1973-09-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give members of parliament up to date information on the implementation of the 1973-74 feed grains program.
The 1973-74 feed grains program includes two main provisions:
1.	The pricing of feed grains, moved from the Canadian Wheat Board area to other parts of Canada, based on off-board prices within the Wheat Board area.
2.	Buying of feed grains by the Agricultural Products Board to provide a broader base and give more certainty to the off-board market within the Wheat Board area. This will ensure that no producer in the Wheat Board area will have to sell his grain at distress prices even if quotas are not immediately available to him in what he considers sufficient quantity.
The Canadian Livestock Feed Board is working with the Canadian Wheat Board to determine the level of off-board prices in order to arrive at the base price for sales to eastern Canada. The price quoted at Thunder Bay for eastern markets will be this base price plus costs such as handling, transportation and storage that are associated with having grain in market position.
Monitoring of off-board prices on the Prairies will be carried out by Agriculture Canada under the authority of the Agricultural Products Board Act. Survey results will be provided to the Wheat Board and the Livestock Feed Board for their use in determining the off-board price. The monitoring will include sales to feed mills, feed lots, and to larger livestock and poultry producers within the Wheat Board area.
In addition to continuing to offer grain as in the past, the Canadian Wheat Board has reinstituted a policy used occasionally in the past of offering feed grains on a deferred or provisional price basis. This means buyers can buy feed grains for later delivery at the Canadian Wheat Board domestic selling price in effect at the time of such delivery.
The first offering, price of the Products Board will be announced within the next few days. Due to the build-up of grain stocks caused by the rail strike, actual purchasing by the Products Board will begin later this month. Thereafter the Canadian Wheat Board will be able -to declare prevailing selling prices based on the monitoring of off-board prices.
The Agricultural Products Board purchase program will be operated through the Canadian Wheat Board and country elevators in the Prairies. Producers wishing to sell to the Products Board will deliver their grain in the same manner as if they were selling to the Wheat Board. They will receive a cash ticket as they do with Wheat Board purchases. The payment they receive, however, will be a final payment and will not entitle them to participation in the pool final payments.
Feed freight assistance will continue to apply during the year and the Canadian Livestock Feed Board will closely observe movement and pricing in eastern Canada.


Mr. Frank Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, anyone familiar with the grain industry is well aware that there have been many communications between the Premier of the province of Quebec and the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). I want to quote from one letter addressed to the Prime Minister of Canada which reads in part as follows:
The damage to Quebec farmers caused by Canadian Wheat Board policies is now universally recognized. It has actually created the situation you are familiar with both for the Quebec government and for the farm organizations from whom you have often received numerous representations.
Moreover, you recently acknowledged those representations by officially and publicly pledging to produce a final solution to the feed grain problem before August 1, 1973.
It is now September 14 and from one end of Canada to the other there is confusion not only in the feed grain industry but in the entire Canadian grain industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: We have this government establishing initial prices on western grain under which there is a return of some $2 a bushel to the producer. The Canadian Wheat Board is selling that same milling wheat for $5.65 a bushel and the same durum wheat for $9 a bushel on the export market. As I said, the farmer gets $2 per bushel.
We have a program in the grain industry being imposed by stealth. What the farmers want are more options, and what we on this side of the House want is more opportunity to debate those options.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: What this announcement means is that we will now have a group of civil servants setting prices for western feed grains. I see

September 14, 1973
Feed Grain
this as just another step toward turning the Canadian agricultural industry into a public utility.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: I am still waiting to hear how the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board is going to get around the new feed grain commission established in the province of Manitoba. In addition, it has just been announced that a feed grain commission is to be established in the province of Saskatchewan. The Minister of Agriculture for Saskatchewan gives as his reason that his board is going to regulate the federal government's feed grain program.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, we have waited some time for the minister responsible for the Wheat Board to make a statement of policy in the House and he has now done so. It has been obvious from his previous statements that this method of pricing is designed to subsidize the producers in the province of Quebec and the Maritimes at the expense of the grain producers of western Canada. It is designed to give an advantage to the livestock and poultry producers in the eastern provinces and to put the western producers of livestock at a disadvantage.
This is such an unfortunate policy it has forced two grain growing provinces, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, to set up grain marketing agencies. This step should not have been necessary since we already have a very effective marketing agency. It destroys the effectiveness of the Canadian Wheat Board as the pricing agent in the domestic market, and puts in its place a very cumbersome pricing method that will not work well, will give trouble continually and give rise to political arguments in this House and elsewhere. It is an unfair policy for the farmers in the province of Ontario. I am surprised that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), who is a farmer in Ontario, has lent his support to a policy that is so biased, so cumbersome and in a great many respects unworkable. The pricing policy we had maintained an equality between the price of corn produced in Ontario and the price of feed grains produced in western Canada. It maintained a certain equilibrium which this new policy will destroy.
Finally, I am surprised that the minister, who represents a Saskatchewan constituency, has seen fit over the last several weeks to bring in policies that cause the western grain grower to subsidize the bread and flour industries in Canada, and now caps it off by formally bringing in this policy which will cause these farmers to subsidize the livestock producers of eastern Canada.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I would like first of all to thank the minister for having followed what seems to become more and more the general rule in this House and having given to the spokesman for our party the French version of his statement.
Mr. Speaker, the problem referred to in the minister's statement is not new. In fact, we have been hearing for several years about the difference in prices between the east and the west.

Because I am an optimist, I would like to repeat once more that before criticizing the policy announced today- and I would like this criticism to be as frank as possible-I believe that we should wait until we have tried the policy for a while.
For my part, I do not think that this policy is at all unfair to the western grain producers, any more than it is particularly to the advantage of those in the east.
In any event, I have always thought that the central government existed to adopt programs designed to bring justice to all areas of the land. And I am still convinced that all governments have endeavoured, in the past, to find a solution to that problem.
Of course, to my mind, it is too soon to pass a valid judgment on the plan proposed to us today. In any event, I trust the agriculture organization of the province of Quebec, the APU, will analyze this solution in depth, after which I am convinced its president will make an official statement and say with his usual frankness what he thinks of the policy.
Whatever the case may be, as the measure goes into force from September 15, that is tomorrow, I expect that in the very near future both eastern and western producers will be able to understand the full significance of this measure. If its effects are really good, the government will then have been justified in seeking a really fair solution, although it did take a long to time to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) wish to comment the minister's statement on motions?


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: No, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43.


Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Joliette.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the reasons which have led to the early convening of this House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That, when the House has passed Bill C-219, An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act, Bill C-220, An Act to amend the statute law providing for the payment of supplementary retirement benefits to certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and Bill C-223, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act and the Youth Allowances Act, and the said bills have received Royal Assent, this House adjourn to October 15.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion moved by the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimous agreement?
September 14, 1973


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not, and therefore the motion cannot be put.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Peel South):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 43 and on a matter of pressing necessity I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens):
That this House do direct the Minister of Transport to present to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications all plans, specifications and designs now available and to be available for the extension and alteration of terminal two at Toronto International Airport so that these plans, specifications and designs can be reviewed by the committee to ensure that the minister will not once again create facilities designed r.ot for people but, at the best, for freight-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I bring to the attention of the hon. member that that is not a motion but a speech, and I hesitate to submit any speech in the House to the test of unanimity. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Nielsen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope this is the proper time to raise it. On today's order paper two motions appear under notices of motions, one by the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) and the other by the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Grier). Both are in exactly the same terms as the motion of the hon. member for St. John's East now standing on the order paper under motions.
I have two points to make with respect to the regularity of these notices of motions appearing today. First, they are couched in precisely the same terms as the motion now standing in the name of the hon. member for St. John's East. Second, if these notices are allowed to remain and are then transferred, as they would normally be on Monday and are placed under the heading, "Motions" on the order paper, then Standing Order 19 would be a nullity.
Standing Order 19 sets forth that notices of motions put by hon. members, if they are not taken up when called, may be allowed to stand with the consent of the government. That means they stand in their regular place. If the notices that are now on the order paper in the names of these two hon. members are allowed to remain there and are transferred, as would normally be the case on Monday, then Standing Order 19 would be totally ineffective.
I suggest, Sir, that you take the matter under advisement before they are transferred, which would normally be on Monday. The timing might prove a little difficult in
Notices of Motions
this case but Your Honour might make a decision some time later today on the point I raise that they should not appear on Monday in a place following the motion now standing in the name of the hon. member for St. John's East.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am quite prepared to make a ruling immediately on the point raised by the hon. member for Yukon, with which I do not agree at all, but apparently there are hon. members who wish to contribute to the procedural point and I will hear them before making the ruling.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I only wish to say that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) had and has no citation to back up his point. If the motion of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) were in the possession of House, another motion like it could not be moved, but even that would not stop another member from placing the same notice of motion on the order paper. Sometimes there are two or three bills on the order paper dealing with the same matter. The point at issue is whether or not the House has taken possession of a particular motion. Since this has not happened, and since no decision on the matter has been taken, I am sure there is no reason why a dozen members could not put the same motion on the order paper.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention and that of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) to the daily routine of business as it appears in today's Order of Business and Notices. You will find under "Motions" that the second and third motions, standing respectively in the names of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) and the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), are identical. Further, Mr. Speaker, I would point out that the first motion, standing in the name of the hon. member for Skeena, is identical with a motion presented by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands which was debated and subsequently transferred to government orders. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, in conjunction with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that this a typical ruse by the hon. member for Yukon.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have a citation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will hear the hon. member, but I suggest that there should not be two or three speeches by the same member on a point of order. The hon. member says he has a citation. I will hear him and then make a ruling, depending, of course, on what the citation might contain.


Erik Nielsen: The citation is found in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition at page 167. It is citation 200, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4, which have a bearing on the matter. In reply to the parliamentary secretary, I wish to say that the point was raised sincerely and not as a ruse. That statement, being a political one, is obviously being made for the benefit of the delegates in the gallery.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member indicate again the citation to which he referred?

September 14, 1973
Notices of Motions


Erik Nielsen: Page 167 of the Fourth Edition of Beau-chesne, citation 200, paragraphs 2, 3 and 4.


Mr. Speaker:: The citation referred to by the hon. member is, of course, well known. It is that only one question can be put to the House at the same time. But of course that does not answer the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
It is long established practice, going back at least 100 years, that there can be more than one notice on the same subject appearing on the order paper. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the parliamentary secretary have indicated, at the present time there are a number of such instances on the order paper as of today, excluding the particular instance to which the hon. member for Yukon has referred, where we have motions in exactly the same terms appearing for consideration of the House. As one of the hon. members said, it is, of course, when a decision has been taken by the House, and when particularly a matter has been under discussion by the House, that the point raised by the hon. member may be taken into account.
The hon. member for Yukon referred to Standing Order 19. Standing Order 19, of course, is quite relevant, but that does not help the hon. member's position at all. Standing Order 19 is to the effect that if a motion placed on the order paper by an hon. member is not proceeded with it falls to the bottom of the order paper or disappears from the order paper. I suggest it is only by consent of the House, and as a result of practice that has been developing, that motions that are not proceeded with immediately are allowed to remain on the order paper. If we agreed, as the hon. member suggests, to put Standing Order 19 strictly into effect, then all the notices which appear on the order paper, including one in the name of the hon. member for Yukon, would have disappeared a long time ago. I suggest to the hon. member that his point is not well taken.


Mr. McGrath:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, now that Your Honour has made a ruling may I say to the House that the two hon. gentlemen could have saved themselves a great deal of trouble because I intend to proceed with my motion on Monday.


John Mercer Reid: Why not today?


Mr. Grier:: Mr. Speaker, may I say that if the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) had been a little more hasty in proceeding with debate on his motion, which has been standing on the order paper since July 25, it would not have been necessary for other members to move the same motion.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerning yesterday's announcement outside the House of an oil export tax. Will the minister tell the House whether he consulted with the oil-producing provinces either prior to or following the announcement, and can he indicate briefly what the reactions of those provinces have been? I am not referring to the reaction of the Alberta delegates at the annual Liberal meeting but specifically to the reaction of the provincial governments of the oil-producing provinces.


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we advised the Alberta minister of the decision of tne National Energy Board and also the government's decision with regard to the consequences of the National Energy Board decision. I think it is fair to say that they made no substantive comment about it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: We will await that comment, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether this policy that the government has adopted-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Who is your oil man, Bob?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am the oil man.


An hon. Member:: There is lots of gas over there.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I certainly do not pretend to be the expert on gas that my friend is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether the government's policy with regard to a freeze includes a freeze on the price of crude imported into Canada for Quebec and the Atlantic provinces, for example, as of the same date that Canadian-produced crude was frozen and whether the same general provisions as have been applied to Canadian-produced crude will also apply to imported crude?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think it will be obvious to the hon. gentleman that there is no way we could put a price restraint on foreign vendors of crude oil to the eastern Canadian market. Therefore they will be in the situation of offering for sale to Canada crude at prices that will be set by international competition. On this basis, as was indicated by the Prime Minister's statement at the time, crude supplies entering the eastern Canadian market from foreign sources would not be subject to the same restriction as those originating in Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In other words, Mr. Speaker, consumers of petroleum products in the Atlantic provinces, the prov-

September 14, 1973

ince of Quebec and any other part of Canada dependent upon imported crude will pay a higher price for petroleum products than those from the Ottawa Valley west in the event of the international price of oil rising as is generally expected?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the problem that we were dealing with in the freeze was the fact that each month there has been an increase in the price west of the Borden line. In August there had been an increase of 40 cents and there would have been a further increase in the price of crude of 40 cents but for the restraint imposed and the indication that we would establish a control mechanism. If there is an increase in the international price, in due course that would find itself into the refined product. The hon. gentleman will recall that at least at the moment the price offshore is below that in western Canada.


OIL EXPORT TAX-DISPOSITION OF REVENUE-REASONS FOR POSSIBLE INCREASE NEXT JANUARY
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, while congratulating the minister on taking the first steps toward introducing a two-price system, may I ask him for some clarification regarding his announcement yesterday and the decision of the National Energy Board to impose a 40 cents per barrel levy on crude oil exported from Canada. What disposition will be made of this revenue which I believe is estimated at some $15 million a month? Will any part of it be turned over to the oil-producing provinces? Will it go into a special fund? Has the minister any-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might allow the minister to reply to the question at this point.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should indicate that every month the National Energy Board has, of course, been faced with the responsibility of determining what is a just and reasonable price for Canadian crude sold in the American market. Previously it was able to give a certificate that the price was just and reasonable because the single price applicable to both Canadian use and American export products had been increased each month. Of course, with the restraint the price has not been increased in Canada and this is the reason for the board refusing to issue licences. The intention would be that the difference of 40 cents as of October 1 would go into the public treasury. Very obviously, the producing provinces, particularly Alberta, are very much interested in the disposition of that 40 cents. That was one of the questions that was much discussed yesterday when I met the Alberta minister. I expect to be seeing him and his colleagues in the first month of October to get their further comments on the general proposal.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary regarding the statement attributed to the minister yesterday in which he said that when the present freeze on crude oil prices has expired on January 30, 1974, it is expected that the domestic price will rise to bring it more into line with the international price. I want to ask the
Oral Questions
minister what this decision is based on. Is it based on a study of the cost of production or is it merely raising the price in order to satisfy the demands of the major oil companies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the assumption would be that we would move from the situation of pricing Canadian crude using a Chicago basing point to using a Montreal basing point. That is to say, crude oil for sale in Canada would be priced in reference to overseas crude landed at Montreal. As I indicated to the Leader of the Opposition, of course there is no indication necessarily that the price will go up. I think the specific question from the journalist that I answered was that if the price at Montreal did go up, would this affect the whole market and I said if we used a Montreal basing price at that time of course it would.
[ Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Champlain wish to ask a supplementary question?


Mr. Matte:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair might first recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands on his supplementary and then the hon. member for Champlain.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In view of the Prime Minister's statement that the government is considering a control mechanism which would either be an export tax or a national oil marketing board, may I ask the government if the decision taken yesterday means that the government has decided that the control mechanism will be an export tax, or may we hope that he has not ruled out the possibility of an oil marketing board for Canada?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the advantage of an export tax is that in purely legislative drafting terms it is rather simpler to achieve at the moment than a marketing board. I would not rule out the possibility of an export tax first to be followed by a marketing board in due course.
[ Translation]


INQUIRY RESPECTING QUEBEC'S POSITION ON FREEZING OF OIL PRICE AND PROPOSED PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources whether he received from the Quebec government an official notice of approval or disapproval about his recent statement concerning discount prices of oil, and also if he received an official notice of disapproval about the proposed construction of a pipeline to Quebec province.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been meeting the representatives of the province of Quebec today and the talks are continuing this afternoon. At this point, discussions tend to consider the two sides of the projects into greater detail.

September 14, 1973
Oral Questions


OIL EXPORT TAX-DURATION OF POLICY-ALBERTA POSITION ON PROPOSED PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources along the same lines. Is this 40 cents surtax per barrel of crude petroleum a temporary policy or a permanent policy?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the intention would be, subject to the approval of parliament, to attempt to separate the Canadian price of crude oil from the fast rising price of crude oil in the United States, and it would continue, we expect, until, if ever, there is parity between the two.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister said that he met the Minister of Energy for Alberta and other officials. Was the Montreal pipeline discussed with those representatives of Alberta, and what was the result of that discussion? Were they in favour of it or in favour of the government vetoing its own decision?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the Montreal pipeline was among the subjects discussed. The Alberta position was to note very carefully the explanation we gave them. They intend to respond early in October.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A number of hon. members are seeking to ask supplementaries on this subject. Perhaps we might see a few other members and then return to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain and the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister advise whether any plans are being devised, by way of legislation or by way of the creation of an agency, to provide ferry service between Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland in order to prevent a recurrence of the disruption of ferry services between those islands and the mainland as a result of the recent strike?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this is something we are looking into. While there is a constitutional obligation on Canada to provide service to Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland there is, on the other hand, the fundamental right in law to strike. We have to reconcile all this. This is why I am looking into the problem and I hope we will find a solution.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Now that details of missing documents have been made public through CJOH, will the minister say how the government arrived at the figure of $3 billion as the total cost of settlement of native claims, and will the minister say whether a recognition of the concept of aboriginal rights would change the government's estimate?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot make any comment because I do not know whether those documents are valid or not. However, the House and the Indians are well acquainted with the departmental position on Indians. We are ready in the localities where there is no treaty to negotiate settlements with the Indians and we hope to render them justice. As for their costs, we will know what they are when the settlements will have been reached between both parties.
[ English]


Charles Joseph Clark: Would the minister advise the House concerning native claims for lands that are now lost? Is the only form of settlement contemplated by the government a cash or compensation settlement, and has the government ruled out the restoration of that land to the native people?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have not ruled out that possibility. We have said in many cases that they could involve some lands. In my dealings with the British Columbia government I made representations to the effect that some Indians in B.C. would like to have land rather than cash. It is the same thing in the James Bay area, and I have made that comment to the Quebec government.


ACCEPTANCE BY PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF OBLIGATIONS UNDER QUEBEC BOUNDARIES EXTENSION ACT TO PEOPLE OF JAMES BAY AREA-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is it the position of the government that the provinces must, and I emphasize the word "must", meet their constitutional commitments respecting native claims and, if so, what specific action has the government taken since April to ensure that Quebec accepts its obligations under the Quebec Boundaries Extension Act for the native people of the James Bay area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have provided
September 14, 1973

the Indians with the necessary funds to enable them to fight their case in court and we have given them all the support they sought from us. Now we have to wait to see what the decision of the court will be. We expect the decision to be made known in a few weeks.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Is it the
government's position that the settlement of Indian rights is more social and political than legal and, if so, is the government prepared to broaden the restrictive legal approach it has so far taken to native rights in the James Bay area?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have tried during the past three years to have the Indians and Quebec authorities meet in order to find a solution. We attended all the negotiation meetings, except that at a certain moment, the Indians have deemed advisable to suspend the discussions and go before the courts. We then helped them to plead their case before the court. I must say that the Indians have done it quite satisfactorily up to now and I have nothing to reproach them; I do not think that we should be paternalistic and act for the Indians in such a debate.

[ English]


FINANCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In addition to the guarantee the minister indicated to the House yesterday he had obtained from the banks that they would not increase their magnanimously low interest rate of 10 per cent on mortgages and that mortgages would continue to be made available, did he obtain from the banks also a guarantee that they would not increase the variety of charges that go with mortgages, for instance, mortgage insurance fees, appraisal fees and the period of amortization of such mortgages?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly see whether there is any substance to the allegation of the hon. member.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member in a moment. There are five, six or more members seeking supplementaries. If we do this with every question we will not get far during the question period. I will recognize the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby and then the hon. member for Davenport.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister has been confused by a certain convention going on now. My question was a question and not an allegation. I asked the minister if he would check and obtain from the banks a guarantee that they will not increase the range of service charges that are permitted to them and that go with the mortgage loans they make to people.
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly make that inquiry.


FOOD PRICES
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that in recent weeks the retail price of bacon has dropped from $1.79 to $1.19 this weekend, owing to the policies of this government-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Caccia:: -may I ask the President of the Treasury Board if he will make funds available immediately to members of the Official Opposition so they may visit the United States and see for themselves the disastrous consequences of the control policies that they are recommending to the Canadian people?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. We are all pleased that he is surviving the battle raging at the Chateau Laurier. Knowing that the minister is an ambitious man, Mr. Speaker, and in view of the growing body of support within the Liberal party for a wages and prices policy-


Mr. Fairweather:: Or any policy.


James Aloysius McGrath: -or any kind of policy to deal with inflation, for that matter, may I ask the ambitious Minister of Finance, and I know he will weigh his answer very carefully-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. Perhaps the hon. member might come to his question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I was merely trying to establish reasonable grounds for my question so the minister could give a reasoned reply. Will the minister, in view of the growing body of support within the Liberal party for a prices and incomes policy, now reconsider his attitude in this regard?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will be quite prepared to arrange for the hon.

September 14, 1973
Oral Questions
gentleman to be invited to the convention, because his arguments would prove my case better than I could.


FREEZE ON OIL PRICE AND PROPOSED PIPELINE EXTENSION TO MONTREAL-PLACE OF DISCUSSION BETWEEN OTTAWA AND QUEBEC
Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In reply to a recent question directed to him by the hon. member for Champlain, the minister stated that discussions were to be held today between officials of his department and Quebec government representatives concerning oil and the proposed pipeline. Could the minister advise the House whether these discussions will be held here on Parliament Hill or at the Chateau Laurier Hotel?


OIL EXPORT TAX-RIGHT TO IMPOSE WITHOUT PARLIAMENTARY APPROVAL
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is really addressed to you but I will address it to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the fact the hon. gentleman has made it very clear that this 40 cents a barrel technique or two-price system, an idea taken from Walter Gordon, will be operated through an export tax, has the minister checked with the law officers of the Crown to determine whether the constitutional rights of parliament are being maintained? Does he have the right to impose a tax on people before that tax has been approved by parliament?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. gentleman will recall the technique commonly employed in connection v/ith taxation measures, and this action is consistent with it.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, that is the reason I brought your name into it. I want to ask the minister a simple question. Has he obtained the advice of the law officers of the Crown and of the Minister of Justice that to tax people by blackmail before parliament has passed an act is part of the regular procedures of parliament?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I must say I have not formulated the question in that way.
[Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)-l


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Since increased mortgage rates are costing the average home owner in Canada $15,000 in extra interest on a 30-year mortgage if paid to maturity, and in view of the minister's statement to the House concerning an agreement with the banks on mortgage rates, to which the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has already referred, would the minister tell us whether he has concluded any similar agreement with the other institutions in Canada which actually hold 85 per cent of mortgages compared with the 15 per cent held by the banks?


John Napier Turner: I do not
think the hon. gentleman's statistics as to the granting of mortgages are accurate in current terms. The undertaking I received from the banks and announced to the House yesterday that they had no intention of raising mortgage rates applies to banks over which parliament has direct authority. Many of the other financial institutions may be under other jurisdictions.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In view of the fact the prime rate now being charged by the chartered banks is 9 per cent, the highest level since Confederation, and an unprecedented one and three-quarter points above the bank rate, would the minister tell us whether the agreement with the banks to which he referred yesterday concerning a special low margin for loan interest rates was made before they raised the rate to 9 per cent or whether the banks have already broken the agreement he thought he had?


John Napier Turner: The agreement related only to the rates the banks pay on certificates of deposit. In return for giving my consent under the Bank Act to the interest on those certificates of deposit being raised at a uniform rate of one per cent by all the chartered banks, I asked the banks to see whether they could minimize the spread between what they pay for money and what they charge for money. I am glad to say the banks have narrowed that margin from one per cent to three-quarters on the prime rate for loans, from one to one-quarter on prime rates for loans under $200,000, and have eliminated the spread completely as far as mortgages are concerned.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could the minister advise the House of the fate of some 200 Canadian nationals presently in Chile, who are either being held in custody or unable to correspond with Canadians?
September 14, 1973

[ English]


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we have had limited communication with our ambassador in Chile but it has been sufficient to establish that as far as he is aware the Canadians in Chile are safe and well.


Terrence Wyly Grier: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment.


An hon. Member:: Where is he?


Terrence Wyly Grier: I am sorry. I thought the Minister of the Environment was in his place. Since he is not, I will defer my question.


SUGGESTED PROTEST AGAINST RUNNING DOWN OF CANADIAN FISHING VESSEL BY FRENCH SHIP
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Recently he informed the House that he was having consultations with the French ambassador about a vessel of Canadian registry travelling in international waters adjacent to French territory. I should like to ask the minister today whether he would agree to hold further conversations with the French ambassador about a vessel of French registry travelling at high speed through heavy fog in territory adjacent to our coast, ignoring recognized international navigation rules and running down a Canadian fishing vessel?


Mitchell William Sharp: If the hon. gentleman will provide me with the details I will be very happy to follow this through.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. A few days ago I asked him some questions in connection with a disastrous decision of the Minister of the Environment which resulted in the loss of the fishing boat subsidy during the fall period, a period of heavy construction. The minister gave us to understand that arrangements were being made to provide additional funds so that no work presently under way would be terminated and no significant number of jobs lost. Can the minister tell us whether those arrangements have been worked out and what machinery will be set up to deal with this important problem?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Officials of DREE and of the Department of the Environment are at present consulting on the details with the provinces. The question that has to be determined from the provinces is just what volume of additional subsidy or work is necessary to keep these yards going for a period of 90 days, approximately 30 of
Oral Questions
which have gone by. What we are seeking now is a formula through which sufficient additional grants, or whatever the proper description might be, can be provided authorizing those yards to continue where, in fact, there is now some slack. So far as we have been able to determine, the need is not extensive in many areas of Atlantic Canada, but that is a statistic we are trying to get at the present time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Can the minister tell us specifically which provinces have not yet indicated the extent of the need? I have particularly in mind Prince Edward Island where more than 100 vessels would be affected this fall. Can he tell us whether satisfactory arrangements have been reached with that province?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Without challenging the hon. member's comment, may I say I doubt very much whether 100 vessels would be affected. We are talking about a 90-day period; there is nothing which says the subsidy will not be continued beyond that date. This is merely covering the period when an assessment is being made of the ships and vessels that ought to be authorized. I cannot conceive of 100 vessels being deprived of the subsidy, but if the hon. member would give me more details I would be glad to look into it. To the best of my knowledge, during the 90-day period there are no significant losses as far as employment is concerned. If, of course, the freeze were to continue, the story might be entirely different. But I do not expect it will.


OIL PRICE FREEZE-POSITION OF CONSUMERS IN QUEBEC AND ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be permitted to return to the first question I put to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I asked him about the position of consumers of petroleum products in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. Is it the position of the government that while the five-month freeze does not apply to crude imported into Canada, consumers in Quebec and the Atlantic provinces will not suffer any continuing disparity compared with consumers in other parts of the country because the domestic price of crude will move freely as the international price of crude moves as determined at the landing point in Montreal? Is that a correct statement?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The proposal now under discussion is to use a Montreal base price related to the landed international price of crude at Montreal.

September 14, 1973
Oral Questions


PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the growing protests over the waste and extravagance involved in the purchase of the art monstrosities now appearing before public buildings in Ottawa, when will the hon. gentleman be making changes in his fine arts program to ensure that these huge sums of money are spent in encouraging genuine Canadian art?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will allow the minister to reply but it seems to me that a question asked in those terms might well be placed on the order paper.


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works does not claim knowledge in the world of art. These specimens are chosen by a select committee composed of some of the best Canadian artists. It has been the policy of this and preceding governments to apply one per cent of the cost of a federal building to art surrounding the building. The question of what is art is a very subjective one and I would not want to impose my tastes nor the tastes of the hon. member on the public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Does the minister intend to accept the advice of the hon. member for Cochrane, who has advised the government either to get rid of them or to place a shroud over them, or is he going to wait until the Canadian people place a shroud over the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister given any thought to amending his proposed family allowance program for next year in view of the opposition expressed to a continuation of the program by the financial critic of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that a question asked in those terms is never in order.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. While expressing appreciation of the fact that he has corrected Tom Kent's wrongful approach to Canada Pension Plan benefits, will the minister carry this action one step further and ensure that Cape Breton miners on retirement will have returned to them the Canada Pension Plan benefits wrongfully taken from them by Mr. Kent?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, while I cannot, of course, accept the premise of the question since this matter is a legal one interpreted by the courts, a decision having been made I have indicated to the hon. member and the House, following discussions with the Minister of Justice, that if there is some avenue through which this question can be raised to determine the appropriateness of the hon. member's representations I am quite prepared to consider this. The Minister of Justice has indicated that he, too, will be looking into the matter.


Donald MacInnis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the minister made reference to court action and to what the Minister of Justice may or may not have to say about the matter. In my question I expressed appreciation to the minister for the changes and benefits he has already made available to the miners since that court action. All I now ask is that he continue this same progressive method, disregard Tom Kent's representations, and give back to the miners what has been taken from them. This has nothing to do with the court action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: He has already improved on the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member sought the floor to ask a question and he received an answer from the minister. He then rose on a point of order, though I do not think he wants me to rule on his point of order. He is now rising on a question of privilege. I will recognize him, but again I seek the co-operation of hon. members as we move closer to the end of the question period.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because of a remark just made by the hon. member for St. Boniface. I
September 14, 1973

have made a promise to this House that whenever the hon. member for St. Boniface professes to have some knowledge of heavy water I will repeat my invitation to him, or to any other member on that side, to come to my office where I will show him a transcript of the remarks of their House leader. I will show him a bill presented in the House of Commons on October 19, 1970-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald MacInnis: -and a
transcript of the remarks of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


PENSIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour who I believe is behind the curtain. Is the minister in a position to report any progress respecting the commitment he made to the House on August 30 and 31 that he would consider either enlarging the terms of reference given to Professor Deutsch or appointing another commissioner so that the adequacy and fairness of railway pension plans in their totality, especially Canadian National's, might be examined?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I recall the remarks I made in the House on that date, though not precisely. I believe I indicated it would not be in the best interests of the railway workers to have Mr. Deutsch's terms of reference enlarged because it might delay his decision, which he would want to give to the arbitrator who indeed is himself under some haste to make a final determination. I did say that a supplemental study of the benefit structure of the pensions as opposed to the costing was under consideration, and I advise the hon. member it is still under consideration. Discussions will have to be held with the railways concerned, the Minister of Transport and the Union leadership, and we will get these discussions under way as soon as we can.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a
supplementary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: If I understand aright, will the minister give consideration to the possibility of asking Mr. Deutsch to hold hearings in the various provinces of
Oral Questions
Canada? Is that the understanding I got from that statement?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. These parliamentary secretaries across the way are paid $4,000 a year-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I seek the co-operation of hon. members. We have just about reached the end of the question period. I will allow the hon. member to speak on his question of privilege; he should be allowed to indicate what his question of privilege is so the Chair may make a ruling.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is one that has been raised in the past. A parliamentary secretary in this House asking a question is tantamount to one minister asking a question of another minister. These members are paid $4,000 a year extra to answer questions, not to ask them and take up the time of the House with spurious questions to ministers. They can get answers to these questions merely by lifting the telephone or in caucus. It is doubly offensive for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport to ask a question on the very subject matter that comes under his minister's responsibility.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope we do not get involved in a debate on this point which has been raised by hon. members on a number of occasions. I feel it is a serious point of order more than a question of privilege. The parliamentary secretary wishes to rise on this matter and I will recognize him for that purpose, and then attempt to call orders of the day.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I should like to adhere to your request, but I must say that I honestly believe all members of parliament, notwithstanding the fact they are parliamentary secretaries, ministers or otherwise, have the right to represent their constituencies on an equal basis.


An hon. Member:: Never mind the commercials.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I feel we should not be forced to refrain from asking questions other than of our own ministers, giving the people in our own areas the impression that we have an inferiority complex as representatives in this House.


An hon. Member:: Don't waste the time of the House, Joe.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I feel I have every right and reason in the world to represent the people of Manitoba residing in my constituency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Take your seat, Joe.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please.

September 14, 1973
Canada Pension Plan


An hon. Member:: Joe for leader.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the House that the point has been made before and that the arguments the hon. parliamentary secretary is advancing now, in support of his contention, which is very defensible, that hon. members have the right to ask questions have been made before, I wonder whether we will gain anything by pursuing the matter further. Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, September 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde for the second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs of Bill C-190, to amend the Canada Pension Plan.
Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on this bill, particularly in respect of its effect on the people of Newfoundland.
This particular piece of legislation, together with other social legislation brought in by this government and previous Liberal administrations, has been a godsend to our people. Certainly, our elderly people can remember the time when they lived on a subsistence income, from hand to mouth, and knew not where the next morsel of bread would be coming from, when survival was the prime consideration. There have been changes in some communities, while in other communities in Newfoundland that change has not been so obvious. This piece of legislation, along with the family allowance benefits, old age pensions and other social assistance legislation brought in by this government and, as I said, previous Liberal administrations, have been of great benefit to the people of Newfoundland. No longer do they have to fear what the future may bring, and no longer is there a question as to where the next meal is coming from because for many people in Newfoundland there is now a guaranteed annual income.
I wholeheartedly support the main thrust of the argument and the policy of the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), and his hope that we will eventually get to the point where we guarantee an income to all Canadians, not just through the use of social programs to allow them to survive but by creating jobs in order that they may be useful and productive citizens. We should work toward the day when we have a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians, and I think this is a step in the right direction.
I am particularly pleased with the one aspect of this amendment in so far as it applies to the situation at Goose Bay. As members of the House will know, and certainly

the government does, the United States force at Goose Bay is phasing out its operations in that community, leaving a partial economic vacuum. It has been the duty and responsibility of this government, together with the government of Newfoundland, to provide for that situation. Part of the problem has or will be solved with the setting up of the Goose Bay project group, the objective of which is to broaden the economic base of Goose Bay by finding other employment for the people of that area. I might say that some 500 or 600 people are affected by this change.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There was some noise in the House and I did not hear which order number was called. Having listened to the remarks of the hon. member, I am wondering whether the order I thought had been called was in fact called, that order having reference to Bill C-190.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The order that has been called is in respect of Bill C-190, to amend the Canada Pension Plan and to refer it to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. Does that answer the hon. member's question?


Thomas Speakman Barnett: It answers part of my question, Mr. Speaker, but it does not explain the relationship between the remarks of the hon. member and the bill before us.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, there is one aspect of this bill which has particular reference to the Goose Bay situation, and I was trying to establish the context in which this bill has that effect. This is of particular importance to the people in my area because of the present employment situation there and the changed situation of about 500 or 600 people.
This bill provides that Canada Pension Plan coverage will be provided the civilian employees of the USAF base in Goose Bay who were not covered previously. I want to put on the record the fact that this amendment to the act has great meaning for these people. There was a pension plan for these employees at the excelsior plant, some of whom found it to be favourable, but there was a great deal of dissatisfaction as well.
This amendment to the Canada Pension Plan provides that these employees will at least have the benefit of some pension rights which were denied them previously. I submit that this is a particularly important aspect of this bill, and I am pleased that the minister has seen fit to include it. He made the announcement in Goose Bay when this amendment was first proposed, and I would simply like to say today that I am very pleased indeed to see this bill before the House.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? I listened with interest to the remarks of the hon. parliamentary secretary, the member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), for whom I have the greatest respect. I am sure he did not mean to convey the impression in his preliminary remarks that prior to the advent of the social welfare measures which came to Newfoundland as a consequence of confederation, and he specified the family allowance, old age pension and so on, our people were living from hand to mouth. He conveyed the impression that we were in a
September 14, 1973

state of near starvation, and I am sure he did not mean to do that, because in so doing he is not doing justice to that province we both have the privilege to represent in this House. Nor does he do justice to the proud, ancient and honourable tradition of those hard-working, God-fearing and proud people of that province. I am sure he would want to correct the record in that respect.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to stand by the record. Perhaps I should elaborate on my previous remarks by saying that in no way did I mean to downgrade the people of Newfoundland who have worked for their living for many years, and worked very hard. I do suggest that in many cases there was a question of survival. The hon. member knows as well as I the terrible conditions that existed in Newfoundland at one time.
He remembers the six cents a day and the dole, as I do- not personally, but through experience. Our people now are immeasurably better off in that they have a guarantee from this government of an income. I was simply putting on the record that it is certainly a godsend to our province that we will never have to go back to the days our people once faced. There was a period of great fear concerning what the future would bring. I think that fear no longer exists. In no way do I mean to say that our people are not self-sufficient. They always have been and, hopefully, always will be to the degree they can be within the context of their environment. They now have something that will keep them from a state of purely self-subsistence survival.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I very much regret that when this bill was presented on July 20 I was not in my place in this chamber. At that time I was attending an important regional meeting of the Caribbean Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. It is obvious I was not on holiday, because July 20 is not the best time for one to visit the Caribbean, however beautiful those islands are and however pleasant they are to visit at any time. Therefore I missed the initial presentation of this measure.
I have read with great interest the speeches made on that day. I think the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty)-an excellent member and a long-time resident of that constituency which is a wonderful part of the country but has a terribly long name-spoke with great understanding of the major aspects of this bill. I thought also that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) showed his usual understanding of these matters and his usual concern for helping people who need the kind of assistance which this kind of measure renders. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) also spoke wisely and well. So I believe the debate has been well launched.
Although I suppose one can never predict these things, I do not think there should be a long debate. When this matter was mentioned in the committee by the minister, I told him at that time of the view of myself and my colleagues, that we would not be delaying this measure because we know it has merit and justice. So far as I can see, the only member who mentioned what I call the first
Canada Pension Plan
major aspect, the matter of appeals, was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. This is a matter about which a number of my colleagues, especially my seatmate the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North (Mr. Coates), have been concerned. There was an iniquitous situation in which a citizen wishing to appeal a decision of the tribunal would not have his expenses underwritten by the government.
I am sure every member of this House welcomes what I see in this bill as a correction of an injustice. I commend the minister for bringing about this correction. Justice delayed is better than no justice at all, and we are glad this has been done. I am sure it will help people. It is very much in line with what I thought was the spirit of the legislation when it was put into effect. I have been here long enough to remember the inauguration of the Canada Pension Plan. In fact, we had three launchings and one of them finally made it. It is a complex but very important piece of legislation which means a great deal to many people.
Later in this session I hope we will be able to discuss in a fundamental way some of the matters dealt with by the hon. member who spoke recently and was checked up by my colleague from St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). There are many important issues in respect of the Canada Pension Plan, such as the matter of retirement, the ceiling and age, as well as disabled persons, which must be more carefully studied when we have the broader spectrum of the legislation before us.
On the matter of the exemption of certain groups, which received more attention than some other aspects, I want to say I am very pleased that these fine citizens have at long last-there have been quite a number of appeals-had the rightness of their position accepted. I may say that in my constituency, and in so far as I know in the province in which 1 am proud to live, Prince Edward Island, there are no people who belong to the Hutterite or Mennonite groups and therefore I have no special appeal in mind. However, I have had the honour to know many of these people while living in other parts of Canada and I regard them as among the finest Canadians.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I believe it was the hon. member for Palliser (Mr. Schumacher) who on July 20 referred to the virtues of these people as exemplified in their living from day to day. How wonderful it would be in our society if we could carry on the practice of earlier generations in which the older members of society were looked after by their own families. How wonderful it would be if a grandmother and grandfather could be enshrined in love and affection right in the home. At one time that was the situation in our society. It was a part of our culture. One would never think of turning the aged, loved ones over to an institution.
We realize that now this has changed. It is difficult enough now to obtain a house for the growing family. There is no such thing as a spare bedroom, let alone quarters for the grandmother and the grandfather. But these remarkable people have been able to carry through that familial affection and have been able to make adequate provision for an extended family. They have been

September 14, 1973
Canada Pension Plan
able to retain their values, their moral code and at the same time be productive citizens. The people of the groups I have mentioned are among the finest farmers. They work the soil of Canada and make it produce. They bring forth good crops from the providence which has been given to all of us.
The fact that their basic tenets of religion are different from ours I think makes it all the more important that the state recognize their right to differ. The Hutterites and Mennonites are conscientious objectors in terms of war. They adhere very rigidly and strictly to the injunctions against killing. Some of us have an entirely different background. My family got over on this side of the water because we had fought a war which we lost, which Bonnie Prince Charlie, our leader, lost. We were brought over here without any great kindness by the victor of that war, a man very properly called Stinky Willie, the Duke of Cumberland. So our position is different, but surely it is our right and proper duty to respect a different tradition.
I think in countries that are thoughtfully democratic we recognize that even the right to bear arms need not be forced upon people. A well known statesman of Great Britain, Prime Minister Clement Atlee, carried to the very end his view that he would not bear arms. I commend him for his view, although not sharing it. What should be remembered by people in the country is that while the groups mentioned here have a certain view on such things as involvement in insurance, these people, unique I believe among most Canadians, do not draw from the welfare payments made available by the state. It should not be forgotten that while the Hutterites pay income tax, land tax and all sorts of taxes, you will not find them accepting or receiving such things as family allowance cheques or old age security cheques. In my opinion they deserve for that great credit.
I think it is only reasonable that the adjustment which has been made in this bill should be carried through. I share with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre the belief-here I am paraphrasing him perhaps somewhat roughly-in the value of universality. You make a better pension plan if you have a broad basis of participation. But, as he also mentioned, the question of freedom of religion is very high in importance, if not paramount, in the kind of values that are at the heart, core and centre of our parliamentary system, our system of basic freedoms and individual rights.
Beyond that, in a working society in a country such as ours we have to make pragmatic judgments. I suppose you could argue that under the Canada Pension Plan a whole province has been exempted because it was discovered a few years ago that the province of Quebec was working out in fact a better plan than the Government of Canada. I remember those very tense days. I was here at the time and I know what the then prime minister, Mr. Pearson, was going through. It was not an easy situation.
So we developed a parallel system. The Canada Pension Plan was improved because of some of the borrowings from the concepts which the Quebec plan had brought forward. If I remember rightly, it was the premier of the province of my colleague from St. John's East who the

first time he saw the Quebec plan at a dominion-provincial conference said that that was the plan for them rather than the federal one. So the idea of making adjustments, as against total universality-I suppose universality is always total-is not one that disturbs me. I look upon this not only as the right and proper thing to do but as a pragmatic settlement of a situation which had been growing difficult.
I know the depth of feelings that these people have; my colleague the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) and my colleague the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Duff-erin-Waterloo have told me about it. I know how long these people have pled their case, how carefully and thoughtfully they have put it forward, and I would like them to know that I am delighted that they have been given this measure of adjustment, this reasonable acceptance of their reasonable proposition.
I would like them to know, also, that while some of their basic viewpoints on religious and social grounds are quite different from mine, I believe they deserve tremendous respect from the people of Canada for their fidelity to different mores, a different sense of values and different social customs. I would say that the people mentioned in this bill are fine Canadian citizens who made a great positive contribution to this country and who, if I may mention it, very rarely if ever show up negatively by, for instance creating any trouble in our society. I have never found these people to have been an embarrassment through the violation of laws or the codes of the rest of society. They are, in fact, good citizens. The economic system they have worked out is a commendable one. Some of the family arrangements which they make are in my judgment not only commendable, but I wish that more of us and more of our ancestors had been able to adhere to them in a meaningful and functional way.
So I close by saying that I welcome this piece of legislation. If I had things to criticize, I would have no difficulty in uttering the criticism. But this is a good measure. It is justice somewhat delayed, but justice none the less, and for it I stand and to it I will give my support.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, may I say first of all how great a pleasure it is to follow the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) with his beautifully wise, intelligent and civilized approach to a subject. Perhaps I say that only because I happen to concur in the point of view he has expressed, but I think I would say it on other occasions as well.
This is a most important time for me. There have been many people in the House of Commons, from all parties, who have tried to put the cause of the Old Order of Mennonites before the House in order to grant them an exemption, but I was the one who originated the private member's but which for the last five years has been appearing on the order paper. I have been working with various people in the House in order to see this particular amendment come before the chamber and, I hope passed.
There are two really important aspects to this bill beyond the particular arguments of the Mennonites. The first is that it is an example of a private member's bill that
September 14, 1973

got somewhere not that the language the government is using in its amendment is the language of my bill, but at least the same intent is there. If you look back, you will find that until very recently letters from the Prime Minister and from ministers of the cabinet have been going to the Mennonites explaining to them why we could not possibly make this kind of an amendment. So the other important and very assuring aspect is that governments are in fact prepared to change their minds and take another look at a situation.
I also want to express my deep appreciation to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I can tell you that while it took a fair amount of persuading of the government and other members of the House, no one was more difficult to persuade than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. While I am sure he has his reservations about changes in the principle of universality, I am very pleased that he accepts some of the arguments that have been put forward. To me this is very important. I greatly value his judgment, and certainly his support, and I am pleased to see that he will support this amendment.
My first involvement with the Mennonites took place in a little town called New Hamburg. I was talking to a fine looking gentleman who seemed very friendly. There was an election at that time and I was compaigning. He listened to everything I was saying and was being very encouraging. I was quite happy. I said to one of my campaign workers afterwards, "Things look good. I saw Mr. So-and-So, and he looks friendly". He said, "Forget it." "What do you mean?" I asked. He said "Mr. So-and-So is an Old Order Mennonite and he does not vote". Even when they do vote, the tendency has always been to vote for the government in power as a way of not affecting a change and assuming the least responsibility for some of the things that have gone on in this world. I should say that my philosophy in not that of the Old Order of Mennonites.
But I would not like to see a society in which my philosophy, or anybody else's philosophy, was imposed on other people without any real pressing necessity for that. The Mennonites are unusual for a number of reasons. They have a claim against society. They argue that promises were made to them when they came to Canada to exempt them not only from military service but from other programs. Admittedly, at the time those promises were made there were no insurance programs as we know them today. The government was not heavily involved in welfare, but the implied promise was that they could live their lives differently from the people around them.
I am satisfied, from looking over the documents that were signed by the governments of that day, that a promise was made to the Old Order of Mennonites on that basis, and to the extent that it is possible for a changing society to honour that kind of guarantee we should do so. The Mennonites are a pacifist group. They have been objecting to the moneys taken from them for the purposes of the Canada Pension Plan, but they have never resorted to violence. The government has been seizing their milk cheques to collect the Canada Pension Plan contributions simply because the Mennonites refuse to pay those contributions. This procedure was the result of a tacit agree-
Canada Pension Plan
ment between the government and the group because, had the Mennonites contributed voluntarily they would have broken a very important oath that each of them takes.
It is important to put on the record the position the Mennonites are in from a religious point of view with respect to the kind of oath that one takes on becoming a Mennonite. Here, it is important to remember that we are not talking about all Mennonites. The vast majority are not in the same position as those in the Old Order of Mennonites. In my area the Old Order represents something less than 800 families, and there are many thousands of Mennonites who do not go along with some of the views of the Old Order. Members of the Old Order hold to the following:
The church, we believe, is a genuine brotherhood in which individual members obligate themselves to help one another in time of need and to be willing to submit to the discipline and the counsel of the total brotherhood.
A central teaching and practice of the Mennonite church from the 16th century until today has been that of Christian mutual aid.
Their objection to insurance of any sort, private as well as public, is that it violates their obligation to assist each other. I do not find their view unattractive. If we could extend the view of mutual aid to our entire society we would do well. To some extent we do so through insurance programs, but as I have pointed out they object to such programs. It may be difficult for me to understand their position clearly. My mind is not tuned to this in the same way as their minds are, but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that members of the Old Order of Mennonites feel strongly about this matter.
I remember discussions in the standing committee, when a number of members made the point that the Old Order of Mennonites are not the only people objecting to the Canada Pension Plan, and that there were all kinds of people who would like to opt out of that plan. But the distinction concerns their reasons. In the latter case, people might get a better deal through a private plan rather than from the public plan. But that is not the objection of the Old Order of Mennonites.
To prove their sincerity they have said, "We are willing to pay the amount of money required from us as contributions, and we are willing to forgo any benefits from the Canada Pension Plan, but we do not wish our money to be paid into an insurance program. We will pay it into a charity, or into foreign aid, or into some other fund from which we do not get any direct benefit." That is an important distinction. When hon. members say that there are other people who would like to opt out of the Canada Pension Plan then I ask, are those people prepared to take the Mennonite test, that is, pay the premiums but not take any benefits, to show that their objection is one of principle and not of pocketbook? People often want to opt out for pecuniary reasons.
If a person wishes to opt out of the Canada Pension Plan, we are in a position to test his sincerity of principle by telling him that if he is willing to forgo the benefits, but still pay the alternative to premiums, as the Mennonites propose, then there is no reason why he cannot opt out. But I do not think many people would take up that offer. I have always been a strong proponent of universality, and like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre

September 14, 1973
Canada Pension Plan
it is difficult for me to conclude that some part of universality has to be breached or set aside. But I suggest that universality can in fact be strengthened by making certain well defined exemptions.
Of course, if there were widespread exemptions universality would be destroyed. The great criticism against universality is not that it will not work, not that it is necessary, but that when you force all people into the same position or pattern, while there is a kind of equity in doing that there is also the possibility of some injustice being created in the process. If an exemption can be made in a specific, proven, well documented instance, then universality is strengthened because the small element of injustice that might be present is removed. I suggest that by granting this exemption from the Canada Pension Plan to the Mennonites the universality of the plan will be strengthened. There is no danger to the plan.
There is a difference in the eyes of the Mennonites between the Canada Pension Plan and other programs. The Mennonites pay their income taxes, and contribute to other programs. The difference is simply that the CPP, more than other programs, can be clearly related in terms of benefits to the individual contributors. In other words, it is more a straight insurance program than other programs. Revenue to pay the old age pension comes from a number of sources. It is difficult to know what percentage comes from each source. The pension is not related to the contributions an individual makes. That is the way we want it, to insure everyone, not on the sole basis of risk but on the basis of social obligation, so that those who are better-off can assist those less well-off. I would be opposed to any exemption from such programs for the Mennonites. Incidentally, because of their work ethic Mennonites are probably somewhat better-off economically than most people around them. They should, therefore, be making a contribution to the rest of society based on their better position.
When it comes to the Canada Pension Plan, however, those ideas do not apply with equal strength because it is more difficult to make a case for universal coverage under the Canada Pension Plan. Under that plan, the more you earn, the more you get and the longer you contribute, the more you get. Therefore, with few exceptions it is very much an income related program. It does not do any harm to the other people in the Canada Pension Plan to grant an exception in an unusual case.
I could say much more about the Mennonites, Mr. Speaker, but I can understand that some people may not be fully convinced-even some of my colleagues. I can understand that because in my party for years and years- sometimes it seems for centuries-we have fought to establish the principle of universality. Any breach of that principle has to be justified very clearly. Perhaps it is not possible to ever completely resolve this question. Perhaps those who may vote for the exemption, but who are strong proponents of universality, may have some doubt in their minds. There is some doubt in my own mind about which way I should go on this issue, and whether I should be taking up the cause of the Mennonites. I resolved that doubt in this way, Mr. Speaker. Since there was a question on both sides, and, universality did not appear to be in 
danger of being destroyed if the principle could largely be established, then if I was going to err, I would err on the side of greater freedom. On that basis, and I hope on the basis of some of the arguments I have made, I hope that this bill will ultimately receive the unanimous consent of this House.


Mr. Leggatt:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Max Saltsman: Certainly.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Are any of the basic old age pension benefits being accepted by that community?


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I am not certain, but I know that many of these people reject the old age pension. I have no way of proving this, but I understand that most of them reject it; some accept it. They make a contribution to it; it is kind of a tax.
While I am very sympathetic to the Mennonite point of view, I do not share it; I do not feel that it is possible for anyone to opt out of society. You cannot opt out of having your air poisoned or being invaded by an army; you cannot opt out of an epidemic or famine. It is my view that we are interdependent, but that is not the view of the Mennonites. I think they have made their case and have tried to do so conscientiously within the framework of their religion. Whatever my view may be of their religious beliefs, they do not do anybody any harm; that is the important thing.
If in fact their views came into collision with the best interests of society, some other attitude would have to be taken. They have a different view of the old age pension although most of them reject it as well as the family allowance.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Would the hon. member permit one further question?


Max Saltsman: Yes.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: In terms of the provisions of the basic old age pension, would the hon. member not agree that this is in fact an insurance provision against the rigours of old age? If some of them accept it, is their position not inconsistent?


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I think there is always some inconsistency in a position but there is a point of consistency. I know it is not always possible to admit hon. members to the caucus of the New Democratic Party, but this may be one of those rare occasions when you can see the kind of thing that goes on here. I am sure it is repeated in the caucuses of other parties.
There are different kinds of insurance programs. Medicare is a different kind of insurance program because its benefits are not really directly related to contributions. In other words, no insurance company would undertake that program on an actuarial basis. Things like medicare, the old age pension and the family allowances, are really social welfare programs underwritten by those people who are better-off for those who are less well-off. There is not just a sharing of the risk at one level, there is a sharing between all income levels. The argument against medicare
September 14, 1973

was not that the rich could not take care of themselves; it was just that under medicare the rich would not only have to take care of themselves but perhaps others who could not.
While there are some similarities between programs such as the old age pension, medicare and the Canada Pension Plan, there are also differences, and it is those differences that I was trying to point out earlier. With the Canada Pension Plan it is easier to relate the actual contributions made, by the person to the benefits he receives, very much like private insurance and in contrast to the other programs which are government insurance programs.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) presented the House with a carefully prepared rationale for the bill before us as he sees it. Usually, I find myself persuaded by the hon. member without too much difficulty but as he has indicated, he is not certain that he has persuaded all his colleagues in this party. The hon. member congratulated the government for having changed its mind on this matter. There have been times when I have been willing to agree that the government should be congratulated for changing its mind, but I am not convinced that this is such an occasion.
I am rather fearful that the provision for opting out, of which was discussed in detail by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge, embarks us upon a slippery path in respect of legislation which is of general application. One can think of a number of situations when persuasive arguments could be advanced for allowing certain groups within our society to opt out of certain provisions in legislation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps hon. members would agree that we now call it four o'clock.


John Mercer Reid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions, as a result of which we might rise at this point until the call of the bells for royal assent, if the hon. member who is to introduce a matter for discussion in private members' hour is prepared to agree. If members are agreeable, I ask that it be made an order of the House.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, we agree. If it is possible, we want to get our Liberal friends over to their convention. They are of absolutely no use around here, but if they are over there we can wish them an interesting and happy time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as I said around five o'clock this morning, I do not like to be difficult. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) whose bill is slated for this afternoon would like to speak on his bill, even if the private members' hour is to be only 45 minutes long. If any Liberals want to stay, they are welcome.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I take it that the House agrees to the calling of the particular order standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Emergency Telephone Number



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock) moved: that Bill C-37, to establish a universal emergency telephone number, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as the bill indicates, the purpose of the bill is to amend the National Transportation Act by adding immediately after section 22(1) (i) the following:
(j) provide for the establishment by all Canadian telephone companies of a universal emergency reporting telephone number.
While I have little expectation or even hope that the bill will be passed, I believe that the discussion of what is proposed can be useful, as the discussion will arouse in the public mind and in communities which will later be effected, an interest in the subject. In this way we will speed up the establishment of a provision such as this which is an additional step in the field of public safety. This additional step involves the establishment of a single emergency number through which people can summon police, fire or ambulance help in any city of Canada or, indeed, of North America because in the United States a great deal of progress has been made already in establishing that single, universal aid number in the telephone system.
I point out that I cannot do better than quote from an article which appeared in Life magazine some five years ago. Since that article appeared, the single emergency telephone number has been introduced in some 250 area systems, and an additional 60 systems are to operate with the number by the end of 1974. It will be installed in those systems in the United States, Mr. Speaker. The article reads:
It won't be long before 911 takes over as the most memorable trio of digits in American culture.
The telephone industry .. . has announced that it is ready to start converting its phones to a single emergency number that could summon police, fire or ambulance help in any city on the country.
The wonder of it all is that it took the nation with half the phones in the world until 1968 to decide that the traditional means for reporting emergencies are close to anarchy. In Los Angeles County there are 50 different numbers for the police. In the St. Louis area there are 32 police numbers and 57 for fire emergencies. The numbers themselves, each with a different mind-cracking combination of jeven digits, are a guarantee that nobody will be able to remember them when they need them most.
To make full use of the 911 system, cities will have to set up central dispatchers for their emergency services-a process that fortunately is already under way in some areas. And for those citizens stranded with an emergency to report and nothing but folding money in their pockets . . .
American telephone companies will come to their rescue. I continue:
As the 911 systems goes into effect, the company proposes changing all its pay phones so that emergency calls-or those to "0" for operator-will not require a dime to go through. In effect, the nations's 1,363,000 public booths will become direct emergency phones.
The speed with which the new system goes into operation now depends on the cities agreeing to install it. They should regard it as a 911 situation.
6604

September 14, 1973
Emergency Telephone Number
I think the value of one emergency telephone number is obvious. In any emergency, time is of crucial importance. In trying to get an ambulance, for example, or police, one uses the nearest telephone as the medium of communication. The injured or other person involved in an emergency who is trying to use that telephone most likely does not know immediately the number to call. He or she, even if a telephone book is available, wastes precious moments looking for the number while injury worsens or flames mount.
Moreover, the person trying to call must first find a ten cent coin which he or she may not have. He may come from another city, where a different emergency call system is in force. He may, in many cities, succeed in reaching the operator and say, "This is an emergency," and the operator will attempt to contact the right source of aid. But this takes time, Mr. Speaker, time which in many emergencies is vital to life or property. Hence, I urge the adoption of the one universally established and used emergency telephone number. This would be a success.
In Canada, Mr. Speaker, the Bell Telephone Company has already reserved the universal number 911 in many places where that company operates. Also, there are at this time six centres operating on the universal 911 number. Four of these are in Alberta, one is in St. John's, Newfoundland and one in Fredericton. Bell Telephone also plans to end the practice of requiring a person to use a coin in order to call the operator or to use the 911 number. According to what I was told yesterday, this is in the works for the future. There are, however, other telephone companies. I have a list of some of them. They use a different system for calling emergency help. Some companies draw little pictures in the telephone books they publish; others, in their telephone books, leave blank spaces in which one can fill in emergency telephone numbers.
The purpose of the bill before us is to amend the National Transportation Act and to provide, by law, for the establishment of the one universal emergency reporting telephone number. If this is to be done, it will require the co-operation of all telephone companies and of all the centres in which the universal number is to be established. In turn, this will mean that those centres of population will have to provide the central agency from which all types of aid can be summoned and relayed. Hence, while I am confident that what is aimed at will appeal to hon. members, yet, even as the author of this proposal, I am sure that the most that we can do at this stage, is allow the subject matter of the bill to go to an appropriate committee of the House where it may be discussed and, no doubt, improved and where witnesses can be heard as to the practicality of what is proposed.
There is no doubt in my mind that by degrees a universal emergency telephone number system is coming. Indeed, it is already in effect in hundreds of areas in North America. To ensure its fullest success, it should be universally known and used. It should be as universally communicated as the illustrated highway signs in North America indicating a hill, or a low bridge or a curve. I urge hon. members to allow the subject matter of the bill to proceed to a committee.


Mr. Paul McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, there is no question there is a serious need for a 911 number or other emergency number with which everyone in this country is familiar, so that in an emergency they could get help quickly. This emergency number system should be set up in such a way that a person who does not happen to have a dime could make his call. The government supports the intent of this measure and I believe it is a good thing we should be talking about it this afternoon and supporting it.
There are, however, some difficulties attached to setting up such a system. One of the results of this debate may be to push the communications industry into moving forward a little faster. The telephone companies have been in consultation with the government about the establishment of the 911 number and the conclusion has been reached that certain far-reaching developments are required in close co-operation with all the municipalities concerned. First, a central organization needs to be established by the municipalities concerned and adequate manning of the emergency facilities arranged. In some cities this is already being done. London and Toronto, I understand, have already done so.
The number 911 has been used and other numbers have been employed in various cities. In cities which have not established reporting centres one can, of course, dial emergency centres such as police and fire brigade separately. Once again, delay arises because the user must pick up a directory and look up a number. We all know that it is sometimes not possible to find a directory at hand. This applies particularly to pay phones. There is no question that a universally recognized number such as 911 would be much more convenient.
As I have indicated, some problems have been brought to my attention. Emergency systems, if they are to work, must be simple in operation and combined in a pre-determined network which assures the calling party of reaching the desired emergency control centre with minimum effort and a high degree of reliability. Unless the system is engineered and adapted to all types of switching centres, confusion will result due to different requirements in the territorial areas. We all recognize that different types of equipment are in use in different areas. This is one of the reasons for delay.
Emergency reporting necessitates reaching an interrogation centre where clearcut and appropriate questions can be asked to ensure rapid and correct dispatch of the appropriate people. In manually operated exchanges, a system for the centralization of emergency calls would be essential; trained personnel would accept the call and forward it for appropriate action. As hon. members know, there are still manually-operated exchanges in some parts of the country. In locations not equipped for direct distance dialling, some homing-in of emergency calls for appropriate forewarning is essential.
The question of responsibility for failure or errors is a serious one. Minimization of this potential would require an emergency network to be set up. Suppose a call is made in an emergency and the operator misinterprets it, fails to get the proper address or call back to the right number. Where does the responsibility lie? This is a matter which
September 14, 1973

might well be considered in connection with the bill before us.
Another matter of concern is whether adequate facilities are available. Supposing there is only one emergency number and a great many people are calling in. Might not a situation arise where calls could not be sorted out quickly and correctly? Then again, an emergency number must harmonize with the normal numbering pattern of exchanges. In some exchanges a five-digit calling system is employed. In others, a seven-digit system. Some of the smaller exchanges use only two or three digits. We should also remember that emergency centres are vulnerable to wide fluctuations in load, so it would seem essential to engineer overflow call answering arrangements.
Then again, personnel at control centres need to be familiar with local conditions. Experience has shown the need for emergency calls to be directed to locations where the recipient has a good knowledge of the local geography and the facilities available, since people calling in emergencies tend to use local or common names for locations, names which could be meaningless to a remote control centre. Obviously, this is one of the problems to be considered, though I believe it can be overcome.
As I say, I welcome the intent of the bill. I have no doubt many lives would have been saved if people had been able to call for assistance quickly enough in an emergency. I urge the government and the industry to pursue this matter as rapidly as possible so that an emergency number system such as 911-and that number is a good one to use-might be available in every community in Canada.


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speech made by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather). I want to say I do not believe consideration of this measure by a committee of the House, and its eventual enactment, should founder on the rocks of technological difficulties. I am satisfied the ingenuity of man is such that those difficulties can be overcome quickly, and for this reason I think we ought to support the bill and that it ought to be sent to committee without further debate. I end my speech here.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to take part in this debate but having listened very carefully until 5.30 this morning to very fine speeches, I was moved to feel that perhaps I should now say a few words on this subject.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather) might be surprised to know that he and I are kindred spirits or have a kindred feeling toward this kind of legislation. In the few years I have been here he has become known as a member who introduces legislation, not so much in the expectation that it will be adopted but as a prod to the appropriate officials, through debate in the House of Commons, to move very quickly.
I agree with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) that the subject matter of the bill will commend itself to every member of the House, but I am somewhat apprehensive about having a universal number. I say that for this reason: in talking of a universal number
Emergency Telephone Number we are talking of emergencies as though they were of a particular type or series. In this regard I have in mind a splendid program called Medic Alert. A specific kind of expertise is required to cope with Medic Alert emergencies. I would be somewhat apprehensive that insufficient consideration would be given to the Medic Alert program if we were to implement this kind of legislation without giving it the thought and discussion it deserves.
I have a daughter who is allergic to penicillin and she must wear a Medic Alert badge. There is a number on the badge that must be called so that the expertise required is immediately available. I would be concerned if someone at the other end of the line who was prepared to handle a traffic victim, or a heart attack or an epileptic seizure emergency, did not have specific knowledge of this particular kind of emergency. It seems to me this would work to the detriment of the individual that you were trying to help, rather than work to his or her benefit. So I file that caveat with regard to anyone considering implementing this kind of approach in the interests of doing what I am sure in all our hearts we feel is the right and proper thing to do.
Very close to my community in the city of Sarnia is the city of London, approximately 60 miles away. I am not exactly sure of the date, but an article appeared in Communications Business of June, 1972, indicating that London was the first city in Ontario to use a 911 number for emergencies. The article describes how the system works. Five police constables operate the system which will be installed in the new police administration building in that city.
I would ask myself whether these gentlemen are properly trained in the approach that should be adopted if an individual, who had a shot of penicillin he should not have had, contacted them. What kind of treatment would they receive? I would be a little apprehensive that this might be thought to be the be-all and end-all because it is the easy way. I hope that the people on the other end of the telephone line appreciate the kind of assistance they might be called upon to give.
I have one further comment. It seems to me the bill is redundant in that the principal telephone companies subject to federal jurisdiction, namely Bell Canada and British Columbia Telephone, have already expressed willingness to supply the service and to co-operate with the municipalities in this regard. I suggest, with respect, that this is where the impetus should come from, not in this particular instance from the government or from this parliament. The expertise is with Bell and British Columbia Telephone and with all provincial telephone companies who know how the system works and the kind of problems that arise. I do not think these would be brought before the committee of the House if the subject matter of the bill were referred to committee for study.
A position statement from Bell Canada, as well as a memorandum from TCTC outlining the situation across the country, was attached to the notes that I have received. It seems to me we have to be careful that we do not move too quickly in a technical field like this, with a group of laymen, albeit intelligent laymen, sitting around a table endeavouring to cope with sophisticated pieces of equipment and a very important subject.
26454-53J

September 14, 1973
Emergency Telephone Number
Again, I wonder whether we can pass a piece of-federal legislation and almost, in effect, wash our hands of it. Federal legislation can only apply to the two corporations that come under federal jurisdiction, Bell Canada and British Columbia Telephone. Since a universal emergency telephone number system is not feasible without the cooperation of the municipalities who must agree to consolidate emergency services, I again make the point that the system cannot be implemented by federal statute alone. This bill does have that failing. As drafted, it purports to apply to all Canadian telephone companies, whereas all the major telephone companies except Bell and B.C. Telephone are presently subject to provincial regulation. The hon. member made the point that he did not expect this particular bill to carry but it was his hope that the subject matter might be referred to committee. I think that covers my objection to that particular point.
If the concept of a universal emergency telephone number is to be legislated with reference to the federally-regulated carriers, it would appear preferable-I speak as a lawyer with some knowledge of legislation, having been a municipal councillor with responsibility of drafting legislation-to put this particular piece of legislation more appropriately into the Railway Act rather than into section 22(1) of the National Transportation Act. Section 22(1) of the National Transportation Act deals with the powers, duties and functions of the Canadian Transport Commission, Establishment of a universal emergency telephone number is not a matter of powers, duties and functions but, rather, involves the implementation of specific action by the commission.
For the reasons I have cited, I think it is premature to pass this particular bill at this time without giving it a lot more thought. However, I am sure that the publicity this debate will generate will indicate to the federal and provincial carriers the need to give serious consideration to bringing about what I feel is an excellent idea to assist the Canadian public.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question? Having in mind the very valid criticisms he has made of some of the details proposed in this bill, would he still have any objection to having the subject matter of the bill, not passed but referred for further study to the appropriate committee of the House?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, that was the point I tried to make earlier in my address. Perhaps I did not hammer it home hard enough. I did not think that a committee of the House, made up of laymen, was an appropriate tribunal for considerating either the bill or the subject matter of the bill. Particularly in light of the recent report brought down by the other place, it seems to me this might be one area where our science and technology could be put to good use. It may be more appropriate to have that department do a little prodding with Bell Canada and B.C. Telephone, with a view to showing the way to the provincial carriers.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, as has already been pointed out, the idea of a universal emergency telephone number appears, at least in theory, to be a worthy one. The problems regarding the proposed Bill C-37, an act to establish a universal emergency telephone

number, have already been gone over but they are perhaps worth repeating.
The bill appears to be redundant in that the principal telephone carriers subject to federal jurisdiction, Bell Telephone and British Columbia Telephone, have already expressed a willingness to supply this service and to cooperate with municipalities in this regard. I propose in a moment to go over the situation as it exists at the present time.
Since a universal emergency telephone number is not feasible without the co-operation of municipalities, which must agree to consolidate emergency services, it cannot be implemented by federal statute alone. As drafted, the bill before us purports to apply to all Canadian telephone companies, whereas all major telephone companies except Bell Canada and British Columbia Telephone are presently subject to provincial regulation.
Canada's major telephone companies fully support the establishment of a universal emergency telephone number, 911. The telephone companies have met with authorities in most Canadian cities during the past three years and will continue to assist in ensuring that 911 or a temporary alternate is provided when requested. The introduction of 911 throughout Canada, however, must be the result of orderly evolvement in close co-operation with the municipal agencies concerned.
The evolvement should include two specific phases. The first is the centralized organization required by the municipality to bring the emergency services together under one number; for example, police, fire and ambulance. In the cities where this has been done the telephone companies have provided 911 or a suitable substitute. An example can be seen in Toronto where EMI-1111 is a type of universal number. In Winnipeg and Brandon the number 999 has been in service for some time. Edmonton, Calgary and Red Deer have 911 calling for emergencies. In those cities which have not established a centralized reporting service, effort is made to assign easily remembered numbers to the various services. These numbers are prominently displayed in the various directories. Of course, all companies have always offered operator assistance in an emergency through dialing "O".
The second phase of the evolvement to a universal number across Canada is one of technical and financial feasibility. Although the technical expertise may exist to instal 911 service in all parts of the country, the cost in many areas has been such that the community is not prepared to make a firm commitment. As new equipment is installed and technology advances, there is every indication that the installation of 911 will progressively advance.
The individual status report is worthy of reference. The Newfoundland Telephone Company Limited is presently negotiating with the government of Newfoundland on behalf of the city of St. John's to provide 911 service. At the present time there are no communities in Nova Scotia using a universal emergency number system, but the Maritimes Telegraph and Telephone Company Limited is prepared to provide the number 911, subject to agreement with civic authorities. There are no communities in New Brunswick using a universal emergency number at
September 14, 1973

present. However, the New Brunswick Telephone Company Limited will work with any community to provide 911 or another three-digit number if the cost of conversion to 911 is not excessive.
There are presently no plans to establish 911 calling in the Quebec Telephone territory. The company policy of Bell Canada is to provide the 911 service code on request from governing municipal bodies, subject to the conditions to which I have already referred. Bell has held or is anticipating holding discussions with municipal authorities in many centres in Ontario and Quebec. Northern Telephone Limited has had discussions and has prepared quotations for three of the major cities in the system's territory. In the Manitoba Telephone System the number 999 is provided as an emergency reporting number for the cities of Winnipeg and Brandon which encompass 65 per cent of the main telephones in Manitoba.
Saskatchewan Telecommunications is capable of providing 911 now in Saskatoon and will be capable of providing it in Regina in 1975, but to date no municipal commitment has been made. Saskatchewan Telecommunications will be prepared to review this matter in all centres on request. Alberta Government Telephones presently provides 911 calling in the cities of Calgary and Red Deer, with Lethbridge planned for 1973. The AGT will work with all municipal jurisdictions in Alberta to assist in establishing 911 for all communities.
The Edmonton telephone company presently provides 911 service for the city of Edmonton. The British Columbia Telephone Company is prepared to work with the various municipalities in introducing 911 as a universal emergency number.
If the concept of a universal emergency telephone number is to be legislated with reference to the federally-regulated carriers, it would appear preferable, as has already been mentioned in this debate, to insert it in the Railway Act rather than in the National Transportation Act. The establishment of a universal emergency telephone number is not a matter of powers, duties and functions but, rather, involves the implementation of specific action by the commission.
There is little more that one can add at the moment to what has already been said on the question of jurisdiction. I think the matter has been well reviewed but I will leave it to another member of the House to wind up this debate.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think the idea of an emergency number 911 is excellent. I believe that after the debate last night the Conservative party is badly in need of an emergency number in order to get out of the situation it has created for itself.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Ask the Canadian public about that, John.


John Mercer Reid: When dealing with bills presented by private members to illustrate ideas, I always have a great deal of fear in my soul when it comes to debating a motion put forward by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Mather). His ideas are always intriguing and a little off what we would normally term the beaten path. They are sometimes difficult to talk out as they are usually short
Emergency Telephone Number and simple, and the ideas presented are usually clear. One has no alternative but to deal with the substance of what he has proposed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is that what you are doing?


John Mercer Reid: It is a good thing there are not many members in the House of Commons like the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock. If there were, there would be too many decisions taken by this House of Commons, and that would certainly destroy the reputation we have of being a place not of action but of talk.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You are setting a pretty good example right now.


John Mercer Reid: I want to make it perfectly clear to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that it is not the government which is afraid to make decisions, it is the opposition which continually holds back excellent legislation for the purpose of debating it one more time and making one more speech. Perhaps what we really should do in this House of Commons to eliminate this difficulty is take a leaf out of the book of Westminster, the mother of Parliament in London, by attempting to work out an equitable system of allocation of time and decide how much time should be wasted on legislation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member has the wrong number. '


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, as usual you are quite right. I am appreciative of your comments, particularly as I noted that you were awake at five o'clock this morning to handle affairs in this House while I was not here.
I should like to deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock. As I said before the idea is crystal-clear that there ought to be in legislative torm some kind of obligation upon telephone companies in Canada to produce a number that would be easily remembered by people who have cause to fall into emergency circumstances. The question, however, is whether or not the proposal the hon. member has put forward is really necessary.
I listened with some interest to the speech given by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), who indicated all the areas in Canada in which this idea is being put into effect. I think it is important to point out to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock that the areas he described in which this process is going into effect are outside federal jurisdiction. In other words, the idea has been accepted, not only by the telephone companies but by all the agencies with whom they must deal, and the process has been set in motion. The question I would put to the hon. member is this: if what he proposes to have done is in fact being done, is it necessary for us to enact legislation? I believe that it is not necessary; that it is a waste of time of the House of Commons to pass redundant legislation or to pass legislation to confirm what is already going on in jurisdictions which have the actual responsibility.
I admit this perhaps might be a small point, but it seems to me it is a very bad habit for a legislative assembly to

September 14, 1973
Emergency Telephone Number
latch on to a good idea and legislate on it merely because it is a good idea. I would rather have the House of Commons deal with those areas in which there is no agreement, and where there is a need to focus attention on items which are current. If the emergency number is being put into effect, then it seems to me quite clear that it is not necessary for us to deal in a legislative fashion with this principle. So, I am opposed to it on that count.
An article was reprinted in a communications publication of June 1972, which was taken from an article printed in the Bell News which described the situation in respect of the development of the emergency number in the city of London, Ontario. The way in which this has been put together is interesting, because it eliminates some of the great difficulties which plague the telephone companies in attempting to work out a universal system to provide the service which the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock would have us enshrine in legislation.
The basic problem I believe can be summed up in a short statement. If it were the telephone companies which were operating the emergency number it would be the legal responsibility, presumably, of the telephone companies for the relaying of the message to the proper source. Indeed, one of the problems is, what is a definition of an emergency. Some surprising things occurred when the government instituted the Opportunities for Youth Program and the Local Initiatives Program. There were quite a number of distress centres which were funded under these grants in order to meet the wide variety of emergency needs Canadians had. At the beginning, I thought this was a waste of funds. I did not believe at that time that there was a requirement for such funds to be spent in providing that kind of emergency service. However, it takes very little time to examine the record of these distress centres to realize that indeed they are required, and that there is a need which apparently has been demonstrated.
The needs which these centres have been dealing with have been quite different from the type of needs outlined by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock. The kind of needs which I think have been focused on by these programs have been those which have to do with the needs of people who are lost, alone or isolated. They phone the distress centres in order to find someone to talk to and to find assistance in dealing with social problems. I wish to draw to the attention of the hon. member that we are dealing not with simply an emergency number system but with a whole gamut of emergency matters which have been identified over the past few years.
When I read the bill for the first time, I thought that the term "emergency" applied to an attempt to find police, fire and other services in the traditional sense of an emergency. That really is not the problem. On the contrary, the problem is to deal with other emergencies which people come upon from time to time. I would suggest, for example, that in the position in which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) found himself when his party ran out of control late in the night, he could have used an emergency number which he could have called in order to shut them up. If this is the purpose of the hon. member's bill, I will accept it because there has been no unity in that party. At least we have not seen it yet, and if we found it I know this government would be in trouble.


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, may I say that I wish the hon. member, if he insists on getting his wires crossed in respect of my bill, would not plug me into either of the old-line parties.


John Mercer Reid: It may well be, Mr. Speaker, that we should have given your number to the Leader of the Opposition so that you might have been able to help with the voice of sweet reason in respect of what went on last night.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: There is not much reason over there.


John Mercer Reid: There certainly is. We decided to accept the verdict of the people of Canada in October. It is the will of the people of Canada that this is the House of Commons and that the House of Commons should govern Canada as best it can.
Before I get a wrong number, perhaps I should return to the subject of the emergency number. This emergency system which has been set up in London, I think, meets the real needs of the community. I think it is important that the distinction between what the hon. member has proposed, what actually are the requirements, and the way in which the community of London has moved, should be indicated. I do not think it is necessary for us in this country to legislate an obligation upon the telephone companies which is not necessary when there are more important and locally effective responses to the problem which I believe has been properly raised in this House of Commons.
In the article to which I referred, the proposal is that the police and fire departments would be linked to the 911 emergency system. It is to be manned by a number of police constables who will then take the calls outside of those two and refer them to the appropriate agencies. For example, the 911 system will be the emergency answering service for all police, fire and ambulance services in London. But in addition to that it says:
The 911 system will provide substantial benefits for the public. A person who is in need of emergency or protective service will no longer have to remember the number for each agency or which agency deals with his particular problem. By dialling 911 he will reach a central agency, manned by senior police constables and his call will be directed to the proper agency.
That seems to me to be a local response to a local problem. I do not believe that a bill of this type, which tries to deal with local problems on a national basis, is an appropriate vehicle for what the hon. member sincerely wants to do. The article also points out that the initiative for the idea came from a local alderman back in 1967 and that over the years the city of London, through its city council, has been able to develop the kind of program which it required to meet its own perceived needs. It did this with the co-operation of local telephone companies, with the agencies of both the federal and provincial governments and with its own agencies.
It seems to me that while we can encourage the telephone company and the federal government agencies to do this kind of thing, what we really should be doing is going out to encourage the local people, the local communities to set up this kind of system, because the telephone companies are well prepared to co-operate in any way they
September 14, 1973

possibly can. I am in full sympathy with what the hon. member is proposing but I am opposed to the way in which he wishes it to come about, because I do not believe it is our role.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa, September 14, 1973
Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 14th day of September, at 4.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
Royal Assent
i have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Andre Garneau Administrative Secretary to the Governor General
[ English]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Right Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
Bill C-129, an act to amend the Crop Insurance Act-Chapter 33. Bill C-223, an act to amend the Family Allowances Act and the Youth Allowances Act-Chapter 34.
Bill C-219, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act-Chapter 35.
Bill C-220, an act to amend the statute law providing for the payment of supplementary retirement benefits to certain persons in receipt of pensions payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund-Chapter 36.
At 5.05 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, September 17, 1973