a significant component in nine different constituencies of Manitoba.
4.	And such other objections that the undersigned members may consider applicable in order to carry out the spirit and terms and conditions of the act in question.
Hort. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris): Mr. Speaker, the objection to the recommendation of the boundaries commission has been formally made pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. I wish to take this opportunity in speaking to the objection to enlarge on some of the points that were made in the formal objection.
This is the second time that parliament has had the opportunity to deal with boundaries redistribution and adjustments under the terms of the new legislation, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. I participated in the debate on the first occasion. The objections on that occasion were just as strong as the objections that are being made at present, and I think that the repetition of the objections is an indication that there is something fundamentally wrong with our method of electoral boundaries readjustment.
The act as it was passed back in 1969 was designed to remove redistribution from the realm of partisan politics. Based on the experience of the former and present adjustment, I would say that the act has not only removed the process of distribution from the realm of partisan politics but it has removed the process from the realm of politics absolutely. I say that because there were amendments made to the original act which we suggested, when they were made, would result in the situation that confronts parliament at present. I refer to the amendment which removed representation from the two major political parties of the House of Commons, that is, the government party and representation from the official opposition as members of the commissions in each of the provinces.
The original act as it was presented to parliament included these representatives because it was felt that if you were going to get a redistribution that made sense in terms of the prevailing economic, geographic and sociological circumstances of the riding, it would be necessary to have on the boundaries commissions representatives who had had some exposure to the realities of practical politics. Once the act was amended to remove this input of practical reality it meant that the whole process of redistribution was relegated to those who might have some academic understanding of the political process, and certainly in most instances at least they will be pure from the standpoint of partisan politics, but as has happened in the practical realities of distribution they will fail utterly to even implement the will of parliament as expressed in the act as it was finally passed.
The objections that have been phrased in the formal presentation that has been made by several members from the province of Manitoba deal with three points: first, the failure of the commission to recognize the tolerance allowance under the act. This is a vital part of the whole process of redistribution if we are going to get an equitable balance between the urban community and the rural com-
July 5, 1973

munity. Parliament strongly recommends, and it is so enshrined in the act, that in order to make up for the imbalance in this regard that is inevitable, the redistribution commission should be permitted an upward or downward tolerance of 25 per cent.
With reference to the redistribution in Manitoba, the commission has not only ignored that recommendation but they have aggravated the problem. I refer to my own constituency of Brandon-Souris which is primarily rural and therefore should have some advantage downward in terms of the percentage. Rather than giving that advantage to a rural constituency, the commissioners have erred on the other side of the register and the population figure that they are recommending for this rural constituency is 85,000, some 3 per cent above the quotient of 82,000. You can see that the commission has failed utterly to implement the wishes of parliament as expressed in the legislation that is behind the boundaries redistribution.
Hon. members and constituents were given an opportunity to present their objections to the recommendations in a series of hearings that were held during the month of March. At the hearing in the city of Brandon which took place on March 15 and occupied a whole day, every town and every rural municipality was present. They spent the whole day expressing their objections to the recommendations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Manitoba. We were hopeful that on the basis of those objections the necessary amendments would be made because it was our sense at the meeting that the commission had been convinced that there had to be further readjustments. However, when the final recommendation came before parliament we discovered that not one iota of change was made. Not only was the wish of parliament thwarted in terms of the tolerance principle, but the vox populi, public opinion, was completely ignored by the commissioners who were obviously working on an academic basis rather than on the basis of practical political reality. I repeat again that it is due to the fundamental flaw in the act where the amendment removed the possibility of practical input.
I do not want to occupy the entire time because there are others who want to speak, but I would underline and emphasize the basic objection to the recommendations as they have come from the hands of the commissioners.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but perhaps at this time there should be some kind of agreement because normally the House would proceed to private members' business. So I will recognize the parliamentary secretary, and if there is agreement we might pursue this debate further.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, we have made arrangements through the usual channels to provide 15 minutes for debate on the notice of objection to the report of the Manitoba boundaries commission. We used up some of that time to assist the committee of the whole to complete its consideration of the tax bill. Perhaps we could take up the necessary time in private members' hour to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks and to permit the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) to make a few brief remarks as well. Following that, with the consent of the House, instead of taking notices of motions for the
Redistribution
production of papers we could take private members' notices of motions and consider item No. 7 standing in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Hon. members have heard the proposal of the parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed that we delay private members' hour for a few minutes and then consider the motion under the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Speaker, I can finish in a sentence or two. The ultimate objection, of course, is the fact that not only are we being reduced from the existing 13 seats to 12 seats in the province of Manitoba, but the suggested boundaries, as they now stand, indicate that there is a possibility that for nine of the remaining constituencies out of the total of 12-they border the city of Winnipeg-we could have nine members of parliament from the urban part of Manitoba as opposed to three from the rural part.
I would conclude my remarks by pointing out that one of the urgent social policies that is required today-in fact government at the federal level and provincial level have taken major policy initiatives to redress this situation-is the necessity of maintaining the integrity of our rural communities. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion is devoted to this desirable objective. Obviously, from what I have already indicated this afternoon, the recommendations fly in the face of government policy and I would strongly object to the redistribution of boundaries as they have now been presented to the House.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in commenting on this bill I should like to reiterate what has already been stated by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) as I too come from a rural area. Many of the criticisms I will make are peculiar to Manitoba but I think they could be related to most parts of Canada.
Perhaps the aspect of the redrawing of the boundaries that has given much comment has been the lack of change in population that has occurred in Canada particularly in the last decade when rural Manitoba, as part of the rural west, had such a great depopulation. Many factors would indicate that this depopulation will perhaps be coming to an end and that in future population changes would not be so great, so the redrawing of electoral boundaries will not have such an impact.
One of the main arguments and disagreements that I have with the commission has been on its failure to take into account the 25 per cent tolerance that was put in to allow constituencies to vary by that amount. I do not think many members would want the full 25 per cent allowance to be given to all rural communities as opposed to 25 per cent more per city, because this would nearly double city populations over rural populations. There may well have been a greater tolerance reserved in Manitoba, but it can be fairly safely said there was no observation of the 25 per cent tolerance in Manitoba. I believe we have in
26446-47^

July 5, 1973
Redistribution
Brandon, considered a rural constituency, greater than the norm. In my own constituency it was so slightly under the norm as to be considered almost as if all constituencies have to be considered the same.
I think some weighting has to be given to rural constituencies over and above the actual population count. I suggest that the commission may well have been composed of people who necessarily, in the make-up of commissions, come from the cities of the province. They may well have considered that they were not expected to have observed population tolerance and the 25 per cent was only put in there because there was only an occasional riding where it should be considered, such as Churchill, Manitoba.
In the constituency of Dauphin, an area of 300 miles long by 150 miles wide, with people scattered all over the area, there is only one town of 9,000 people, the balance living in hamlets, villages and isolated farms. There is a reasonably good road in the area and the terrain is flat and one can move around fairly easily by automobile, but the enormous distances covered to service the riding should be taken into consideration.
Every member is deluged with service to his constituents on old age pension and unemployment insurance problems and other non-political problems that only he can attend to; but the city dweller has a greater chance of attending to these things himself than the rural dweller. This is very natural because government offices must necessarily be located in the large cities. If a citizen of Winnipeg has a problem with income tax, he can walk downtown to the income tax office and, hopefully, get an opinion, whereas if he lived a couple of hundred miles out this could not be done. Similarly with unemployment insurance and almost all the social services where the officials are concentrated in the city. I believe that the commission in Manitoba has assumed that rural population will continue, and have drawn the boundaries on the basis of what the population will likely be some time in the future; but this is not necessarily so. Perhaps the natural increase will not be so great, and indeed I would hope that in the next decade it would level out.
With this in mind I should like to protest the drawing of the boundaries as presently stated in Manitoba. I should also like to suggest that the commission did not take into account in the rural areas the normal flow of commerce and population movement. In Manitoba we have a general east-west movement of commerce. This is because Winnipeg is situated at the southeastern corner and the settlement of agricultural areas is spread over the west and northwest, so there has been a general movement in this direction. I do not think that the commission has adequately taken into account the natural boundaries,, the flow of commerce and the highway system in drawing their maps.
I should also like to take issue with the fact that the province of Manitoba, with 12 seats, will only have three outside a significant portion of the city of Winnipeg. These would be Brandon-Souris, Dauphin and Churchill, and of these only Dauphin would be a strictly rural constituency representing people who almost wholly make their income from agriculture. Although Winnipeg has half the population of Manitoba, under boundaries as they are drawn there would be a significant Winnipeg population in nine

of the 12 constituencies. I suggest this is not good. Wherever possible, rural and city seats should be completely separated.
In Manitoba, according to the demographic drawing of the boundaries, it is proposed that one seat would be half city and half rural. I believe this should be confined to one riding only. I believe such considerations would be very useful to follow in any redrawing of boundaries. I hope the observations of the present commission will be taken into consideration by future commissions and, when boundaries are redrawn that these considerations will be taken into account. This point should also be considered right across this country. I believe that the lumping together of agricultural and city constituencies, particularly where large cities are involved, is not good and should be avoided wherever possible.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. Pursuant to the order made this day, the further consideration of the Manitoba electoral boundaries report stands deferred. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax-East (Mr. Forrestall)-Transport-Crew of motor vessel "Travetal"; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-External Affairs-Nuclear tests proposed by France-Canadian representations-Participation in possible action before International Court; the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr.	Roche)-External
Affairs-Possible increase in external aid programs and support for United Nations-Request for statement.

It being after five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper. I believe the House is to consider private member's notice of motion No. 7.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That in the opinion of this House the government should consider the advisability of removing all limitations and restrictions whatsoever on the entitlement and payment of pensions, superannuation or retirement allowances of whatever kind to retired members of the Canadian defence forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, senators and members of parliament when any such person so entitled enters into the service of the government of Canada, whether by way of the Public Service Commission or by appointment by the federal authority to any commission, board, or other body or to the judiciary of Canada or in any other manner.
He said: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow's order paper will look different. My motion has been standing at the head of the list for some months and, because its principle was so important, it was being considered in high places. There were discussions regarding its acceptability and I hope that some progress has been made in this connection.
My motion purports to ask the government to consider the advisability of taking certain action with regard to the restrictions now imposed on members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Members of Parliament and Senators who, having completed their period of service under the Crown in one capacity, would by entering the public service of Canada or by being appointed by the federal government to a board, commission, the bench, or any other type of employment under federal jurisdiction, lose certain pension entitlement by reason of the very outdated application of an old principle that somebody dredged up from I do not know where. That principle suggests that one cannot take two benefits simultaneously from the Crown.
At one stage members of the armed forces on retirement could not enter into the service of the government of Canada without abating their superannuation entirely until their retirement from the public service. It is the same with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Members of Parliament have never suffered from any such abatement.
Let me show how hollow is the application of the principle which says that this matter shall be applied rigidly and that it is sacrosanct. For years now there has been in the armed forces and also in the RCMP the rank of chief warrant officer. It used to be warrant officer class one. Any pension or superannuation payable to a person occupying any rank up to that rank was eliminated, was carved out; therefore it was only commissioned officers in the armed services who were caught by the disability, to the extent that their superannuation allowances exceeded those paid to a chief warrant officer.
This matter involved many highly trained men. The country, for instance, spent a great deal of time training many senior staff officers. This training was thrown away for ten years at least, in the majority of cases. We did not utilize the abilities of these men. There was no way that
Pensions
they were going to take a job with the government of Canada and have their pensions abated because of a formula which said that the salary they would take with their new employment must not exceed the allowances to which they were entitled on retirement. This provision imposed a very grave penalty on many people if they took such employment.
On the other hand, in cases where the Crown was to benefit the principle was sacrificed. It was cut in two for expediency's sake. Strangely enough, if any member of the armed services or RCMP went to work for a provincial government, for the Crown in the name of the province, such restriction did not apply at all. The provinces have been the gainers thereby, because those men who went to work for the provincial governments have been men of ability who have greatly contributed to the efficacy of the public service of the provinces. I am not complaining about that; my complaint is that these men could easily have been available, in most instances, to the public service of Canada.
Because such men have taken the combined benefits, some people have said, "Oh, but they are getting far too much money". We should look at the effects of income tax, which is a great reducer to a common base. Secondly, I find -t absolutely repugnant to think that a man or a woman who has been in the service of Canada in the armed forces, in the RCMP or as a member of the House, should be disentitled to a pension on taking certain other employment. If that individual had worked for a number of years in private industry or been self-employed and had paid into a retirement pension plan, and had then entered the service of the government of Canada, he would have been entitled to bring that pension along with him. That person has contributed to a private plan. The member of the armed services contributes to superannuation; it is part of his pay. The same goes for the RCMP, as well as for the Member of Parliament.
To me, the Member of Parliament who is doing his job, who has to give up his business, give up his profession, or see his business disappear, and is paying into the pension plan, is building up his pension here in the same way as are the officers of the House and in the same way as are other personnel of the House of Commons. That is the way we build up our retirement income. This represents savings. Yet some outdated and outlandish interpretation of the law makes Members of Parliament and Senators flogging horses, or flogging boys. This is too much.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has given this place his lifetime. I apologize for singling him out, but he happens to be here. I could also mention the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dins-dale) who has been a member of this House since 1951. He has given the greatest part of his productive years to the service of this country as a Member of Parliament. Both of these are very hard working men and they have a pension entitlement. However, if for some reason or another either of them were to retire from this House-


Stanley Howard Knowles: But neither of us intends to do so.

July 5, 1973
Pensions


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre could add to his laurels by becoming chancellor of Brandon University or taking some form of employment with the government of Canada.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no pay attached to that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, but it would add to his laurels. For him, with his accumulated knowledge, to sit on some board or commission would be of immense value. However, as long as he is in that employment his superannuation entitlement would be in abeyance. If he had come from private industry or anywhere else, he would carry his pension entitlement with him. However, as a Member of Parliament he is not entitled to that. That is utter nonsense.
It must seem strange that we speak about this question in this milieu of ours, but I want to eliminate all that. If a lawyer served as a Member of Parliament for 15 or 20 years, he would be entitled to a pension. If he is appointed to the Bench, whether it is the county court or superior court of a province, there is no way he can draw upon his accumulation of pension entitlement. At the present time, it is payable to his estate. Up until two years ago, it was totally forfeited if one went to the Bench. How ridiculous!
A lawyer who gives up his practice, which is his capital, to serve as a Member of Parliament accumulates a modest pension entitlement. It is certainly very modest compared to the upper levels of the public service and very modest compared to the upper levels in business and industry. In any event, he builds up a modest pension entitlement.
Most lawyers are prudent men. Most judges will say they require some additional revenue to properly maintain their standard of living as a judge. Many judges have told me that if they had not built up capital to give them additional revenue, they could not have accepted the job. However, a Member of Parliament is precluded from doing that unless he has some other source of outside revenue. He pays 714 per cent of his salary into a pension plan. This is a higher contribution than in any other walk of life in Canada. I have read newspaper articles which state this is the most generous pension plan in Canada. Nonsense. It is only that people are totally ignorant of what this pension plan means. They only look at the front end load.
It is true that after six years a young Member of Parliament becomes entitled to a pension. That is one of the features I would like to see reviewed. However, it is not for me to say that such and such a member who is much younger than I should not be entitled to a pension.
When I first came here, the maximum pension was $3,000 a year after 17 years of service. Upon reaching the age of 70, the old age pension was deducted from that. That is how far they carried the principle that you could not receive two benefits from the Crown. That is how ridiculous it was. Now there is this continuing drive.
I hope members will agree this matter should be further aired, and that the subject matter of this motion should be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. It should also be considered by Treasury Board. We should decide once and for all to do away with this restriction.

I am sure there is no venality or nepotism in the government appointing a Member of Parliament to a commission. There are a lot of such bodies and these men earn their pension. However for some damn fool reason they are not entitled to recovery until they retire from that appointment. In the case of a judge, the contributions will go to his estate.
My last point is whether the pension scheme is generous. Has anyone seen what happens after 15 years' service? The benefit from the contributions goes down dramatically. In certain instances there is a front end load, but not for the average Member of Parliament. For those who have had the benefit of being returned by their constituents for more than 15 years, the whole thing becomes farcical. There is no way you can keep up your contributions to the level to which you are entitled on the basis of the service that has been rendered. There is also the IVi per cent impost which, incidentally, only this year exceeds the allowance under the Income Tax Act. Therefore, a goodly portion of the contributions are doubly taxed, both when they go in and when they come out.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I had firmly intended to sit this one out, but the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) had occasion in a very kind way to make a reference to me as well as to my good friend and fellow Manitoban, the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale). Therefore, I should like to say a few words.
I wish to make it clear that in my view the hon. member is doing a service by raising the question of the position, when they are retired and on pension, of former members of the Canadian Armed Forces and of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. There may be other categories, but those are two categories of public servants where by law they have to retire early. The hon. member is quite right in pointing out that many of these persons have gained considerable expertise and at the time of retirement they could render invaluable service. There is no reason they should be denied the opportunity to render that service to the federal government. They are free to do so in the case of provincial governments, private industry, and so on, so it does not seem sensible they should be denied the right to render further service to the federal government.
Nevertheless, at the risk of inviting some of the epithets the hon. member has been throwing out, I must say to him that I wish he had not included in this motion the reference to Members of Parliament and Senators. I insist that our position is different. There is no point in talking of the pension as it was when the hon. member came here, or as it was not when I first came here. The fact is that it is now, for those who stay around a few years, a generous pension. If a member has been here for six years, no matter what his age, he receives a pension of $3,780 a year for life, subject to a 2 per cent annual escalation. If he stays here for ten years, his pension starts at $6,300 a year for life no matter at what age he begins to draw it. If he enjoys the place so much that he stays around for 25 years or more-and this is an enjoyable place if you stay here that long-his pension will be $13,500 for life subject to a 2 per cent annual escalation provision. Then again, whereas
July 5, 1973

most Canadians find the Canada Pension Plan incorporated with their other pension plans, ours is stacked.
As to Senators, they do not retire until the age of 75. Their pension arrangements, if they have been Senators only, are not quite as good as ours. But if they have been members of this House translated to the other place, their pensions are the equal of ours. I believe there is a difference between those of us who have served in this place of our own free will, with a little public support, and those who become employees of the state, as are members of the Canadian Armed Forces and the RCMP.
I have to say with all kindliness to the hon. member, since he tells us that ideas such as mine are foolish, farcical, and so on, that it would not be a wise move for us to change the rules and make it possible for Members of Parliament, having got pensions, to take up a federal government job and get paid twice. We complain, and hon. members of the Progressive Conservative party complain, about the numbers of defeated Liberals who get themselves on the government payroll. Many of them were not around long enough to get a pension, and I suppose the reason they got these jobs is because they had not qualified for a pension. But if it were possible to place on the payroll defeated Liberals who were already drawing pensions, I believe my hon. friend's friends would complain about it even more than they do at present.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What about working for a province?


Stanley Howard Knowles: We differed about this when improvements were being made in the pension plan a few years ago and we still disagree. I still think we established one of the most generous plans in the country. I would point out that we also made provision for a 60 per cent pension to be paid to our widows, whereas the widows of members of the armed services and the RCMP get pensions of 50 per cent. The members of this House did pretty well.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We pay for it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All I am saying is that I believe the resolution would have been stronger, subject to less criticism, to less concern from the point of view of conflict of interest, if you like, had the part about Members of Parliament been left out.
Even so, I believe the general idea should be studied. I hope the arrangements I have heard talked about are correct, namely that the House will allow the subject matter to go to an appropriate committee for consideration. I strongly support the idea that the question should be looked at with respect to the position of retired members of the Armed Forces and the R.C.M.P., but I very strongly oppose making it possible for retired Members of Parliament to draw their pensions along with a salary for working for the federal government.
I think the hon. member is not right in a technical sense when he says there is some general rule against anyone getting two benefits from the Crown. There are members of this House who draw the family allowance in addition to their indemnity as MPs. I believe there is one member who draws income from three sources under the Crown-
Pensions
his indemnity, his old age pension and the family allowance. There are others who draw war disability pensions and their indemnities, and properly so. These things stand on their own feet. There is no blanket rule. We have the right under law to decide what should be permitted.
Pension schemes are worked out on an actuarial basis. One of the reasons our plan is so generous is because it was assumed from an actuarial point of view that certain things would happen. An attempt to change the provisions of the plan could easily destroy its actuarial basis. I am sorry the hon. member should have made it necessary for me to rise to my feet and divorce myself from the suggestion he made about Members of Parliament, but I must do so, without question. As for Senators, at the age of 75, when they retire-and, as hon. members know, if I had my way I would retire all of them immediately-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Look out. They could retire you the same way as you would retire them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I agree there are certain cases in which the country is the loser because some of the retired members of the RCMP and the Armed Forces are not available to us, and I hope this part of the motion will receive sympathetic consideration if the subject matter is referred to a committee; but not the part about Members of Parliament.


John Mercer Reid: I want to thank the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) who has shown the patience of Job while awaiting the appearance of his motion before the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Job never got a pension.


John Mercer Reid: A number of discussions have taken place "on high", as the hon. member phrased it, to work out an agreement designed to get this motion into a standing committee. The reason is that the motion touches a situation which is important to us. It does seem stupid to provide pensions for members of the RCMP, the Armed Forces, and people in other categories, and to permit them thereafter to take employment in the right of the Crown in the provinces, for example, while continuing to draw their pensions, yet deny them an opportunity to take further employment with the Crown in the right of Canada while drawing their pensions. It strikes me as anomalous that such a situation should exist.
When I appeared before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates to discuss the estimates of the Prime Minister's office and the Privy Council there was some talk about pensions paid to former prime ministers. It was brought to my attention that present arrangements work to the detriment of prime ministers who retire at an age less than 65. The pension plan which has been structured for those individuals in the House of Commons does not strike me as being reasonable or fair. I would hope that one of the things the standing committee would be able to discuss is the adequacy of pension arrangements made for former prime ministers.

July 5, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
One of the dilemmas we face now, as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) has pointed out, is that since being a Member of Parliament is a full-time and exhaustive job, requiring at a minimum 12 hours a day plus most of the weekends. There is very little opportunity for anyone who has been here for a short period of time to carry on his former profession or to seek new employment until the decision is taken either by oneself or through other circumstances to depart from political activity.
Therefore, in the case of a cabinet minister, and particularly in the case of a prime minister, it does seem that we have to provide some form of adequate compensation so they are not thrown out on the job market, so to speak, with little or nothing to maintain themselves. That is the basic situation as it pertains to those who would hold the position of prime minister at the age of less than 65 at any given time.
Having had discussions with hon. members, I should like to terminate this debate by proposing:
That the proposed motion standing in the name of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) be discharged, and that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.
That is where this matter was discussed before.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Shall I call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until eight o'clock p.m.
At 5.44 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-208, to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the

second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the bill which is now before the House will have the effect of suspending the provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The first issue with which the bill deals is the current redistribution. In the past number of weeks we have had the reports of the provincial boundaries commissions as provided for under the present law. It is plain that if the redistribution process currently underway were allowed to proceed it would probably result in a situation where it may be physically impossible to have an election between late this fall and the fall of 1974. That is the first point I want to make. The second is that there are pretty strong indications, particularly from the objections which have been filed in the House of Commons to the reports of the redistribution commissions, that there is considerable dissatisfaction with the results of the present system under which we operate.
This bill, if it carries and is made law, would make it possible for the House of'Commons to consider changes that might bring about a more satisfactory system of redistribution. The first problem, namely the difficulty of impossibility of having an election during a period as long as one year, arises because of the time schedule which is formally established under the present Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. Under the time schedule in the present law the new electoral boundaries resulting from the redistribution currently under way would probably be proclaimed in November or December of this year. If, in the normal course, the objections that have already been filed were debated in the House of Commons and returned for reconsideration to the provincial commissions which would consider them, then returned by the provincial commissions to the Representation Commissioner he would have ready for proclamation this fall the new representation system or the new boundaries affecting the electoral districts in Canada.
Once the proclamation establishing these boundaries was made, any election following that would have to be held on the basis of the new boundaries. However, it is estimated by the Chief Electoral Officer that it would probably take a minimum of one year from the time the new boundaries are proclaimed to prepare for a new election. That arises from the fact that new returning officers would have to be appointed for each of the new electoral districts. Once the returning officers had been selected, they would have to undergo training in order to allow them to carry out their functions. Once all the returning officers were selected and trained, they in turn would have to carry out, in a sense, a mini redistribution in each of the new electoral districts establishing the boundaries of new polling divisions. So much for the administrative side.
On the political side it is probable that the political parties in the country having to fight that election would require considerable time to organize themselves and cope with the problem of running candidates in basically new electoral districts.
July 5, 1973

Consequently, in order to prevent a situation where it would be virtually impossible to have an election for a period of one year, this bill provides that the present electoral boundaries shall remain in force for a period of one year after the new electoral boundaries are proclaimed, whether these new boundaries come about as a result of the present method of redistribution, or any other new method or new system on which parliament might decide. If the House were totally satisfied with the results of the present system and with the new boundaries of each of the new proposed constituencies, it would still require a considerable period of time in order to prepare for a new election and, as I have stated, that period of time would probably extend for at least one year. I cannot foresee that members of parliament or members of the public would accept with any equanimity the possibility that an election could not be held in this country, say, from the fall of 1973 to the fall of 1974. So that is one aspect of the problem.
The second aspect concerns dissatisfaction with the electoral boundaries arising out of the current redistribution process. It would seem that the problem is really the current system of redistribution, or the number of seats allocated to each province. The electoral boundaries being proposed have been arrived at in compliance with the rules and procedures laid down in the present law. None the less, I realize, as do other hon. members, that there is substantial dissatisfaction with the results, as evidenced by speeches in the House by various members and by the number and fundamental nature of the objections to the proposals of the provincial electoral boundaries commissions. As hon. members know, substantial objections have been tabled to the representation commission reports for six provinces to date, and the time period for the tabling of objections for three other provinces has yet to expire, in which case further objections might be expected. Only the report from Prince Edward Island has not had objections registered.
Consequently, with the passage of this act to suspend the current redistribution process it would be possible for parliament to consider how to deal with developing a more appropriate method for redistribution, and the government will be making proposals to the House in this regard, probably in the resumed session. We realize that it is important for members of the House, probably through a parliamentary committee, to consider whether it is possible to bring about a more satisfactory system, whether it be by increasing slightly or substantially the number of members of the House of Commons or some other method that may be developed within the committee. In any event, parliament will have an opportunity to consider whether a more satisfactory system could be developed, and that cannot be done overnight; it will take a lot of thought and consideration by members of all parties.
In order to give adequate time for consideration of a new system of redistribution, this bill will continue the suspension of the necessary sections of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act until January 1, 1975. It is hoped and expected that within that period it will be possible for members of the House to agree on a new system of redistribution that would replace the present system. But to guard against the possibility that at the end of that period parliament has failed to act and to bring
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension about a new system of redistribution, and to avoid the feeling that there may be inherent in this bill a desire to avoid redistribution altogether or to avoid the redrawing of boundaries, there is a provision in the bill that at the end of that period, if results have not been achieved, the present system will be reactivated. We stop the clock, as it were, at the present time and it is not allowed to tick for a period of 18 months. If in that time some alternative system has not been developed, the bill provides for the clock to start ticking again and the whole process currently under way will be reactivated, subject to certain modifications contained in this bill designed to minimize the effect of the suspension.
In keeping with that description of the problem the provisions of the bill can be quite simply divided into three parts: those which deal with the suspension of the existing redistribution process; those which provide for the reinstatement of the process if parliament does not take any action within 18 months; and finally a provision which ensures that there will not be a hiatus during which it would be difficult or impossible to hold an election following the proclamation of a new system or the proclamation of new boundaries affecting all the constituencies of Canada.
Along with the suspension provision of the bill or the suspension of the ongoing process, provision has been made to discharge the existing provincial representation commissions. If the bill becomes law, the present provincial representation commissions which have been sending their reports to the House of Commons would cease working at this stage and would be discharged for the present time.
As I have explained, should no new approach to redistribution be achieved or formulated within 18 months, the existing redistribution process would be reinstated along with the establishment of new representation commissions which would pick up the reports prepared by the existing provincial representation commissions. From the reports that have already been presented and the parliamentary objections that have been tabled, the reconstituted commissions would familiarize themselves with the situation, and then they would hold public hearings. On the basis of these hearings, the reports of the current representation commission and parliamentary objections thereto, the reconstituted commissions would then prepare a report which would be submitted to parliament and would be treated in precisely the same manner as if these reports of the reconstituted commissions were the initial reports of the provincial representation commissions.
Provision is therefore made for parliamentary objections to the reports of the reformed commissions and the debate of the reports and the objections which follow these reports would be returned to the reformed or reconstituted commissions for revision as these commissions believed appropriate. On the basis of the revisions prepared by the reconstituted commissions, the representation commissioner would prepare a redistribution order which, on proclamation, would establish the distribution which would take effect immediately following any dissolution of the House of Commons occurring at least one year after the proclamation order. This one year provision
5344

July 5, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension would avoid the hiatus or interregnum which exists in the current redistribution act.
The framework of the bill is quite simple, if I may summarize it again for hon. members. The first effect the bill would have is to avoid the situation that for a period of one year an election could not be held, as is currently the case; and an 18 month period would be made available to the House of Commons to develop a new system of redistribution. The object of the exercise is that we find in that period of time a more satisfactory system of redistribution. If we fail, then we have to go back to the system we have now. We would have to gear up the process and bring it to the same conclusion that it would have-were it left to continue without any interruption. In the normal course the representation commissioner would issue his proclamation this fall and the next election would be carried out on the basis of the proclamation order. We avoid that for at least 18 months in the hope that we get a better system. If we do not achieve a better system we go back and live with the present system that so many of us find unsatisfactory.
That is the objective of the bill, Mr. Speaker. It is quite simple. Hon. members have probably been informed about it through my colleagues, the house leaders of the other parties. I hope it will be possible to deal with it fairly quickly and have further consideration of any technical considerations or details in the standing committee.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in general I would support this bill and I think it will find guarded favour with many of our group. There is a great deal of dissatisfaction with the way in which the new electoral boundaries have been drawn and a general feeling among many that changes should be made.
It was interesting to note during committee hearings, when I heard the problems of the Chief Electoral Officer, that when the present electoral map was redrawn in effect it could not be brought into force in a practical way for a year. That certainly showed that something had to be done. Whatever the manner the new boundaries are arrived at, whether the present manner or one which this House will devise, this one year period will give the Chief Electoral Officer an opportunity to carry out his duties in a reasonable way. It will also give political parties and candidates a chance to prepare and to make plans on the basis of a reasonable electoral map.
It is interesting that this was not noticed when the present electoral law was drawn up back in the 1960s, and it just goes to show that the best laid plans are not foolproof.
*
Much of the dissatisfaction with the present drawing of the map has no doubt come about because of the very rapid change in population growth, which has shown that the Canadian population is growing at a much faster rate than is the case in many other countries. The population of Canada has increased from something like 18 million in 1961 to almost 22 million in 1971. As well as that, there has been a great shift from rural to urban areas and the various provinces have not grown at the same rate, sometimes due to their attractiveness in climate or development in the economic sense. My own province of Manitoba and the neighbouring province of Saskatchewan have

shown a steady decline in their elected members although they have not lost any population, losing one member each in the present electoral process. There is considerable evidence that this trend could continue.
In the maritime provinces Prince Edward Island is down to their four members, and protected by the number of Senators. In New Brunswick a like situation prevails, with ten members protected by the Senate representation. Newfoundland is at its minimum and Nova Scotia is one above. Manitoba and Saskatchewan could drop down to six members in relation to the number of Senators they have. The province of Quebec will lose two members while Ontario and British Columbia will gain three.
The demand that there should be some means of prorating other than with the number of Senators has been extensively canvassed. It is hoped that whatever method is used to seek out and clarify the situation, representation of provinces will be just and equitable. It will have to take in representation by population as well, I believe, as other factors.
Not everyone will feel that redistribution should be delayed for a second look, especially those provinces that have been growing rapidly. Numerous city ridings have shown a very large increase in their populations in a short time. Some such ridings have doubled their population since the last redistribution. However, this is a feature of rapid population growth and shift in our country, and there are bound to be considerable inequities at any given time in any situation that develops.
The suggestion of a boundary commission appeared to become non-political and, as such, seemed to be an excellent idea. But the idea of commissions composed of those in high and honoured positions does not seem to take into account all those factors that go to make up our population mosaic. The people in charge now largely seem concerned with feeding the appropriate population figures into the computer and drawing maps accordingly.
In my province, Manitoba, the commission seems to have ignored entirely the tolerance of 25 per cent allowed for under the act as between constituencies. This tolerance was to give weight to distance, which was a factor, so that generally allowance could be made to have rural constituencies somewhat smaller than the norm, while city constituencies could be a bit bigger.
While representation by population seems an equitable goal at which to arrive, there is no doubt that constituents living in cities have better access to government offices and officials than do rural constituents, who must necessarily have less service than city constituents. Consequently, the distance factor makes such constituents more dependent on their member of parliament.
The commission also seemed to be extremely insensitive to communities of interest, to the flow of people in natural trading and transportation areas, and seemed to disregard natural boundaries. In my province, Manitoba, it has been contrived that nine out of the 12 ridings will have a significant Winnipeg component, although Winnipeg makes up only about one-half of the total population. There is a general fear on the part of rural constituencies that they will become completely dominated by the city
July 5, 1973

segments, of which they are part. Similarly, perhaps, city constituencies of a largely rural riding area would harbour the same fear.
It seems to me that, wherever possible, the city and rural ridings should be separated, and in matters such as these commissions have not been particularly sensitive to existing needs. I submit that further guidelines must be given to the commission to enable them to draw up more workable constituency maps. I believe that, although the commissions should not be political, they ought to have political input. Having discussed this with hon. members in committees, I believe better guidelines should be drawn.
There has also been a feeling that the number of members of the House should be enlarged. There has been no great change for about 30 years. Thirty years ago our population was a great deal smaller than now. There seems to be a very good case for examining this aspect and seeing whether or not an enlargement of the number of members of the House is desirable. If the number of members in the House remains at the present level, it will mean that in many rural constituencies the area to be covered will be so vast that the member will be known largely by hearsay during his four year term of office. This is particularly true where coverage by radio and television is sparse. Some enlargement of the House might prevent the loss of seats by those provinces falling behind in population growth, without detracting from the proportional increase of those provinces enjoying rapid population growth.
We must also be aware of this: although certain provinces are growing rapidly now, conditions can and almost certainly will change, and the slow growth provinces could well experience a relatively rapid increase in population. This of course, depends on the imponderables of the future.
This bill will receive mixed reaction on the part of many members. However, I wish to give it my qualified support, as I feel that it is time to have an assessment of the number of members, of the representations of the provinces and also, and very importantly, of the question whether or not the functioning of the commission can be improved on. I recognize that not everyone will totally support this view, but I hope that some compromise can be agreed to.
I do not say that we must arrive at a formula that will be satisfactorily forever and anon. No matter what we decide in this House, there will be changes made in the future in methods of redistribution. We must act on the basis of the present situation, because we cannot hope to arrive at a solution that will satisfy members of parliament who will sit here several decades from now. We must look at what is practical now and make provision for the parliaments that will sit in the next decade or so. That is how we should arrange for the redistribution process to be carried on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are dealing tonight with a bill which is of interest and concern to every member of the House. As a result, there are bound to be differences of opinion, and
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension may I say at the outset that within my party there are different views on some aspects of this bill.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) made reference to what he identifies as a feeling that the system of redistribution has been unsatisfactory. I should like to qualify that. If by the system hon. members are referring to redistribution being done by outside, independent commissions rather than committees of this House, an experience some of us remember vividly, then I say the present system is much better than the former operation. Also, in so far as the present system provides guidelines that aim at representation by population, the present system is much better than the former "non-system" under which there were no guidelines at all. Nevertheless, the workings of the system have produced a number of situations that are bound to be unsatisfactory, and I think it can be said that the purpose of the government in introducing this bill is that of trying to cope with one of these conditions right now, and to provide us with an opportunity to cope with the other one.
I think it is agreed generally, certainly it is in my party-and agreement has already been expressed by the President of the Privy Council and by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie)-that we must correct that oversight that even the best brains in this House did not detect when we passed the present act in the early 1960s. I am referring to the set up under the act which would make it possible for a strange situation to develop, namely, for the Representation Commissioner to proclaim the new boundaries and then for parliament to defeat the government and force an election at a time when an election could not be held because certain technical arrangements had not been met. It seems strange that those who were involved in that debate-mind you, that took place in a majority rather than a minority situation-missed that point.
Therefore, I am sure there will be agreement in all parts of the House that this fundamental change in the law which is proposed by this bill is one that we have to make. We support the proposal that there should be an arrangement for a proclamation leaving a space of time so that, when new boundaries following any redistribution come into effect, it will at that time be possible, if for any reason it becomes necessary, to hold a general election.
It is unthinkable under our parliamentary system that there should ever be a time when'an election cannot be held for technical reasons. So we are glad that the point has been detected, even though it took a minority government situation to bring it to light. We are glad it is to be corrected by this bill.
However, there is another situation that has developed which, in my view at any rate, parliament ought to try to correct. I refer, as did the hon. member for Dauphin and the President of the Privy Council, to the unfair situations that can develop among the various provinces.
If our law was one that went for absolute representation by population with no province being granted any kind of protection, one might push the purist argument and say that it should be carried all the way through. However, we have a situation in which a province like Prince Edward Island, with a population equal to that of one constituency
5346

July 5, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension in some cases, has four seats guaranteed to it. We also have similar guarantees for the provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Yet even among those provinces, there is an unfairness in this system.
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia both have a guarantee that their membership will not fall below 10 because each of them has 10 members in the other place. However, in the case of Newfoundland where there are only six members in the other place. The floor for that province is six members unless, of course, it can get a population above that of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. Therefore, there is a gross unfairness even among the Atlantic provinces in the way in which the senatorial floor works.
When we come to my part of the country, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, we find we have been losing seats rather heavily despite the fact our actual population has not declined. For example, when I first came to this House we had 17 members from Manitoba and 21 from Saskatchewan. Now we have 13 each. Under the proposed map, we will drop to 12 each.
I correct my friend from Dauphin. He said that in our case the floor was six. He just read that far into the constitution where it says the number of members a province has in the Senate provides the floor; but there is another provision which provides that once a province has more population than another province with 10 members, it shall not have fewer than that number. In Manitoba and Saskatchewan, each with a population greater than the province of New Brunswick, our membership cannot fall below 10, which is the floor for New Brunswick. But we could fall to 10. Indeed, we could get to the point where we have twice as much population in Manitoba or Saskatchewan as they have in New Brunswick and yet find ourselves with the same number of members.
The arbitrary floors that exist were all right in principle when they were first brought in to protect the then maritime provinces, but the way things have worked out there is now a situation of unfairness as among the smaller provinces. I use the word "smaller" in relation to population.
It seems to some of us that this is a problem that has to be solved. Maybe a way to solve it would be to abolish the principle of a senatorial floor-as far as I am concerned, we could abolish the Senate at the same time-and substitute for it some arbitrary floors picked in a scientific fashion. We could, for example, decide that in the case of Manitoba and Saskatchewan we have gone as low as we should go and should not go any lower, without detracting from the right of Ontario and British Columbia to have the larger number of members to which their population entitles them.
We could develop a system in which we provide for each province a certain number of members, two, three, or four, just because they are provinces. On top of that we could give each province a number of members in proportion to their population. Alternatively, we could decide on quotients that vary. The first 500,000 or one million could represent so many members and after that it would take more population to get additional seats.
The point I am making is there are various ways in which something could be done to resolve this riddle or

unfortunate situation in which provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia suffer in relation to the other smaller provinces, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland. It is not at all inconsistent with the belief in representation by population to press the case that provinces in this country have rights, and that includes the smaller provinces as well as the larger ones.
I have tried to suggest in very vague terms three or four ways in which this problem could be solved so that we would protect the rights of provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. However, I want to make the point immediately that we cannot solve this tonight. We cannot solve it in this month of July. We are going to need some time. However, as one who is in favour of this bill, I feel it has the advantage that it does give us time to cope with this problem.
If we do not pass this bill and let the present process continue, we will compound the unfairness to provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. It will somehow settle the issue and it will not come up again for eight or 10 years.
I have every sympathy with those, some of them in my own party, from a province like British Columbia where, under the new map, they will stand to gain seats and perhaps receive a better drawing of the boundaries. I have sympathy with their feeling that it is unfair to them to bring this process to a stop and not let them get what is their right because of their larger population.
I reply to that by saying most people will agree that the next election is likely to be fought on the old boundaries anyway. After all, the next election is not likely to be three or four years from now; it is likely to be in a much shorter time. I feel it would make sense to establish some certainty, not just so that the next election is fought on the old boundaries by default, but rather to establish the certainty suggested in this bill and then do what this bill provides-grapple with this problem of a formula that would be fair to all the provinces.
I say in all frankness that if all this bill proposed was to have the next election on the old boundaries and for nothing to be done about the basic problem, it would be somthing less than honest to support it. The only basis on which one can support this bill is, as the President of the Privy Council said, by being determined to cope with this problem of the ratio of seats among the provinces and to do so this year.
The most important thing the President of the Privy Council said in support of this bill tonight is that the government hopes to propose a solution to this problem in the resumed session. I took it from that he means to propose something when the House resumes in the fall after the summer adjournment, if indeed we have a summer adjournment. That is the main basis on which to appeal to members, especially those in provinces like Ontario and British Columbia where they defer the chance of getting more members, to support this bill.
I want to see them get their additional members, but in all frankness I do not see how they can expect to get them in the next election. I want to be sure they get them in the election after the next. I think they are fair minded people, and they will agree it is not right to continue the
July 5, 1973

unfairness, and indeed compound it against provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia. On that basis I intend to support this measure and a number of my colleagues will do the same.
Some of my hon. friends may wish to press the point that we should not deny Ontario and British Columbia the right to an increased number of members. This is a point of view that I respect, but since I do not see this is as a possibility for the next election, I believe it makes sense to establish some certainty and to give parliament a reasonable amount of time to cope with the basic problem of devising a formula which is fair to the various provinces. It does not make sense or justice to apply cold-hearted arithmetic and give Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia the number to which they are entitled by their populations, to protect provinces like Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, and then to leave other provinces such as Newfoundland and Manitoba in between so that they do not have a fair ratio of members.
I urge the House to support this bill but I hope that what the minister said in his opening remarks can be taken as a firm commitment, namely that when we are here this fall a measure will be placed before the House and sent to committee to find an appropriate formula whereby the provinces which are between the protected ones and the larger ones will get their proper number of seats in this House of Commons.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to state my opinion and that of the members of our party on the proposed reforms.
The suggested electoral reforms may be essential, but I do not see for what reason. If the decision is taken to defer those reforms till next year, I think that it would be advisable to do so. I feel that they should be deferred, because they are more or less satisfactory; while they have many advantages for some urban constituencies, they have many drawbacks in rural ridings.
We are wondering, Mr. Speaker, why it is necessary to subdivide the constituencies once again since that was done not so long ago. I know that there have been some changes in the population, but that motive should not be put forward to maintain that it is necessary to subdivide the constituencies every four or five years to upset completely the members' field of action as well as the economic activities of every province.
Faced with these divisions of ridings, the members are quite confused and the voters in some ridings find themselves at a complete loss because by changing them in the way that is desired nowadays, some of them find that they are completely new regions and agglomerations, in which the people are not used to living, talking, meeting or doing business with each other. Moreover, the geographical location does not make it possible for the people to see each other often, which creates problems.
I do not know who has been pushing this idea of dividing ridings. I do not know whether someone wants to increase the value of urban ridings, so as to reduce that of the rural ridings, but there is certainly something under -
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension hand going on, and I will say to the minister that the needs of rural ridings are by no means the same as those of urban constituencies.
I will also say to the minister that the member for a rural riding probably has 50 times more work than the member for an urban riding, because in rural areas we have the problem of agriculture, which doesn't exist in cities. In rural ridings, the problem of agriculture is one which creates a great deal of work for members.
Mr. Speaker, as far as agriculture is concerned, there are first the farm loans; the member has a lot of work to do to help farmers get those loans. Secondly, there is the crop insurance, which gave a lot of work last year to the members representing rural constituencies, because numerous problems, cropped up in that field, especially in the province of Quebec. Moreover, rural ridings have many other problems that do not exist in urban constituencies. And rural ridings are 20 to 50 times even perhaps 100 times larger than urban constituencies and it costs a lot more to the members who cover them during the year and especially during election time. Even though population is more dense in urban constituencies, there is much more work in rural constituencies than in urban ones.
Mr. Speaker, I must say also that as regards unemployment insurance, and welfare problems, in urban constituencies most of the people usually settle their own problems with the unemployment insurance officers or with welfare bureau, while in rural constituencies, people live far from the centres, they are not accustomed to travel in order to settle their problems 25, 50 or 100 miles from their home. Therefore, they turn to the member of Parliament and it is the rural member who has to look after all those problems, so he has a 100 times more problems to settle that urban members.
At the present time, constituencies are established according to the number of electors. We say: in a given constituency, there must be at least 80,000 electors. Therefore, we enlarge rural constituencies by making one out of two or three and then, we multiply urban constituencies, because we divide them according to the number of electors. That creates a lot of problems in rural constituencies and causes the latter to lose much of their influence in relation to urban constituencies.
According to the new electoral map, the province of Quebec will lose two seats in Parliament while, quite the contrary, it should not lose any, and in view of the new division it will become less important with regard to other provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I do not see the advantages of subdividing the constituencies in such a manner. Urban constituencies should be divided according to the size of the territory and rural ridings should cover so many square miles.
Rural constituencies are divided according to the number of electors; some constituencies are 200, 300 or 400 miles long while an urban constituency barely stretches three or four blocks. Mr. Speaker, this creates many problems, especially for the members of rural ridings. To my mind, this is somewhat abnormal and should be revised in order to bring some measure of justice to those ridings, because, frankly, in view of the suggested electoral reform

July 5, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension or electoral boundaries readjustment, rural ridings will be treated unfairly as compared with urban ridings.
Mr. Speaker, no difference is made between an urban riding and a rural riding, between what it may cost a rural member to visit and take care his riding and take care of it, as opposed to an urban member. In view of the situation, if the ridings are to be readjusted as recommended, I feel that rural members should get more money than urban members, because they have much more work to do, many more steps to take and much more money to spend in several sectors.
There is a big difference, Mr. Speaker, between an urban member and a rural member. So I think that we should take all the necessary means and time to discuss and develop some strategy to allow rural ridings at least to be treated on the same level as city ridings because frankly, Mr. Speaker, there have been injustices with respect to rural ridings since the last redistribution.
We are quite prepared, Mr. Speaker, to accept some reforms. There are always reforms to be brought in but they must not be for worse. It must be for better. Reforms must be aimed at improving things, producing a better situation for members of Parliament, particularly in the case we are dealing with. Those recent redistributions will create additional problems for members in rural ridings and those problems must be solved by the members themselves.
If all rural members said what they think, what they claim to be fair for city ridings, they would have something to say. I do not know if they will all rise-they will not all be rising-but in any case I am doing my best, and I ask the government to reconsider the situation before accepting those new redistributions, in short, to take the necessary means to make available to rural ridings as many benefits as to city ridings. Let us have a little justice because working in a rural riding and working in a city riding are certainly not the same.
As I said earlier, the rural member must take care of the problems of farmers and workers who are not used to dealing with their unemployment insurance office when the office is located 100 or 150 miles away and they have neither the means nor the time to travel. This is why the socreds requested that a secretary be appointed in each constituency and be paid by the government. This would ensure a certain degree of equity to the rural constituencies. Perhaps this service is not that necessary in urban constituencies but it is quite necessary in rural ridings. Otherwise the constituencies should be subdivided and should be so reduced as to enable the elected members to see their constituents when required.
When a member is representing a riding such as mine- which includes 85 parishes-and that he is sitting in Parliament 10 or 11 months a year, he has no time to see all parishes. The member is then blamed by his constituents for not visiting them, they feel they do not see him often enough; it is almost impossible for a member to represent ridings including 80, 85 or 90 parishes and cities of 7,000 8,000 10,000 or 12,000 people because he has no time. Therefore, further expanding ridings is an injustice to rural

ridings since they have much more problems than urban constituencies.
Therefore, I think that we should delay the passing of this bill in order to have enough time to change it as we should and make it more available to the people and, in due time, we shall have further suggestions to make.


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak briefly in favour of this bill which would suspend for a certain time works undertaken under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
Let me say first that this redistribution is most favourable to me, because it will decrease sharply the number of my electors which number 77,000 while the entire population is close to 112,000 people.
[ English]
The law as it exists requires representation by population, but it seems to me that circumstances have changed to the extent that we must examine other criteria when drawing up electoral maps. One of the criteria to be examined is that in relation to the size of ridings. Surely we cannot expect that members from Churchill or Provencher can be asked to represent such vast areas in Manitoba. This is unfair to members who are trying to familiarize themselves with problems in their constituencies. What is worse is the fact that this is unfair to the electorate because of the difficulty in contacting members of parliament as readily as might be desired.
Coming from Manitoba, I wish to state categorically that I will not support any formula that influences members in this House to reduce the number of constituencies on the Prairies. Thus we must find a way to respect at least the status quo. It would be better to add one rural seat for northern Manitoba and to recognize the principle of representation by population by adding one seat to the present five ridings in greater Winnipeg. That would give rural Manitoba eight seats, including Portage la Prairie, and greater Winnipeg seven seats, a total of 15, two more than at present.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore propose an increase in the number of members in the House of Commons. I realize that by asking this I assume others will want a similar increase for the other provinces. It will however be easy to understand that western members are hesitating because, if the acreage principle were to be applied in Quebec or Ontario, it could mean a higher representation in the two central provinces.
For an answer, Mr. Speaker, I will state that there are more and more citizens in our region, and probably in the Maritimes as well, who would like to see a total redrawing of the electoral map and a representation based not only on the population but also on regional interests. We might consider an electoral map that would eliminate provincial borders and establish a representation according to homogeneous regions and ridings.
Why, for instance, could not Churchill riding embrace a section of the Northwest Territories or why could not
July 5, 1973

some western ridings overlap, in the agricultural areas, the borders of Manitoba or Saskatchewan? Why not create homogeneous social, economic and territorial areas? In the east, we could have a region that would include the Mari-times and part of Quebec. Within such a region we could try and distribute the seats irrespective of provincial borders.

The problem for provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan is that we are not anxious to see others exercise influence over issues which affect us closely, because in that case who would speak for the farmers on the Prairies? Of course, Members of Parliament are supposed to represent a national view in their deliberations but we must not deny the effectiveness of a Member of Parliament who comes from the area he represents and can more effectively understand its problems. What is important above all is for us to develop a non-partisan approach to the whole question. I believe Canadians would accept an increase in the number of Members of Parliament if we explained to them the seriousness of this issue. I cannot understand how we as Members of Parliament or our electors can accept a cut-back in representation in provinces like Manitoba and Saskatchewan. There was a time, as was mentioned before, in 1940 when Manitoba had seven seats and Saskatchewan 21 seats,-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not seven seats, 17 seats.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: -when Manitoba had 17 seats and Saskatchewan had 21 seats, for a total of 38 seats. Surely the workload of a Member of Parliament has increased since then. So have the problems and so has the population. Now the proposal is to eliminate one seat in each of these two provinces, bringing the total from 13 to 12. That would leave us with only 24 seats, which represents a loss of 14 seats for those two provinces since the mid-1940's. If anything there is a need for more Members of Parliament, not less.


An hon. Member:: Especially Liberals?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: That's for sure.


An hon. Member:: What was that statement?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I did not make the statement, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, there are indeed constitutional dimensions to this problem which, I am sure, can nevertheless be overcome. The principle of representation by population is quite sound, but its application is far from being problem-free in such a large country as Canada. We must avoid favouring this criterion too much. An increasing number of Canadians, especially in the western provinces, favour nearly equal representation for all the greater areas of our country.
In concluding, may I submit that we should examine the question of representation at the same time as that of a permanent speaker. I should be glad to support such a proposition and such a solution to this problem.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension [English]
Once again, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I am pleased to support this bill.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, after five speeches in a row in support of this bill I find it rather unusual that I should be in disagreement with it. Each previous speaker mentioned representation by population and then went on to deny it. Personally I am rather surprised at the speed at which this legislation appears to be moving along. I did not know until quite late this afternoon that it was to be discussed this evening.
I should like to say a few words about the mechanics of the legislation and its journey through this House. As has been indicated so far, I hope that the debate on this bill will be of a non-partisan variety. It should be, because this should not be the type of bill which is good for the Conservatives, bad for the NDP, or good for the government and bad for the Social Credit. This is a bill which, if we are not very careful, will divide the country on other than party lines. It will pit rural dwellers against city dwellers. It will have people casting aspersions at the Maritimes simply because they are in an advantageous position, viewing distribution in the light of the principle of representation by population.
I do not speak tonight particularly as a Conservative or as a member who is in danger of losing his seat, because whether or not this bill passes makes no difference in my particular constituency. I should like to speak tonight as a British Columbia Member of Parliament. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the recommendations are receiving a great deal of criticism. The operation of the commission, particularly in certain provinces, is being criticized, and I can hardly blame the people of those provinces. A person does not have to be a native of Manitoba or Alberta to see that the commission did not do an equitable job of redividing those two provinces into new constituencies. They cut across national transportation lines. They elongated some constituencies beyond all reason.
It is very difficult to see how the final decision was arrived at in respect to Alberta or Manitoba. Some provinces will lose seats if this legislation is carried out as intended. I can understand the hon. members from Newfoundland being quite upset that they are to lose one seat when New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are not. I can understand the alarm of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) at the number of seats for his province dropping from 21 to 12. This is a great drop in the number of seats, but anyone who has driven through Saskatchewan realizes that the country has been denuded of population in the last twenty years. Acres do not vote, people vote, and votes have to be where people are. People are moving more and more into the cities. I realize that a rural constituency requires additional work, and the hon. member from the Social Credit party who spoke made a very good case for it; but I had the impression that the act provided a 20 per cent quotient for rural constituencies.
We in British Columbia were not going to complain. We have waited patiently since 1964 for this act to come into effect. I think we waited patiently and with good grace

July 5, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension and we did not complain about it. Finally the day was to dawn at the next election when we would have equitable representation in the federal parliament. At least, until tonight when this bill was put in front of us.
I am sure that all caucuses, constituencies and provinces which are about to lose members think that there would be partisan advantage in passing this bill. They may be right, but I would not bet anything on that. The act was intended to take the matter out of political hands. It is very clear from reading Hansard for 1964 that the main intention of the parliament of that day was to get the act out of the House of Commons and have redistribution carried out by a non partisan organization. Whether or not the organization ended up being non-partisan, of course, is a question that could be debated at length. In any case, that was the intention. Now we are denying it.
I suppose we can say that British Columbia will get the seats in the next election after the coming one. It reminds me of Lewis Carroll: You can have jam tomorrow or jam yesterday, but you will never get jam today. Or federal seats in this next election.
What makes us think that the next group of 264 members of parliament after the next election will feel any more inclined to carve up or rearrange the seats that they hold? I am sure every member here feels confident that he can be re-elected, because he was elected on October 30. All he wants is that his boundaries be left alone. But this is not the attitude we should be taking. We should be striving for something higher than that and trying to ensure that people are represented equitably in this country.
There are several suggestions which have been put forward as to how we could find our way out of the dilemma in which we find ourselves. Possibly we should increase the number of seats in the House. When one listens to some of the members talking about giving out two seats here and taking away one seat there, one begins to feel that everybody is going to win prizes and that everyone will be happy. This reminds me of the financing of the Olympic Games, if I can bring in another subject with that remark. According to the financing body, nobody can lose. However, the bitter fact remains that we will not increase the number of members of parliament drastically, and that some provinces will be underrepresented.
I would like to give you a few figures to indicate how badly some of the provinces are treated in this regard at present. Under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, B.C. will have 26 seats. This is the number of se&ts to which we have been looking forward for a considerable time. At present we have 23 seats. Taking away these three seats will mean that you will be reducing the number of seats which B.C. is supposed to have by 14 per cent. That is a sizeable percentage.
Ontario is the other province due to lose seats. They too are to lose three seats. Given the fact they now have 88 seats, the loss in the number of their seats works out to just over 3 per cent, whereas B.C., according to one article I have read, is being robbed of 14 per cent of the seats to which we are entitled, and which we had reason to expect we would have in the next election.

One talks about redistribution. If we are to be equitable to the people of B.C. in comparison with the people of Prince Edward Island and follow the principle of "rep by pop" through to the ultimate-which I do not recommend-B.C. would have 78 seats. That is, if we were able to elect members in the way the lucky citizens of P.E.I. are. The maritime provinces are specially protected from any loss of seats by a constitutional provision. The provinces may not have less members of parliament than senators. However, totally lacking is any true comparison with any representation by rights of the people of British Columbia. It now takes 14 B.C. votes to equal 10 votes in Saskatchewan, and it takes 37 B.C. votes to offset 10 votes in P.E.I.
I do not know if there will be a recorded vote on this measure. I have been given to understand that will not. But if there is a recorded vote I would like to ask the House leaders and the whips, not for the first time in this session, to permit a free vote to find out how the members really feel about this matter. This constitutional measure, which gives certain provinces a great advantage over B.C., and Ontario to a lesser degree, seems to be the stumbling block or the rock on which we continually founder in looking for a solution. If I can go on mixing my metaphors, may I say that any member who does as I am doing and attacks the principle of P.E.I. having four seats is attacking the most sacred cow of all sacred cows in the BNA Act.
We cannot be equitable to the people of Canada until we are willing to go back to basic principles, instead of arguing these petty points that are continually being brought up about the difficulties of this constituency or of that constituency. Each constituency has its own peculiar difficulties. It may be the difficulty of having a bilingual or trilingual population. It may be the difficulty which is that of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), whose constituency is as large as the rest of Canada put together. If he were to hold out for representation by acreage, the way some hon. members do, he would have the equal of the rest of the House. We must come to some kind of understanding that we will get back to basic principles over the difficulties of representation in this vast, complex country of ours.
I am opposed to this bill because I thought the act was moving in the right direction when it came out. We thought it was a move in the right direction and it seemed reasonably fair to the provinces of slow growth or negative growth. I felt that we would gain seats, and I suppose it would be only fair to state that the Conservatives expect to gain three additional seats in the province from which I come. But I suggest that this bill should be defeated and that we should let the people speak on the subject. I have yet to hear any group outside of this House say that there is anything wrong with the redistribution act of 1964. I had to come to Ottawa and become a member of this House to find out who it is in Canada who is really against this redistribution act.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be very brief tonight in talking on Bill C-208 but there are two or three points that I should like to leave with members of the House.
July 5, 1973

At the outset I want to say that I am one of the members from British Columbia. Our province would stand to gain three seats by the new distribution which is taking place, and the province is certainly entitled to that. This bill more or less gives an 18 month hoist to this new redistribution.
There are several aspects of the redistribution problem which I feel have not been met by the electoral boundaries commissions which have been doing the job throughout Canada. What worries me most of all is that every redistribution that has taken place over the last few years has led to larger and larger rural ridings. The reason for this is obvious, Mr. Speaker; Canadians are becoming more urbanized every year. There is a trend to the larger cities, the bigger centres, with the result that more and more representation is coming from these areas. Thus we find that the hinterland of this great country of ours is gradually losing representation.
I should like to give a good example of this, and I think it is an example which indicates that members of this House should sit down and try seriously to find some kind of formula to solve the problem. I am convinced that we cannot go entirely on representation by population; if we do we are going to get into a very serious jam before long.
Consider the Northwest Territories, which comprise one-third of the area of Canada and is represented by one member on the floor of this House. I say that is not enough representation in the House of Commons for one-third of Canada. Up in the north, Mr. Speaker, tremendous developments are going on in gas, oil and minerals, and companies are going there on an ever-increasing scale. That part of the country needs protection. It needs more people in Ottawa to bring to the attention of the government and the Canadian public what is happening in this vast northern territory which is one of the rich areas of Canada. I want to make it crystal clear that there is not a Canadian in Canada who will not benefit from the resource development that is going to take place in the north. It is impossible for one individual adequately to service the many scattered communities in that vast northland.
Consider the other provinces. We have heard the representations from Manitoba and Saskatchewan but the same trend applies to all the provinces in Canada-the rural areas are getting bigger and bigger. They are becoming monster ridings, so large that an individual cannot adequately represent them in the House of Commons. These are the areas where we have our resources, and resource development takes place to the benefit of those who live in the cities. It is from these areas that the resources pour down to the manufacturing centres. We need more policemen, if you like to put it that way, people living in these areas who come to the floor of the House of Commons and report to the Canadian nation as far as resource and other types of development are concerned. I have no hesitation in saying that some type of formula must recognize and protect the role that the rural members who live in these large areas play in bringing their story to the House of Commons and to the Canadian people.
I want to point out one or two other things as well, Mr. Speaker. I represent a semi-rural riding. Frankly I prefer to represent a semi-rural riding even though it is difficult
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension to service. I think it is more interesting than a city area, but maybe I am biased. I have never represented a city riding. The people in every little town in every riding in this country are entitled to representation, to see their member, to hear him, to have him speak to them at meetings and listen to their complaints.
As time goes on it becomes obvious to anyone who knows anything at all about the sharp expansion in the size of rural ridings that gradually this contact is being lost. You cannot get to many little communities the way you should simply because there are not enough hours in the day and transportation facilities are not adequate. Sometimes it takes a day and a half of tough driving to get to some of these areas, and up in the north, of course, the problem of getting to communities by air is even more difficult.
These people cannot get on a bus and go to the immigration office to have their problems solved, or go down to the unemployment insurance office to get their claim fixed up, or go to the appropriate office to get advice on a passport or on citizenship papers. All this is funnelled through the member in the rural riding, and some allowance should be made for such a situation. Naturally, members in such ridings take care of more of these sort of problems than do members in the cities.
As a result of the redistribution which recently took place in British Columbia we gained another three seats, and there is no doubt that we deserve them. But, Mr. Speaker, ridings are getting bigger. The only criticism I have of the boundaries commission in British Columbia is that they did not use effectively enough the criteria laid down when redistribution was set up, that of 25 per cent below and 25 per cent above the median. They should have been a lot tougher when they were setting their population quotas for some of the rural areas, and this is my main criticism of those who sat on the boundaries commission. They tried to establish a fairly even median in most ridings, and as a result some rural ridings increased in size. Certainly there are some extensive differences in the ridings in British Columbia, but rural ridings are getting larger and larger and we know that if we follow the same tactics when the next redistribution comes as we followed in this one there will be another increase in size.
The House of Commons must devise some type of formula to include consideration of communications, acreage, people, the economy of the area, resource development, etc. I do not think we have shown that kind of consideration in the directions given to the boundary commissions in this particular redistribution.
For that reason, I feel that this bill should receive the endorsement of the House, that we should set up a committee immediately to look into these problems, and that we devise a formula that is not going to take away from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and some of the large rural areas the type of representation in this House to which I think they are entitled.
I am afraid I cannot offer such a solution tonight but I do draw this matter to the attention of members of this House. We must sit down in our party caucuses and try to come up with some kind of fair distribution of seats, and constituency size must be a factor. This continual trend towards increasingly large monster ridings has to stop. If

July 5, 1973
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension
not, I am afraid that the resource development of this country will suffer and the representation of many rural ridings will get the worst of it when redistribution lines are finally drawn.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, the bill under study tonight is intended to delay the electoral boundaries readjustment and we agree on that principle. The bill is certainly not representative of the opinion of all members of this House as only one of all those who spoke until now seems to support it.
Although it is obvious that electoral boundaries must be readjusted it would have been good that the government prepare a wide ranging bill covering every aspect of the electoral reform.
Every year the government presents new bills to readjust electoral boundaries, to control electoral expenses or to lower the voting age. All those bills are of some value but we always have to begin studying it again during the next session.
For instance, when a member sees the boundaries of his constituency modified following an electoral readjustment and new parishes in another riding substituted for some of the parishes he has represented for several years and where he calls everyone by name and knows almost all their problems, he must again make himself familiar with the individuals, the families and their problems. Therefore, members of Parliament are always sad-and rightly so-to see well known regions disappear to be put into other members' hands, and be replaced by other ridings, which compels them to start it all over again.
Mr. Speaker, what I consider as most irregular in a member's life-and hon. members seem to be embarrassed to speak about it in this House-is the service that he must give to his constituents. We are at a disadvantage when it comes to services and the bill now before us, like the one which was recently put forward and discussed among the House leaders, did not refer to this situation, which does not seem to bother anyone.
Mr. Speaker, we have already asked for at least one office in each riding to provide services for the people. In view of all the difficulties, all our social legislations, all provincial legislations, all social problems,-problems which the hon. member is not concerned about but must still try to solve-it is hard to believe that a member of Parliament's office is still located in his living room or his basement, and that the federal government has not made an office available to him in order to render proper services to the people, while in a few provinces which have fewer resources than the federal government, ridings have an office open six days a week, where the members of Parliament have one secretary and a telephone service at their disposal, to make telephone calls to the capital of the province. Recently, a credit card has been put at our disposal and we begin to get used to it.
Mr. Speaker, we do not have any service, and the electoral readjustment that is proposed today, just like the one that was proposed a few months ago, does not refer to it. I live in Granby, a city of 40,000 people, yet if I want to settle unemployment insurance problems, I must go to the Sherbrooke office where the files are. My constituents

must travel by car, lose half a day, pay their expenses and the toll dues on the superhighway, and wait to state their case to the officials.
Almost every Monday, I have to go to Sherbrooke, appear before the arbitration board and help solve the unemployment insurance problems of my constituents. I must take part in the proceedings of the arbitration board in Sherbrooke, Longueuil or Montreal.
As for welfare, there is the Saint-Hyacinte office covering part of my constituency, that of Marieville covering another part, that of Magog covering a third one and that of Sherbrooke a fourth. Evidently, the Granby office looks after the needs of the residents of that town.
All this to say that the electoral reform under consideration makes no reference to these needs. It is not merely a question of readjusting the electoral boundaries and stating that the population must be represented according to the number of voters. Every member of Parliament must represent just about the same number of people. I agree with this principle, but there is more to it than just changing the electoral boundaries: we must provide adequate services to the population.
Mr. Speaker, in addition to this, there should also be a Parliamentary reform in this House. Nothing more than a mere reference to it has been made during the various electoral campaigns; it has been said that the member of Parliament should be allowed to spend Mondays in his riding to meet his constituents and call on various offices when they open, to solve problems that his constituents have to face.
On Saturdays and Sundays, offices are closed. If you have a problem involving CMHC, you will realize that their offices are open on Monday, but closed on Friday evenings. If you have a problem concerning welfare, unemployment insurance, income tax, you find out that offices are all closed during the weekend; and then, on the Monday, the House is sitting. And all this without reference to the 50 or 100 problems involving voters in our ridings that we must face every weekend, problems arising out of our present laws and from the fact that the member of Parliament must help people solve the problems that keep cropping up these days.
Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), who is now present in the House, seems anxious indeed to delay the electoral boundaries readjustment, but he has not yet described the kind of service that we shall be able to provide in our ridings by having better means at our disposal.
We are asked as members to provide an adequate service. That is why we have been elected. We are paid for that job. However, we have first a time problem, and second the government does not provide us with the required services and each weekend there are more and more problems thrown into our tap. It seems to me that government members should cease once and for all apologizing and saying: "It is because of the Conservative Party if we have no secretaries in our ridings. It is because of some NDP members who do not want to have secretaries in their ridings.
July 5, 1973

All Social Credit members want to serve their constituents as they have always done it. But we need the tools to that end and we want those tools to be available to all members. That is why I say there is no reason why government members should look for excuses and criticize other parties saying that if members have no secretaries in their ridings it is the fault of such and such a party. As far as I am concerned, I believe there is no excuse; when the government wants to increase or decrease taxes, it introduces a specific bill and the House decides. I am convinced that it is an hide-and-seek game in order to blame members of other parties for the Cabinet's inaction.
Mr. Speaker, we certainly support the bill before us tonight which postpones the electoral boundary readjustment already adopted by the House in order to, as the President of the Privy Council stated, be better equipped, to better identify the problem and allow the administrative apparatus of the Chief Electoral Officer to be ready whenever a general election is declared.
The main trouble is that no general legislation on election reform is being introduced which could deal with election expenses and electoral boundaries; all adjustments would be made automatically in live with given standards and criteria. We could also provide for the setting up of local services in the constituencies, while our colleagues in the Quebec National Assembly for instance, who are representing about a third of the voters we are representing here-since a federal constituency covers from two to three provincial ridings-have a secretary and an office paid for by the provincial government. I have nothing against that. I am not rising to criticize whatever the provincial government is providing for provincial members; in this connection, I must say that the secretaries are hired to deal with people who, unfortunately, are making no distinction between provincial and federal problems. When a constituent has a social welfare problem, he calls his federal member perhaps more often than his provincial member. It cannot be blamed for it. The contituents telephone the hon. member they know best, who they feel is better aware of their problems, whom they trust or think better able to solve their problems most easily.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I wish the President of the Privy Council would cease making pious wishes and introduce at last legislation of a general nature on the electoral reform so that, in future, we may know where we stand in all areas of expenses, redistribution of constituencies and services, and that Canadian constituents may obtain the services to which they are entitled.
Moreover, it is essential for us, as elected members, to know where we are going and to know that our constituencies will not be changed at the discretion of either a majority or a minority government. At the present time, the circumstances are changing. Because this is a minority government, it does not appear so eager to push forward the already proposed electoral reform. Being aware of that, we would not always be at the mercy of government that would want to make electoral reforms because we would have a permanent master legislation that would enable all members to serve their constituents better as they deserve-because the many problems we are facing require solutions, which means efforts, tools and material,
Adjournment Debate
and that is why MPs are paid. That is why the last time the parliamentary indemnity was increased, we voted against it and proposed that services be provided instead. As a matter of fact, the increase is practically wiped out by income tax, since we often have to hire an additional secretary in our riding who could deal these with a great number of problems that we would not have to handle here in Ottawa, because that is where are the people who need our help to solve their problems. But for that, we need tools, and I hope the president of the Privy Council will realize this once and for all.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, I hasten to rise in support of this bill and also to support the position taken by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Harding). I had hoped to follow the hon. member because the principle that he espoused is one which this whole House should echo.
In support of that position, I remind hon. members that all sociologists and urban planners indicate that by the year 2000, 90 per cent of the Canadian population will be centered in urban areas. If we are to abide by the strict adherence to representation by population, it is evident that the membership in this House is also going to be 90 per cent from urban centres.
I am reminded of an hon. member who has since departed from this House. He represented an urban centre. He left very hastily, slamming the door. He said all you ever hear about in this place is wheat and fish. I will regret the day when 90 per cent of the members of this House will have great reticence in speaking about wheat and fish. If that were so, I suggest that the representation of the people in this country would indeed be inadequate.
In support of the position espoused by the hon. member for Kootenay West, I wish to cite a particular example. A great deal of publicity has been given to the fact that the province of Ontario will gain three seats as a result of redistribution. That is inaccurate. It may be that the whole of the province of Ontario will gain three seats, but the southern part of the province will gain five seats, taking away from the most deserving area of the province, 75 per cent of its area, two seats to which it ought to be entitled.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I want to express some concern with regard to responses to questions arising out of the level to which this government respects its own laws, particularly in

July 5, 1973
Adjournment Debate
connection with crews on foreign registered vessels operating in coastal trade. I do so because these questions are of concern to Canada's shipping industry, its seamen, shipyards, contractors, longshoremen, freight handlers and anyone else associated with the maritime industry.
I am somewhat concerned, as all hon. members should be, about the loss of jobs to Canadian merchant officers, particularly in connection with , the Travetal which is perhaps the focal part of the question I asked earlier. I am concerned about the loss of these jobs because of the lack of any clearly defined policy with respect to seamen engaged in the coastal trade.
Who are these seamen? Who should they be? Why does Canada not have a merchant marine? I am concerned about what will be done to accommodate those who have lost jobs as a result of the departure of the Travetal. Short-run solutions are not good enough: there is need for clear, positive, central policies to ensure, in perpetuity if you will, employment for this sector of our manpower. Shipping can no longer be regarded as a segment of the transportation industry. It is an industry in itself.
The trend which is involved make the questions I have raised more important. Figures from Statistics Canada show that the number of vessels of non-Canadian registry engaged in coastal trade has increased by some 50 per cent in the last year for which statistics are available. It has gone from 31 to 45. This trend will continue. When will it be recognized? References are made to it in the Darling Report. The simple fact is that as this proportion increases it becomes increasingly difficult to terminate arrangements which have been made with Commonwealth nations or other nations whose ships are engaged in our trade, employing foreign crews. Their foothold is strengthened to the detriment of Canadians seeking to work in our coastal trade. I stress that it is a coastal trade; we no longer have an offshore fleet due to the stupidity of a former Liberal government some years ago.
What we are really talking about is this: will the Travetal be back, and, if so, in what condition? What assistance, if any, is the government lending to this company and other companies toward the maintenance of an adequate shipping service around the coast? The response of the province of Nova Scotia can be gathered from the fact that the appropriate minister in that province has told the public through a press release that he is concerned and will follow with interest any efforts made by Trident to secure an alternative ship. But the officials say no Canadian ship is available. It is interesting to note that at Lauzon, Quebec, there are three ships perfectly adequate for the car-carrying trade, though probably not designed for it. The solution lies here in Canada-a Canadian ship under a Canadian flag. There is no need to go offshore to find it.
The ships to which I refer are there because of the inaction of the government, its lack of interest in a Canadian merchant marine. I am mainly interested, though, in the loss of jobs. I am curious to know whether or not any contact has been made with the use of these ships in mind, and whether or not contact has been made

with Trident through departmental channels to help resolve this matter in the best of our interests.
Part of the answer to many of the questions I should like to raise is presently sub judice, because, as the parliamentary secretary and certain ministers have become aware in recent days, there is a case before the courts. I suppose in fairness, too, I should say that the Travetal may well have left Canada because of the revaluation of the German mark. But there is no question in my mind that its departure was brought about by the real and legitimate fears of Canada's merchant seamen, fears born of frustration on seeing their livelihood sold to citizens of Spain, Portugal, Germany, Singapore. And for what apparent gain?
Why do we do this, and what benefit is it to Canada? Residents of the coastal provinces of Canada enjoy the right of representation in the federal government. But this seems to have been disregarded by this government, as evidenced by its lack of concern for the development of a truly Canadian merchant marine. I cannot accept anything less than an admission by this government that it is responsible for our coasting trade and for the manner and direction in which it operates.
The minister has not fulfilled this responsibility. He says that he has, and that he wants the Darling Report implemented. I think the Atlantic provinces have moved in this direction already. They have created a constructive relationship and have simply to solve one or two more little issues. This demonstrates not only the lack of concern at the small number of vessels attached to the merchant marine but, more importantly, is a manifestation of the fact that the government intends to bring about an effective remedy-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I should first of all like to say, through you, that I do not agree with some of the comments of the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall). I believe the minister has done a tremendous job in this regard. The minister sent an explanatory letter to the hon. member dated June 14 explaining the whole situation, and I would refer to that letter as a complete explanation.


J. Michael Forrestall: It must still be in the mail.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I suggest it answers some of the points raised this evening, and I might point out that these points were also answered on June 6. However, I will attempt to repeat some of that information at this time.
While the Travetal, being a British ship, was permitted to engage in the coastal trade of Canada, she was also subject to other sections of the Canada Shipping Act. The one which caused the problem related to certificates of competency held by masters and officers, who under the act had to be Canadians or others accepted by the minister, such as certain individuals holding Commonwealth certificates.
On March 6 of this year the minister exempted the Travetal from the requirement to carry officers holding
July 5, 1973

Canadian certificates for a period of three months, until June 5, 1973, on the condition that the parties responsible for the operation submitted proposals for compliance with the act. This exemption expired on June 5 in the absence of such proposals.
The purpose of the original exemption was to avoid disruption of service between Halifax and St. John's. Both the Premier of Nova Scotia and the representative of the local international longshoremen's union urged this course. The seamen's unions' strong advocates of the Darling Report were opposed, and with the expiry of the exemption the seafarers' international union took action in the courts to prevent its renewal. However, the minister subsequently granted the Travetal a further conditional two months' exemption on the strict agreement that Commonwealth officers would be carried in a probationary capacity beside the German officers, and would take over at the end of the new exemption period.
The regular crew members, such as seamen and engine room personnel, were not affected. There is nothing in the Canada Shipping Act or in its subordinate legislation to prevent the employment of non-Commonwealth crew in the jobs. All went well until July 1 when, at 10.30 p.m., the master told the probationary Canadian crew members to pack and leave the ship unless they wanted to go to Germany. The Travetal then left Halifax with no pilot and with no customs clearance.
We are now faced with finding another ship which can be operated under some new arrangement. I hope this will not take too long, but in the meantime we anticipate that the Travetal's usual cargo, chiefly new cars and general freight, can be handled without too much difficulty on Gulf service ships.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-NUCLEAR TESTS PROPOSED BY FRANCE-CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS- PARTICIPATION IN POSSIBLE ACTION BEFORE INTERNATIONAL COURT
Mark Willson Rose: Mr. Speaker, it was rather difficult tonight to prepare my remarks because I was not certain whether the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) or the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) would reply, and sometimes the remarks of speakers should be connected to the subject in at least some distant way.
I have had a long interest in what I consider to be the obscenity of nuclear testing, whether it happens to be done on the part of our allies or those countries with which we have no particular relationship. On February 5 I asked three essential things of the Secretary of State for External Affairs since I was concerned about Canada's position in terms of protesting further nuclear testing on the part of the Republic of France, as framed in the concern expressed by the United Nations, Australia and New Zealand.
I asked further about Canada's efforts to support the New Zealand and Australian application before the World Court. I do not know whether Canada did that, but I was pleased that approximately a week ago the World Court
Adjournment Debate
ruled that France was indulging in illegal acts in continuing tests in the South Pacific.
Finally, I was concerned because of a previous test in Muroroa atoll in respect of which a Canadian vessel had been intercepted on the high seas by a French ship of war. There was damage and an alleged ramming.
I am pleased also to note a release by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the effect that the government of Canada would stand behind one of its citizens by making a representation to the government of France in respect of collecting the damages done to the Greenpeace III captained by David McTaggart when it was approached on the high seas and not in French waters. I am pleased that at last Canada is indulging in this kind of action.
The concern I have is not unique. It is the concern of very many people, not just the people of the so-called nuclear nations but many people around the world.
Just today from my own constituency I received a couple of letters. I shall quote parts of them. One says:
Dear Sir:
My first concern in writing to you this morning is to urge you to do everything in your power to influence the Canadian government to make a tangible contribution to the protest to the French atomic bomb tests in the South Pacific.
Our government has been very tardy in doing anything to help the many nations who are now protesting this action by the French, which could adversely affect the health of many generations to come. And there is no real reason for the tests!
Here is another letter from a constituent in a distant part of my riding which states in part:
Re: Atmospheric Nuclear Test
We are most concerned with Canada's slap-on-the wrist attitude toward atomospheric nuclear testing by any nation.
We are also deeply troubled with having gone to the polls to elect a do-nothing government, which has wasted endless days on bilingualism and capital punishment. . .
And the letter continues. These are not my words; they are the words of some of the people I represent, and I read them into the record because they are important to them as well as to many other people in the country.
Today I made the suggestion that Canada might well support the efforts of New Zealand by sending a naval vessel on a symbolic peaceful protest. Aboard the New Zealand naval vessel-and there is another one standing by ready to sail not into French waters but on a symbolic protect against the continued pollution of the high seas by France from its continued testing-was one cabinet minister from New Zealand. I suggest we should support our sister member of the Commonwealth, or sisters if you include Australia as well as New Zealand, by sending a vessel on a similar protest. There was only room for one cabinet minister aboard the New Zealand vessel because it was packed with nuclear radiation testing equipment, but I suggest quite seriously that if a Canadian vessel were despatched to lend some support there are members of this House on both sides who would be prepared to go on such a mission.
This is not a hostile act. It is a peaceful symbolic protect and worthy of support. Certainly I would be among those people who would be willing to go, and I am certain that

July 5, 1973
Adjournment Debate
there are members of the cabinet who would be as courageous as are those in the New Zealand cabinet. I put this forward in all seriousness and I hope the government will consider this particular initiative.
Before I sit down let me say that I think that the kind of attitude that I have to these matters is best summed up by the following statement, made on July 3, by Prime Minister Kirk of New Zealand:
New Zealand is against all forms of nuclear testing, not merely those which create fall-out. It opposes tests not merely because of the risk to health from an increase in radiation levels, but because we believe that they bring with them a greater danger of the outbreak of nuclear war. The continued explosion of nuclear devices in more than one country creates a climate of indifference in which this danger may easily be overlooked. But the development of more and more deadly means of mass destruction cannot contribute to peace, nor relieve tension. It can only bring closer the day when some nation, somewhere, will put these weapons to use.
New Zealand, therefore, favours a more effective treaty which would outlaw all forms of testing, and to which all nuclear powers and potential nuclear powers were party. Until such a treaty is in existence, New Zealand will continue to speak out against all nuclear testing, and to urge the present nuclear powers to bring their tests programs voluntarily to an end.
That is the kind of initiative, the kind of outspoken absence of timidity, the posture, that I would like to see adopted by our government. I think it is about time we acted in this way. I think we have had too much hush-puppy, pussyfooting diplomacy on the part of our Department of External Affairs. I look forward to the minister rising and telling me that I misjudged him, that the government is really concerned, and that it is going to be aggressive in terms of our search for peace.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I must first inform my colleague that I was astonished at his preliminary remark. My colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hopkins) was prepared, as I was, to answer the hon. member.
I must tell the hon. member that we share his apprehensions about the signs that France is soon going to resume nuclear testing in the South Pacific. But all the same I must say that I failed to understand how one could be aggressive and in favour of peace at one and the same time.
I think that the hon. member is well aware that Canada has, on numerous occasions, and at various forums, stated its opposition to nuclear testing. I am referring to the opposition expressed by our Canadian delegations to the United Nations General Assembly, the Geneva Disarmament Conference, and other international conferences concerned with this problem. Indeed, Canada is known for its outstanding role among the countries seeking to bring an end to these tests. At the 27th Session of the United Nations General Assembly, Canada presented a resolution aimed at opening serious negotiations for a total ban of nuclear tests, which the Assembly adopted by a large majority.
Furthermore, the Canadian delegation gave strong support to a resolution presented by Australia and New Zealand, dealing mainly with nuclear tests in the South Pacific: at the critical moment during the debate, the

intervention of our delegation-which remained in close consultation with the co-authors of the resolution from the time the Assembly opened-ensured the adoption of the resolution in its entirety.
The apprehension of the South Pacific countries about French nuclear testing is all the more understandable in that these are atmospheric tests, which therefore produce readioactive fallout that can be a threat to public health and to the environment. In that respect, Canada could also be exposed to a similar danger, but rather for geographical reasons, following the Chinese nuclear tests. With France, it is the only nuclear power to conduct tests in the atmosphere. That is why on several occasions Canada appealed to those two countries and urge them to put an end to their nuclear tests and adhere to the 1963 treaty banning nuclear tests in the atmosphere.
Here are further examples which could enlighten my hon. colleague. On May 14, the House of Commons passed a resolution asking all nuclear powers to end any testing of nuclear devices and urging especially the government of France to cancel all its proposed tests in the Pacific.
On June 22, the House passed another resolution approving the decision of the International Court of Justice and urging the French government to postpone its proposed tests as decided by the Court.
Following the explosion in the atmosphere of a nuclear device by China on June 27, the Canadian ambassador in Peking expressed his deep regret to the government of that country and asked China to stop all nuclear tests.
I could go on for a long while.
As far as Mr. McTaggart is concerned, I want to remind the hon. member that the government of Canada appealed to the French government in the hope of facilitating a reasonable settlement of his claim without violating the well-established international practice with respect to such maritime accidents.
An official of the Department of External Affairs met Mr. McTaggart in Vancouver-


The Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary but the time alloted to him has indeed expired.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-POSSIBLE INCREASE IN EXTERNAL AID PROGRAMS AND SUPPORT FOR UNITED NATIONS- REQUEST FOR STATEMENT
Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, on May 29 following the government's decision to withdraw the Canadian peace force from Viet Nam I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to indicate specifically how Canada might augment its contribution to world peace and justice. In his reply the minister referred to increased external aid and Canada's continuing support of the United Nations. He did not, unfortunately, make any reference to more equitable trade policies with the third world.
July 5, 1973

Canada enjoys an enviable reputation in the councils of the world, as our distinguished visitor from India, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, observed in this parliament on June 19. But our reputation could become tarnished and our fine words in favour of global justice could be exposed as hypocrisy if they are not soon matched by new initiatives in the international arena.
Canada's renewed contribution to world harmony, I suggest, should not be made primarily in peacekeeping, important as this has been, nor primarily in more external aid, which has been increasing belatedly. Canada's primary contribution at this stage of world affairs should come in hearing and in heeding the insistent voice of the third world nations, a voice which is demanding justice in international trade. Is this not the principal message which Madame Gandhi wished to convey during her recent visit to Canada? In addressing the two Houses of Parliament she said:
We shall continue to look for technological assistance to bridge the gaps in the structure of our basic industries and our knowhow of new technologies. Our efforts could be more effective if the advanced countries adopted more enlightened trade policies. When it comes to trade, many of the strongest nations behave as though they need protection from the weak. A new outlook which will not condemn developing nations to permanent disadvantage is essential.
Later, in Ottawa and elsewhere, she stressed that India is "more interested in trade than aid" and she said, in what I take to be a pointed remark to the Canadian government, parliament and people:
Although all countries say that they would like to contribute to new trade patterns, they still tend to form rich men's clubs.
As one of the most influential and eloquent spokesmen for the third world, Madame Gandhi was reminding all of us that today the name of the game is not aid but trade. Other voices in Asia, Africa and Latin America have been and are telling us the same message. All of them are insisting that the industrialized nations, including Canada, give preferential treatment to third world countries in international trade. In short, preferential trade policies are more imperative than foreign aid programs if there are to be major reversals in the widening gap that persists between the rich and the poor countries in the world today.
Current world events indicate that we may be on the verge of a whole new international trade and monetary system. President Nixon and Secretary Brezhnev certainly recognized these realities in their trade talks in Washington.
On the international calendar for the seventies there are several crucial negotiating events, such as the GATT, the IMF and various commodity agreements, that are bound to establish world trade and monetary patterns, for years to come. The third world insists on having an equitable voice in these negotiations.
It should be noted, Mr. Speaker, that the government of Canada is on record as supporting this very important demand in trade negotiations. The question before us, however, is whether the present government is prepared to act on its commitment by taking the lead among the industrialized nations in supporting third world countries in their bid for trade preferences in these negotiations.
Adjournment Debate
Third world countries have repeatedly requested that a portion of Canadian markets be reserved for imports of goods from the less favoured developed nations. Could the present government not establish marketing mechanisms that would reserve a more substantial portion of our markets for products from third world countries? The Wheat Board, for example, has long existed to assist domestic producers. Could not the same type of assistance be accorded to producers from the less developed countries? The third world countries have also repeatedly requested that Canada guarantee the payment of fair, stable and remunerative prices for such primary products as sugar, coffee, cocoa, etc. The less developed countries continue to suffer severe setbacks from price fluctuations and deteriorating terms of trade. In the forthcoming international commodity negotiations on sugar and coffee, is the present government prepared to support commodity agreements guaranteeing minimum prices that are truly adequate to the needs of the producers?
Of course, the introduction of such measures as market sharing programs and better prices for tropical products would affect our domestic economy. It is, therefore, imperative that changes in Canadian trade policy be paralleled by the introduction of realistic programs for adjustment assistance to aid workers who may have to transfer to other forms of employment. Is the present government prepared to expand the scope of present adjustment assistance programs to aid workers in industries that might have to transfer to other forms of employment? I submit, Mr. Speaker, that Canada can best contribute now to the cause of world justice and peace by developing an alternative trade policy which respects the marketing interests of the third world.
[ Translation]


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, it would undoubtedly be difficult for me to answer my hon. colleague in three minutes, on a topic as vast as that of aid to developing countries.
I would first like to remind my hon. colleague that our country's total allocations in this sector increased from $338,700,000 in 1969-70, to almost half a million dollars in 1972-73. According to the criteria of the OECD's development assistance committee, the terms and conditions of our development assistance are, and I quote a document published by the government:
-among the most "favourable" offered by the members of this group. Our support for the United Nations development program has also increased. In 1972-73, we spent 25 per cent of our aid funds through multilateral agencies, in accordance with the recommendations contained in the study of our foreign policy.
The matter of Canada's trade relations with underdevelopped countries has several facets. It is complicated, on the one hand, by the various levels of development attained by those countries and, on the other hand, by the vulnerability of the Canadian economy especially of certain disadvantaged areas of Canada in sectors such as those of the textile and footwear industries, for instance, where the underdevelopped countries' exports are more than competitive-
The House of Commons recently passed legislation designed to set up a general preferential tariff for the third world. At the present time, over 70 per cent of those countries exports enter Canada duty-free. Half of the other 30 per cent will receive

July 5, 1973
Adjournment Debate
preferential treatment under the terms of the general preferential tariff.
Canada continues to participate in the agreements on primary products the purpose of which is, in part, to stabilize the price of products of particular importance to the underdeveloped countries. Two meetings will be held this year-
-I refer to the International Agreement on cocoa which was passed last year and which Canada was the first to endorse as an importing country.
I refer also to other fields in which we also lead the way. Finally, I must recall that Canada's role in a good number of those general questions is somewhat unobtrusive.
I keep on quoting:
-Our ability to influence future events is sometimes limited. Moreover, the percentage of our trade with under-developed countries is rather small. On the other hand, should Canada try to change in a unilateral way the trade patterns of the international community as a whole, it could jeopardize her trade relations with a number of her more important trading partners.
Having said that, I thank the hon. member very much for his interest in this question'. The government has already stated that the assistance to international development will be one of the most constructive ways of participating in the international community during the next decade.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.

Friday, July 6, 1973