1973-02-20

PRIVILEGE

[Stage Direction]
MR. LeBLANC (WESTMORLAND-KENT)-STATEMENT RESPECTING ELECTION EXPENSES
Mr. Romeo LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, having been absent by reason of sickness, I seize this first opportunity to rise on a question of privilege.
I was informed yesterday that on Monday, February 12, a daily newspaper of the national capital indicated that some hon. members, myself included, had omitted to submit to the local election officer their statutory statements on election expenses.
Mr. Speaker, that article is misleading. My official agent did file, before the date provided, my statement of election expenses, and it has been published in my riding in both official languages.
I checked today at the office of the Chief Electoral Officer and it has been confirmed to me that the statement of expenses, concerning my candidature, had indeed been received.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 1974, was presented by Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to table the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1974.
The main estimates for 1973-74 tabled today propose budgetary expenditures of $18,393 million and non-budgetary expenditures-that is, loans, investments and advances-of $893 million.
In the Speech from the Throne made in early January, this government reaffirmed its long standing commitment to the all-important goals of national unity and equality of opportunity for all Canadians. It spoke as well of the measures it would lay before parliament in the fields of
economic policy and social policy toward the achievement of these goals.
You will find, Mr. Speaker, that in furtherance of social policy objectives, these estimates contemplate higher expenditures for such programs as public housing and land development; assistance to native peoples; unconditional transfer payments to the provinces that permit greater equality in provincial services; bilingualism; and payments to provinces to assist them in financing hospital, medical and welfare services.
Higher expenditures are also proposed to strengthen the economy, notably through assistance to the technological development of our industry, to the orderly development of northern transportation and to other fields of transportation and communications throughout the country.
In certain other cases, where decisions were taken too late to be reflected in the main estimates, funding proposals will be submitted to parliament during the course of the fiscal year.
The government also spoke of a high degree of professionalism as being the primary and most essential objective of the armed forces. Hon. members will note a significant addition to the defence estimates with the lifting of the ceiling placed on the expenditures of the Department of National Defence in 1970-71.
The total increase of $2,274 million in estimates for budgetary expenditures for the coming year over forecast expenditures for the current year is unusually large. About 40 per cent of this increase arises because last year, the transitional year between the old and the new unemployment insurance plan, there were no budgetary expenditures for the commission, while the estimates for the coming year contain $890 million as the payment, after the fact, of the government's contribution to unemployment benefit payments in calendar year 1972. This does not call for any actual cash flow since the contribution is more than covered by the money already advanced to the commission over the past months.
Two years ago this government began to issue a companion booklet to the estimates called "How Your Tax Dollar is Spent". It is designed to better inform the public on the use made by the government of the revenues collected.


Mr. Stanfield:: Is that why so many Canadians are on sleeping pills?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Copies of the third issue of this publication are being distributed immediately to hon. members and will be available soon to the general public upon request and without charge through the distribution outlets of Information Canada. The special theme of this year's

February 20,1973
Main Estimates, 1973-74
issue is the programs which assist the consumer as he buys goods and services in the market place.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, we face today a novel situation in that on the day after the presentation of the budget, in which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) outlined the methods whereby he proposes to raise money to cover the government's spending program, we are presented with the blue book of main estimates. It would have been far better, I suggest, if this had been done earlier provided the government was ready to do so. I suggest that the government was ready because the tabling of the estimates has been an on and off matter for the past two or three weeks. Actually, if one recalls events of about two weeks ago, it will be remembered that the estimates were to be tabled on Wednesday, and then on Thursday. The matter has been deferred from day to day. We should like to know the rationale of the government in choosing to bring in the main spending estimates on the day after the presentation of the budget.
The estimates disclose some interesting things. Having had the blue book delivered to me about 90 seconds ago, I do not think hon. members would expect me to be able to make a detailed analysis. The minister made a short statement indicating that the total estimates exceed those of last year by $2,200 million. That, in itself, is quite a revelation.
I am also conscious of the fact that he disclosed that the estimates this year will cover the deficiency in the unemployment insurance program last year, something which was vehemently denied. The government attempted to cover this up in many ways during the consideration of supplementary estimates. The minister can shake his head, but I suggest that many attempts were made to cover up the precise amount of the deficiency in the program. The minister and his colleagues tried to play a shell game with us in this regard.
We shall be examining the estimates in detail. They will now be sent to the various committees for study. I expect that some of the glow that seems to have arisen from last night's budgetary performance will undoubtedly be dissipated when we look at the blue book and see how the government proposes to spend those billions of dollars which are coming out of the pockets of Canadian taxpayers.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I think the last sentence spoken by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) was the only relevant one to make at this time in that tomorrow we will begin the budget debate in which we will discuss the general policies of the government. These estimates will go to the various committees of the House to be studied. I hope that some weeks from now we will know more about the details of the estimates than we know now. I see no reason for taking any more of the time of the House.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I have some very brief comments to make in this connection.
I thank the President of the Treasury Board for having given us a copy of his statement. We will have the oppor-

tunity to discuss further during the debate on the budget beginning tomorrow.
I note that last sentence of the minister's statement which reads as follows:
The special theme of this year's issue is the programs which assist the consumers as he buys goods and services in the market place.
This idea was taken up yesterday in the budget speech and it could be noted that the government was increasingly dwelling on the consideration of the Canadian consumers' problems concerning national production. The government is showing a good intention as it was seen in some measures announced yesterday-not all of them.
Mr. Speaker, this is not new for the Social Crediters for, since we have been elected to the House, we have been urging the government to give all its attention to the consumer problem in Canada. It is nice to produce for billions of dollars but if that production does not reach its final end which is consumption then we will experience problems as those we have been and are still experiencing: inflation, unemployment and poverty in a very wealthy country.
I take the opportunity offered by the tabling of the estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973 to draw the attention of the House on table No 4 which appears on page 32 of Chapter 1, under the title: Percentage Distribution by Function 1973-74.
Despite the good intentions of the government, the fact remains that it will spend 14 per cent of its budget on the public debt. That represents $2,581 million in taxpayers' money which will be paid out to strangers, big companies, in interest only, without reducing the principal. Does that reflect an improvement or a worsening of the situation?
We already see in that column that the interest on the public debt will go up by $405,600,000 this year.
Mr. Speaker, this means that the measures announced yesterday by the expansionary budget of the minority government-which has no alternative but to listen to the demands of the opposition parties, including the Social Credit party-confirm the fact that the government does not really have any financial solution to propose. While encouraging economic expansion, it should reduce the public debt and enable Canadians to become in fact the masters of their own economy.
Therefore I deeply regret this method of financing Canada's debt and I say to the hon. minister that it is time more than ever for his government, instead of laughing at the Social credit suggestions, to consider our proposal or any alternative serious proposal which could make possible the financing of this item.
I conclusion, I would say that if we assign 14 per cent of the budget for servicing the public debt, only 13.2 per cent is allowed for economic expansion in Canada and this proves that it is more important for the present government to help financiers than to develop Canada.
February 20, 1973



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Is this the Last Supper?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It may be for some. Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the revenue effects of the corporate tax cuts and fast write-offs are included in the projections in the new budget presented by the minister last night?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: I wish the Leader of the Opposition would be a little more precise as to what he wants.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I wish the Minister of Finance would not pretend he did not understand the question. I should like to ask the minister whether the effects of the proposed tax cuts for corporations engaged in manufacturing and processing and the revenue effects of the fast write-offs are included in the revenue accounts tabled by the hon. gentleman last night for the coming year? If that is not clear enough, I will make it even clearer.


John Napier Turner: The hon. member is correct.


Some hon. Members:: Tell your friends.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then may I ask the Minister of Finance whether these corporate tax cuts and the revenue effects of the fast write-offs can come into force in the absence of approval by the House of the budget tabled last night?


John Napier Turner: The hon. gentleman knows the answer to that question, but since he has directed it to me I shall reply for the benefit of the House. The corporate tax cuts certainly cannot take effect without the approbation of the House. As for the fast write-offs or capital cost allowances, technically they could be passed by order in council.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have a supplementary question arising from the information given by the President of the Treasury Board to the effect that some $890 million is included in the estimated expenditures for next year to cover after-the-fact expenditures in connection with unemployment insurance payments last year. Is it correct to say that with regard to the effect of the budget on public expenditures of money going into the hands of the public, or revenue coming from the hands of the public, there is not a budgetary deficit of some $975 million but virtually a breakeven situation as far as the budget is concerned?
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: As to the statement that really forms part of that question, I regret to say the hon. gentleman is wrong. If you take it on a full employment budget basis for 1972-73 or 1973-74, the government accounts are in deficit. If you take it on the basis of cash requirements or the fiscal stance of total budgetary and non-budgetary accounts for 1973-74, the government will be in a total deficit position to the extent of $2 billion.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the minister challenge the statement of his colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, that some $890 million involves nothing more than paying off money already expended but outstanding in the form of advances and that consequently, in terms of actual expenditures rather than bookkeeping arrangements, the budget is in virtual balance?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker. I deny again the preamble to the hon. gentleman's question. I do not challenge anything that my colleague says; I sit right beside him and we are in constant consultation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Then you had better talk to him again.


John Napier Turner: The unemployment insurance account in the 1972-73 year is a non-budgetary item. As it switches into the 1973-74 year it becomes a budgetary item by way of a commitment of the Unemployment Insurance Commission to pay off the loan that constituted the non-budgetary item in the previous year. What the hon. gentleman does not understand is the accounting system used by the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I understand it, and I understand you, too.


ACCELERATED CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES FOR CORPORATIONS-PROVISION OF MONITORING AGENCY TO CHECK EFFECT ON CREATION OF JOBS
Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance dealing with the fast write-off provisions for corporations. Is the minister prepared to set up immediately some form of monitoring agency or body, as called for by the hon. member for York South on May 9 of last year, I believe, to ensure that these fast write-off provisions do in fact result in ongoing job creation during the next two-year period?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think that is implied in what I said last night in the budget speech.


John Howard Lundrigan: I am aware that the minister said quite a lot last evening in his budget speech, but is he now prepared, in view of the question raised by the hon. member for York South last year, to announce immediately some monitoring procedures or accounting procedures, some form of machinery, to ensure that the fast write-off provisions will result in job creation during the next two years? Is he going to announce some measures with teeth in them?

February 20,1973
Oral Questions


Mr.   Tumor@Ottawa-Carleton: I can only answer the hon. gentleman by asking him to read carefully what he heard last night.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I have read carefully a dozen times what was said last evening. Is the minister now saying that he did receive some assurance that the hon. member for York South is satisfied that the government is going to study the issue again for two more years, and that the Canadian people are going to have no guarantee at all that the fast write-off provisions will in fact result in job creation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


RELATIONSHIP OF BUDGET TARIFF CUTS TO TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES-ACTION TO ASSURE THAT CONSUMERS GET BENEFIT OF REDUCTIONS
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance one or two questions arising out of his statement last night. I refer particularly to the unilateral tariff cuts announced by the minister in regard to food and durable and other goods, including removing entirely the tariff on bananas, I notice. Are these unilateral cuts in tariffs which largely affect imports from the United States part of the negotiations with the United States, and is the minister making the case, as he should, that these cuts ought to ease the negotiations concerning the trade irritants, as they have been called?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there was, naturally enough, no prior consultation with any official of the United States government, including my counterpart, the Secretary of the Treasury. The purpose of the tariff cuts was to fit in with the general philosophy of the budget and to reduce pressure on prices for the Canadian consumer. If I understand the significance of the hon. gentleman's question, may I say that this action certainly represents a step in removing trade barriers between the United States and Canada, and I believe that should be drawn to the attention of the United States.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the minister said that the reduction in tariffs was one of the steps he was trying to undertake to reduce the pressure on prices. Would he give very serious consideration to setting up some kind of surveillance agency, monitoring agency, prices review board or whatever in order to make certain that these reductions in tariffs do indeed get to the consumer by way of lower prices rather than being pocketed by the distributors, manufacturers or processors?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will take that under consideration. I have noticed that there have been announcements of certain price reductions already today as a result of last night's budget.


An hon. Member:: On Mars bars and tennis rackets.
(Mr. Lundrigan.]


ACTION TO PREVENT RENT INCREASES FOLLOWING INCREASE IN OLD AGE PENSIONS ANNOUNCED IN BUDGET
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a further supplementary question and I direct it to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. My question arises from the proposed increase in old age pensions which is also reflected in an increase in the maximum pension plus the supplement. In view of the fact that increases in rents to old age pensioners have already taken place in anticipation of an increase in the pension, may I ask the minister whether he is taking steps or will undertake to do so to see that, in so far as CMHC manages some of these homes or in so far as these homes are built under limited dividend arrangements or through any other contributions or assistance under the National Housing Act, rents to old age pensioners are not increased so that the increase in pensions is not eaten up by hungry landlords?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister oi State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the purport of the question. I think all hon. members would deplore landlords taking that kind of action and trying to recover in rent increases any increase in old age pensions. In so far as CMHC is concerned, where we are the managers of properties and the rent is within our jurisdiction-I made this clear the other day-any rent increases for 1973 are withheld for the moment until a complete review of the rental policy can be made. An element of that review will be to make sure that any increase in old age pensions is not taken back in rent increases.


MEASURES TO OFFSET DEFICIT AND AVOID INCREASE IN PUBLIC DEBT
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question concerning the budget.
In the budget introduced last night, there is a foreseen $2 billion deficit. Has the hon. Minister of Finance thoroughly reviewed this matter of a deficit and if so does he intend to introduce specific legislation other than through the usual way of income tax and loans to finance this deficit and prevent an increase in the public debt?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this question calls for a rather technical answer and there are several alternatives. Under the rules of the House, I cannot answer this question in a simple manner.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Can the minister tell us in simple words what steps he suggests to make up for the $2 billion deficit forecast in the budget?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there are three ways in which to do it: issue bonds, issue new
February 20, 1973

Canada Savings Bonds and finally reduce the government's cash balance.


CONTINGENCY PLAN FOR WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS
Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In the absence of any precise policy statement on food prices in last night's budget, will the minister indicate to the House whether he is now prepared to meet with the provinces to reach a consensus on a contingency plan for wage and price controls?


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the minister whether the government has decided what precise criterion will have to come into force before the contingency plan would be brought into effect? Does the government propose to wait until prices go up by 20 per cent before the plan is brought into effect? Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister at what precise point the government's so-called contingency plan will be brought into effect?


Mr. Nielsen:: When it dreams it up.


John Napier Turner: If, as and when it is necessary. I have said quite firmly in the House that I do not think the present circumstances warrant the imposition of price and wage controls, and I said that last night.


TECHNIQUE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF ACCELERATED DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCES FOR CORPORATIONS
Mr. Trevor Morgan (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Finance indicated that the fast write-off procedures could, technically, be implemented by order in council, I should like to ask whether it is the intention of the government to use this technique or to introduce legislation for this purpose?


John Napier Turner: I am sorry, but the hon. member was looking in one direction and speaking in another, and I did not think he was directing his question to me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, and I want to say that I apologize to the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: You had better apologize.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the hon. member. I did not realize the question was being directed to me.


J. Trevor Morgan: Mr. Speaker, I shall try to make the question clear to the minister. He indicated that the government could implement fast write-off procedures by order in council. Is it the intention of the government to imple-
Oral Questions
ment the fast write-off procedures by using that technique or by legislation?


John Napier Turner: That decision will be announced to the House in due course, Mr. Speaker.


J. Trevor Morgan: Will it be brought to the attention of the House during the budget debate?


John Napier Turner: That is possible, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: If you do it by order in council, it will be the last thing you do by order in council.


BROADCASTING OF BUDGET PROPOSALS BY MEDIA BEFORE COPIES SUPPLIED TO MEMBERS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance and arises from the fact that certain media were broadcasting the terms and conditions of the budget before the minister read the material part of his budget to parliament. Will the minister investigate why Members of Parliament were not allowed to receive copies of the budget last night prior to the public being informed by the media?


John Napier Turner: I am sorry-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I think the minister was engaged in-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Leader of the Opposition rises on a point of order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance could not hear the member who asked that question, I wonder what he is capable of hearing?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Trudeau:: He is not a minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I will put the question again to the Minister of Finance.


Some hon. Members:: Louder!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question arises from the fact that certain media were broadcasting the terms and conditions of the budget some time before the minister had completed reading the budget in the House of Commons and at the same time Members of Parliament were denied the right to receive copies. Would the minister advise the House why that was the case and, if he does not know, would he investigate to find out the real reason for the situation that developed last evening?


John Napier Turner: I will look into that, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to keep the House in a certain state of suspense, but all opposition critics were given copies of the speech and all members were given copies on leaving the House.
1448

February 20, 1973
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: No, they were not.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the minister said he wanted to keep the House in suspense. Does he suggest, and I hope he is not, that the general public should be informed through the media as to the terms and conditions of tax cuts or tax increases prior to Members of Parliament, who were denied copies of his speech, and before the minister had finished reading it?


John Napier Turner: I do not accept that premise at all, Mr. Speaker.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It is true.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It is what happened.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the procedure followed was well within the traditions of the House as they have been established over many years.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The Minister of Finance says he does not accept that premise. Some Members of Parliament from this side of the House were listening to a certain media broadcast at 15 minutes after eight, long before the minister got to the terms and the conditions of tax cuts or tax increases in his budget. At the same time Members of Parliament like myself were denied copies of the speech in the lobby. Those are the facts, and I would ask him seriously to look into them. He knows that our rules follow the British tradition in this regard.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: We got it on a transistor radio.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity as government House leader. Can the minister indicate to the House the government s order of priorities once the six-day debate on the budget motion is over? Will the government then call such measures as the bills to amend the Old Age Security Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act? If not, what is the order of priorities?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, following the completion of the budget debate of six days duration it will be the intention of the government to call, in addition to the Old Age Security Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act, the 1972 budget bills. There will also be seven opposition days, so bringing

all that together will probably take up most of the month of March.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Stanley Howard Knowles: I should like to ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With regard to the old age security bill I should like to ask either the President of the Privy Council or the Minister of National Health and Welfare what has happened to the consideration we were told was being given to persons between 60 and 65 years of age? Will there be anything for them in the bill that is to be presented?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I will have something to say in the House on this subject as soon as I have the opportunity to do so during the debate on that legislation.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Because of the lack of emphasis on regional development problems in the current budget and the importance of transportation in equalizing economic opportunities in Canada, re-emphasized at a recent conference of Atlantic premiers and railway officials, have the Departments of Regional Economic Expansion and Transport initiated joint studies for revision of policies? If so, will any over-all statement be made this winter?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, on the first part of the question with regard to the emphasis laid on regional economic expansion in the budget, I call the hon. member's attention to the fact that there is slightly more than half a billion dollars in the estimates to be used for that purpose in the coming fiscal year. On the matter of combined transport and regional economic studies, yes, these are proceeding. I discussed them no later than this morning with my colleague, the Minister of Transport, and as I indicated last week I am carrying out a series of consultations with the provincial premiers.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: In view of the fact that only 30 per cent of the original estimates, or 50 per cent of the revised estimates, for incentive grant expenditures regarding DREE have been met during the past year or, to put it another way, the program operated at approximately 30 per cent of its capability, will the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion or the Prime Minister, who together with other
February 20, 1973

dignitaries are meeting tonight at the ivory tower-at the Carleton Towers in Ottawa-be making announcements concerning specific fiscal proposals relating to DREE?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not the intention of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to build ivory towers. On the one hand, I am glad the hon. member has drawn attention to the fact that the incentive grants were not quite the rip-off that some people claimed. I am sorry, on the other hand, that we have not put out more in legitimate projects. As I said the other day, that is what we are anxious to do in the coming year.


POSSIBILITY OF AMENDMENTS TO ACT TO ALLEVIATE UNEMPLOYMENT
Mr. Howard Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It is based on the urgent fact that unemployment figures in Quebec, as released ten days ago, continue at 10.2 per cent. In view of the failure of the minister's policies to alleviate this situation in the province of Quebec, can we be assured that amendments to the Regional Development Incentives Act will be brought before the House in the very near future, and when?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not anticipate that the plans we have will in the first instance at least require amendments, if the hon. member is speaking in the legislative sense. Within two weeks I would assume that my estimates would be before the committee. At that time I will be glad to give a complete and detailed account of the changes we propose to make with the objective of achieving the improvement in the employment situation that he and I equally desire.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, did the minister say that would be within two weeks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might reply to the hon. member's supplementary and then I will recognize the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I believe the question was whether it would be within two weeks. I understand that the committee probably will be considering the estimates within two weeks and at that time I will be very pleased to give a detailed account of our plans.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. It is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that no reference was made in the budget last night to a guaranteed annual income for those who cannot work, as was promised in the Speech from the Throne, can the minister say whether or not a bill will be present-
Oral Questions
ed at this session for a guaranteed annual income for those unable to work?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, in the Speech from the Throne the government has given five policy principles for the in depth reform of social security in Canada which is being considered jointly with the provinces. These principles will guide us during our discussions with the provinces in the months to come and particularly during the conference in April. Previous to this conference, the government will submit some proposals and if they are agreed to by the provinces, I hope that we will be able to submit certain bills to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are members who would like an opportunity to ask supplementaries on the subject introduced by the hon. member for Central Nova. I will return to them in a moment. In fairness, I think the Chair should now recognize the hon. member for Charlevoix.


POSSIBILITY OF LEGISLATION RESPECTING FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary?
As to guaranteed income, we realize that the budget speech says nothing about family allowances. Does the Minister of Finance or the Minister of National Health and Welfare expect to introduce legislation in this respect?


Marc Lalonde: As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I hope to be able to bring before the House during the month of April some proposals that would be discussed with the provinces by the end of April and a bill on family allowances will be introduced in the House during this session.


FINANCE
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance with regard to his remarks on food prices. Would the minister advise the House whether the government has a definition of acceptable food price increases this year and whether that definition will be presented to the public and the food industry?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, that would be rather difficult to define in terms of the tremendous range of food available to Canadians.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in light of the lack of such a definition, would the
25789-20J

February 20, 1973
Oral Questions
minister advise the House how he will determine whether the tariff cuts will have an acceptable effect on food prices?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister may reply to the question briefly and will be recognized for that purpose, but I suggest to the hon. member that we are really entering into the budget debate itself. The minister will be recognized for the purpose of replying briefly, if he can do so.


John Napier Turner: By watching prices.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. I. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary in respect of the question asked by my friend from Central Nova. I should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether in light of the talks that are opening between his officials and officials of the province of Nova Scotia some time this week with regard to new DREE arrangements, the minister's officials will carry with them new instructions with regard to decentralization of the essential DREE structure? In other words, during these initial discussions will they be talking about the placement of greater responsibility in the region?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, with regard to initial talks, I think the hon. member will know these have been going on for some time and probably will be continuing during the current week. We are certainly not sending them down there to discuss with Nova Scotia, in response to the specific question, any hard and fast rules that we have laid down. If there is an instruction it is to try to make our program as responsive as we possibly can to the purposes of the provinces concerned, whether Nova Scotia, Quebec or British Columbia.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. I believe I do not give you cause for concern in this regard too often, Sir. I am trying to determine from the minister when the government is going to get on with its undertaking to place a little more direct control over DREE programs with the Atlantic provinces?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: After they get rid of all the heavy water.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You have got water on the brain, Joe.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the minister. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond rises on a point of order.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because of the continuous interjections in the House by the hon. member for St. Boniface in respect of the heavy water situation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald MacInnis: -and the
heavy water industry in the town of Glace Bay, my home town.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: It sunk the Bonaventure.


Donald MacInnis: It goes without saying and the hon. member for St. Boniface should make himself aware of the fact, that the present premier of the province of Nova Scotia, on April 1, 1965, while a member of this House, gave full credit to the then minister of labour, the hon. Mr. MacEachen, for placing that plant in Glace Bay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Mr. Crouse:: Take a bow, Allan. You earned it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It does seem to me that this is more a point of debate. I would not think it could be considered a point of order. I would hope we could continue with the question period because we are running short of time and in about seven minutes it will be over.


Donald MacInnis: I bow to
your direction, Mr. Speaker, which I will gladly accept, but I caution the hon. member for St. Boniface that every time he opens his mouth on heavy water I will bring forth more information for the attention of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that we are not greatly helping this difficult part of our proceedings, the question period. I think it is a duty of all hon. members to give other members who are seeking an opportunity to ask questions and supplementaries a chance to do so. The hon. member for St. Boniface now rises on a question of privilege.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: First of all, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that I am glad to see that the hon. member from Cape Breton is in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: My point of privilege is that the fact is that this plant was officially opened by the hon. Mr. Stanfield in 1967.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Muir:: And Mr. MacEachen.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 20, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: When the hon. member rises on a question of privilege-


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: You will have heavy water on the nose, Joe, like that guy in Nova Scotia if you are not careful.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. The hon. member rose on a question of privilege. I have serious doubts whether it is a legitimate question of privilege. I certainly do not want to prevent him from stating what his question of privilege is but he should do it quickly, if he has one.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I did not know the members on the other side were that touchy. From now on we will have to take it easy with them.


Donald MacInnis: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, this is the second time within a few days that the hon. member for St. Boniface has made reference to my attendance in the House. It was only on Thursday of last week that I sent the hon. member a note, after he had made reference to the fact that I was not in attendance in the House, in which I called his attention to the fact that I had been away from Ottawa four sitting days since the session opened.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: That is what you said, but it was more than that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. Boniface should give an opportunity to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond to express his concern on his point of order. I think it is unfair on the part of hon. members to make reference at any time to the presence or absence of members of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald MacInnis: As I was
saying, Mr. Speaker, on Thursday last the hon. member for St. Boniface sent me an apology by way of a note. If it is his wish now to withdraw that apology, I am perfectly prepared to accept that and to match my attendance against that of any other member in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether we might not now return to the question period. The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East was attempting to ask a supplementary, I believe.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister heard the question and I will not repeat it. Would he now answer it, and would he advise the hon. member for St. Boniface to take out a little insurance against fattened lips and bloodied noses?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The comments made by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East are unparliamentary, I suggest to him.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to hon. members that there is no point at all in pursuing the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The situation is getting more unpleasant by the moment, and I think all hon. members will be relieved when, in about two minutes, I call orders of the day. The hon. member for Labelle.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that occupants of downed light aircraft have survived for long periods before in adverse weather conditions, is it the intention of the minister's department to resume air search for the Beech aircraft lost with four occupants aboard about 20 days ago?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, that search is one of the most extensive we have undertaken. Our personnel have flown some 750 hours, covering approximately 72,000 square miles, and we have had as many as 16 aircraft in the air on one day. I would add that the search is still continuing in the sense that our training flights, and also civilian aircraft, have been asked to maintain visual and radio observation in the search area.



INVESTIGATIONS INTO LOSS OF BEECH AIRCRAFT IN NORTHWEST TERRITORIES LAST FALL

Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General and to the Minister of Transport whose departments are conducting investigations into the circumstances surrounding the twin Beech aircraft that was lost last fall in the Northwest Territories. Have the investigations conducted by the RCMP transport department officials yet been completed and, if so, what are the results?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: So far as
the Department of Transport is concerned there has been some inquiry. I have not yet got the report but there was an inquiry.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I want to give the House the information that from January next all aircraft in Canada will have to have electronic location devices installed in them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 20, 1973
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Only very large aircraft will be exempted. We are now in consultation with the manufacturers and the aviation clubs, and we hope that from January 1 next this will be compulsory in Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Will the Solicitor General please answer with respect to the RCMP investigation?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker,
I do not have an up to date report on that matter but I will be pleased to get one for the hon. member.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Having in mind his recent speech in Winnipeg in which he laid importance on the well-being of western Canada in the federal scheme of confederation, would the right hon. gentleman give consideration to encouraging the placing of more federal contracts for federal purchases in western Canada and in particular in British Columbia where the number of such contracts in recent months has been minimal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and the House will recall that when the present Minister of National Defence was minister of supply and services he announced that it would be government policy to review the whole matter of purchasing and contracts by his department and by the government in order to ensure an equitable spread of such contracts.


Barry Mather: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. Would he consider encouraging the former minister of supply and services, now the Minister of National Defence, to consult with the present Minister of Supply and Services with a view to expediting a more equitable distribution of contracts?



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a related question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the statement by the Minister of National Defence, will the Prime Minister discuss with the Minister of National Revenue stopping the closure of the customs and excise tax offices in the city of Regina?



REDISTRIBUTION OF RIDINGS-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION IN NEWSPAPERS OF MAPS SHOWING NEW BOUNDARIES

Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister check with the Chief Electoral Officer and the redistribution officials to see that maps of the new boundaries proposed under redistribution are published in the constituencies? I make a personal complaint because not a single advertisement has been placed in any newspaper in my riding.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take that suggestion under consideration.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of the fact that there has been an investigation into the fatal air crash of an Ilford-Riverton aircraft at Winnipeg in June, 1972, can the minister give any indication when the report will be made public?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire and make a report to the House.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the minister inform the House when the several DREE applications for the former Rivers air base, which have been delayed for some time, will be approved?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I have had representations from the honourable Mr. Evans who was here last week and discussed with me this and a number of other matters. I have asked for expeditious treatment of them in terms of getting them before me, and I would hope to deal with them in the near future.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will appreciate that we have been operating on borrowed time for a few minutes. I thought that hon. members might want to have a few additional minutes because of the difficulties we had during the question period, but we should not have too many supplementaries or there would not be much point in prolonging the question period.


Donald Craig Stewart: Because of the serious economic situation at Rivers, would the minister order a review by his department of all DREE applications that involve the former Rivers air base?

February 20, 1973


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if it would be in quite that form, but certainly that is the objective of what is being considered at the present time. I would be glad to have any comments or advice that the hon. member can give me.



FINANCE


Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact the minister told the House to wait for his budget to learn about incentives to Canadians to invest in Canada and that the budget was strangely silent on this question last evening, can the minister now tell the House whether he proposes additional incentives to Canadians to stimulate their investment in equity ownership in business, industry and natural resources in this country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I hope the hon. gentleman has read the budget carefully and all the ways and means resolutions. Certainly, my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and I will be introducing measures that will stimulate interest in small business in particular in this country.


Peter Colwell Bawden: In view of the overconfidence which the minister exudes while avoiding my question, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether he considers the marriage to be successful and secure now that the bride has seen the wedding presents?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



WELFARE


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that rising food costs are affecting those people who have to resort to welfare, and in view of the fact that the minister is not meeting with the provincial ministers until April, would he consider treating this as an emergency and raising the 50-50 cost formula with the provinces in order to help these people?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows that the federal government is paying 50 per cent of the social assistance in Canada and it is up to the provinces to decide what kind of measures they want to introduce to help people who are in need.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to help the minister by telling him I knew that. I mentioned it and he repeated it. Will he take the lead and meet with the provincial ministers? This is a serious situation. These people
Oral Questions
are suffering and he should take the lead in meeting them. Would he kindly do that?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Assiniboia.



HOUSING


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs related to housing. In view of his statement today that he would move in the direction of rent control for the area under his jurisdiction, can the minister inform the House if he will be taking any action to ensure that rents will not go up in those housing projects under provincial or municipal authorities?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, my statement referred to situations where Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is itself the landlord and we have direct control and authority. We have no authority over provincial housing corporations, although one province has already implemented a rent control program and others, of course, are free to do so.



INDEMNIFICATION OF VICTIMS OF THALIDOMIDE- STATUS OF NEGOTIATIONS-POSSIBLE ASSISTANCE FROM MINISTER

Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Since the parents of children who were victims of thalidomide have decided to institute proceedings against the company distributing this drug, must we conclude that the negotiations between the department officials and the company have not been successful?


Marc Lalonde: Absolutely not, Mr. Speaker, but the role of my officials has been to facilitate consultations and discussions between the families involved and the representatives of the company. I understand that one of the families was not satisfied with the settlement offered, that is the discussions between the parties, in this case the families and the business concerned.


Jean-Marie Boisvert: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question to the minister.
Would he be ready to grant his technical and financial support to these parents in the proceedings they are taking against the company?


Marc Lalonde: No, Mr. Speaker.

February 20, 1973
Oral Questions



POSSIBILITY OF AID TO SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO IN LIGHT OF GRANT TO BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. It has been indicated that the minister has granted $121 million for flood control and erosion relief in his own province of British Columbia. Can we expect a similar announcement for the continuing emergency in southwestern Ontario?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, that grant is part of a long term arrangement between the government of Canada and the province of British Columbia which has resulted from intensive studies over the years and is part of a firm federal-provincial agreement that also extends over many years.



TRANSPORT


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In view of the fact that drift ice is creating great difficulties and delays in ship movement between the mainland port of North Sydney and Newfoundland, affecting all CNR boats, would the minister today direct that more icebreakers be put into service in this area? I understand that icebreakers directed to other areas are not too far away.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think everybody will recognize that we have had a very bad season as far as ice is concerned.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: More bad weather?


Jean Marchand: No, a lot of ice and I am not responsible for it. I like it in Scotch. I think the Canadian government sooner or later will have to build more icebreakers. I agree with the hon. gentleman. It is a long job and a very, expensive one, but if we want our ships to sail in winter time we will have to take the necessary measures.


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Carleton-Charlotte on a supplementary and then call orders of the day.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Last night's budget indicated that there would be several reductions in tariffs on agricultural products entering Canada. Has the Minister of Agriculture made an estimate of the possible cost in net income to farmers of this reduction in tariffs?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, we are in the throes of doing this at the present time, but I am not really concerned that they will have that much effect on farmers' incomes in Canada.


James Aloysius McGrath: Let them cut meatballs and gravy.


Fred Alward McCain: May I ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs if he is prepared to estimate the savings to the consumer as a result of the reduction in food costs to be effected by the removal of duty on agricultural products?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, certainly I hope that the saving will be one of substance, but I am not in a position at this time to give a definite assessment.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Fred Alward McCain: I asked if the minister could assess the effect on the cost of living of the reduction of duty on agricultural products entering Canada. Obviously he could not.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, February 19, consideration in committee of Bill C-141, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1973-Mr. MacEac-hen (for Mr. Drury)-Mr. McCleave in the chair.
On clause 2-Schedule.
The Chairman:: Order, please. When the committee rose at five o'clock yesterday, votes 5, 35, 40a, 45a in the schedule relating to the Department of National Health and Welfare were being considered, and the hon. member for Lotbiniere had the floor.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, yesterday I asked for the opportunity to say a few words on items 35a and 40a. Shortly after the adjournment of the debate yesterday, the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) announced in the budget speech something which is related to these
February 20, 1973

items, namely the old age security pension and basic rates which differ from those we discussed yesterday afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, I would have spoken any way about the age of eligibility for the old age security pension. When we read the report of the special joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Poverty in Canada as regards the dependency of many Canadians, we note that they recommend that a guaranteed income be given to a maximum number of Canadians who find themselves in a state of dependency.
The reading of the annual reviews of the Economic Council of Canada, allows one to draw similar conclusions; when one reads the Speech from the Throne made at the very beginning of this session, one will note once again the good intentions of this government which is talking about implementing a guaranteed income scheme.
In view of the budget presented last night-which could be predicted yesterday afternoon-the government agreed, after numerous representations and pressures from the Social Credit party of Canada, to increase old age security pensions. We were asking $350 a month and the government agreed to approximate that amount with $325 a month. It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that this is a gain for our party which proves that our requests are not always ridiculous since the government is forced to agree to our proposals one day or another.
We have been asking for a long time that the government consider in the context of a guaranteed income scheme, the possibility of lowering to 60 the retirement age in Canada so that if one person receives old age security at 60, his spouse, whatever his age may be, could be entitled to the old age pension. I take the opportunity offered to draw the government's attention on that important matter.
Since the government is in a minority position, since it cannot be as arrogant as it has been since 1968 and since it must take account of our claims, it agrees partly to what we have been asking. However, that does not imply that it will get our whole support.
In view of the problems facing our fellow citizens, it is essential that the government and the minister undertake, as for the examination of votes 35a and 40a, to give details more rapidly than it had forecasted, since the budget was presented last night, on the possibility of first lowering eligibility for old age security pension to 60 and, second granting the old age pension automatically to both spouses when one has reached the pensionable age.
Then, Mr. Chairman, if the government agrees to work for the liberalization of the human being in order to give him an economic security in this country, it will not only show its good will but also that it understands many citizens who live in poverty and dependency.
Mr. Chairman, the old age security pension as it now exists in Canada often gives rise to dissatisfaction. The basic pension of $82.88, which is now increased to $100, is a statutory pension, according to the statement of the hon. minister.
If someone cannot make both ends meet with this basic pension, then the whole mechanism of the oppressive bureaucracy gets started to have forms signed, to check
Supply
the claimants' ressources and if they are more or less dependent they will be entitled to the garanteed income supplement.
Mr. Chairman, this is just administrative make work which imply very substantial expenditures for the administration of the old age security pension. We in the Social Credit Party feel that it would be a lot easier to grant an equal pension to all Canadians who are 60 years old, which would make the administration of this program easier and would permit an increase in the old age pensions, thanks to the money that would be saved.
Mr. Chairman, during the question period today and the debate yesterday the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) committed himself to announce his plans to the House as to the age of eligibility. He said that first he had to meet with the representatives of provincial governments.
Mr. Chairman, I wish to remind the Minister of National Health and Welfare that this House has a right to know what his intentions are in this regard even before he discusses the matter with the provinces. The minister should realize that provinces have some jurisdiction in that field-we acknowledge it-and that parliament which represents the people of Canada should have its say in the setting of the guidelines of the social security policy in Canada, regardless of what the provinces think.
That does not mean, Mr. Chairman, that we should not object to the policy proposed by the provinces. Of course, we must look for efficient and continuous consultation with other levels of government. But the minister should realize the importance of consulting his colleagues to set up the policy and I am sure that he will get excellent advice from all members of this House, particularly from the Social Credit party of Canada.
I remember the time when the leader of the Social Credit party (Mr. Caouette) was proposing to set old age pensions at $75 a month when they were much lower than that. Both Liberals and Progressive Conservatives-it's all the same-were saying: Caouette is sick. Caouette is mad. It doesn't make sense. Now the first time one of these parties managed to remain in power, it increased the old age pension by $25 over and above what the Social Credit leader was asking for, which makes the national leader say, and justly so, that the old parties are late and at least 25 times sicker than he was then.
Since I came to the House I noticed that some of our colleagues, smarter than others, have a tendency to ridicule certain points of the Social Credit doctrine as well as some of our proposals. I pointed out on motions, in reply to a statement from the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Drury) an item of the estimates introduced yesterday which shows that 14.2 per cent of the total budget will be appropriated for servicing the public debt which for this present year amounts to $2.5 billion. Yet no hon. member of the other parties has brought up this matter. Maybe it has no importance, but I will point out to my hon. colleagues that this item alone entails an increase of $450 million in this year's budget.
When you consider that over the same period of time only 13.2 per cent of the budget is devoted to economic

February 20, 1973
Supply
expansion, you realize that the Creditistes are not as crazy as they are said to be. They are probably right when they urge the House to vote new credits to finance Canada's normal development, including social security.
When the government announces tax cuts so as to raise the old age security pensions, it is at the same time forced to increase the public debt and to present a deficit budget. Everyone indeed knows that this year's deficit will amount to $2 billion.
I asked the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) what measures he intends to take to finance this deficit-which was an important question. The hon. minister-everyone heard his reply-does not know. He said that he cannot do otherwise than use the two normal solutions which have been used for 100 years, namely government bonds and taxes.
In both cases, these solutions would reduce the taxpayers' purchasing power and boost our national debt. So, the more it goes, the more it is the same, and when the government grants tax cuts to save its skin, it has to increase the national, municipal and provincial debts. In brief, it has no long or short term solution to pay those debts.
The House is now requested to carry credits 35a and 40a totalling $5,385,000 for only a small portion of social security. But considering the cost of operating that program because there are so many forms to fill, the length of the negotiations and studies which never lead to concrete solutions, the increasingly dependent condition of most of our citizens in this country, which is a rich country, I think that if we claim some degree of intellectual honesty, we will have, in spite of ourselves, one of these days to consider this other Social Credit proposal which is to ensure each Canadian citizen of a guaranteed annual income through the issue of new credits from the Bank of Canada, thus avoiding getting Canadians into debt while granting them their share of the national product.
The minister gave an idea of his great plans in the Speech from the Throne, but after reading last night's budget speech we realize that the Minister of Finance did not dare to consult his colleague in National Health and Welfare Department since there is not a word about this in his budget.
Mr. Chairman, the government is not able to bring about the guaranteed annual income for all Canadian citizens. This government, as well as those who would want to replace it, the Progressive Conservatives, have no way of ensuring income security for Canadian citizens. And these same Progressive Conservatives want to govern the country.
Mr. Chairman, once more I ask the government what is the meaning of the credits the House is asked to vote since they only increase taxes and only minimal amounts are left.
Mr. Chairman, we should stop asking ourselves whether we have the means. It is obvious that we would have the means if we stopped getting Canadians into debt through abnormal financing procedures, namely taxes and Canada savings bonds.
The government has a financial tool on hand, that is the Bank of Canada. It should be used not just any old way

but in accordance with a regular procedure and within the framework of a balanced budget in order to give a guaranteed income to all Canadians, specially to the citizens as soon as they reach 60. Thanks to this measure, our older citizens will no longer fell left out.
In conclusion, I would like to relate to the minister a very typical example in order to prove the importance of this proposal. I know for a fact that there are in my riding many cases where the 65 year-old worker is no longer able to work for reasons of poor health. So he retires and gets a piddling pension from the government. The pension will be better now, but is it truly enough?
If a spouse who retires and stays put at home wants to receive the guaranteed income supplement, he will go and fill out a form. Then someone will check his bank account, find out whether or not he reports the interest on his savings and check as well whether he gets additional income from rents, etc. Because of what he receives and the fact that his wife is not yet 65 years old, his pension, his sole income, will not be enough. What happens in such cases? The wife, who is probably 62 or 63, and also probably ill and less capable of working than at 23, will go out and wash floors, do dishes in restaurants or hotels to earn $15, $25, $30 or $40 more to make ends meet.
Mr. Chairman, in such cases, the government is primarily responsible for the state of slavery, dependence in which Canadians find themselves who are no longer capable, in certain circumstances of fighting for themselves, because of the inflated economic situation we are in.
Mr. Chairman, that is why I request, with my colleagues of the Social Credit party, that the old age security pension be given automatically to married couples as soon as one of the spouses reaches age 60, this to enable them to live together, to rest and take advantage of their retirement without any financial worries.
To my mind, that is the primary role of the government and the minister would be well advised to tell us what is his position is in this regard, before we pass the votes before the House.


Mr. Nesbitt:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to take up the time of the committee for very long. I wish to refer specifically to certain serious administrative problems which the Minister of National Health and Welfare faces in this department. I am raising this subject today because there is often difficulty in bringing up urgent matters of this kind during the question period.
I am not attributing blame specifically to the minister. After all, he is a new minister. I would blame the former minister, if anyone. But this is a matter which the hon. gentleman might well look into. I am sure he has received complaints at one time or another from almost every member in the House. Anyhow, he certainly will be receiving such complaints. This leads me to the question of disabled allowances-disability pensions under the Canada Pension Plan. In this regard, a letter sent out under the minister's signature describes what constitutes disability under the terms of the plan. He said:
February 20, 1973

The legislation provides that a person must be suffering from both a severe and prolonged mental or physical disability.
That is simple enough.
Under the legislation, "severe" means that a person must be incapable regularly of pursuing any substantially gainful occupation by reason of mental or physical disability. "Prolonged" means that incapacity to work at any substantially gainful occupation will be present for a long continued and indefinite period of time.
This all seems fairly simple. One would not suppose it would lead to any great difficulty in interpretation. But there have been many complaints about the way in which this part of the plan is administered, and it would seem to me that in the case of nearly all the complaints brought to my attention the conditions stated have been fulfilled.
Apparently, there is some medical board which carries out certain duties under the minister's instructions. We are told, in reply to questions recently placed on the order paper, that there are 13 doctors who possess certain qualifications for making decisions in these cases. It was also interesting to learn, in an answer on February 14 last to a question by my hon. friend from Simcoe North, that after an application has been received, "along with medical and other reports"-I don't know what that means; perhaps the minister could tell us-the applicant is asked to undergo an examination if it is felt that further medical information is required. Mr. Chairman, I should like to know, very specifically, just what constitutes these mysterious "other reports". Who sends them in? Where do they come from? What is the nature of these "other reports"? It is necessary, I suppose, for someone in the minister's department to decide that the terms of the act are being carried out, but the information required by the board is purely medical information, supplied, usually, by a family doctor or a clinic. But the board chooses to disregard it in many cases, apparently, and this leads to serious questions being raised in parliament.
I ask the minister to check very carefully into this board of so-called medical advisers. I do not want to go into detail, and name names, because that is not the practice in this House. But I think the minister might look over the qualifications-I do not mean the paper qualifications but the actual qualifications-of some of the medical advisers who are supposed to be doctors. I am informed by my hon. friend from Cape Breton-East Richmond that on one occasion one of these advisers appearing at a hearing seemed to be, at least, somewhat politically inclined, if not very knowledgeable. He said: "There are three things which are certain in this world. One is death, one is taxes and the other is the re-election of a Liberal government". It seems very strange indeed that medical evidence of this nature should be given.
Right in front of me I have documents relating to three cases which I have brought to the minister's attention. I do not suppose he ever actually saw them. Probably he did not. I have been here long enough to know how these things go. In one case, an applicant who was turned down a couple of times by this medical board, had lost a leg. The other was to be removed. I do not know whether or not he will be considered disabled. Apparently not by the board. But he would appear rather disabled to me. I do not see how he can do very much work in the future. His disability will certainly be prolonged, I would think. In another case, the man concerned is suffering from
Supply
emphysema. I think it is common knowledge among members of this House that those who suffer from emphysema are not allowed to do heavy work, if any work at all. In fact, they are lucky if they can walk across the room or breathe. Another case I have before me at the moment concerns a lady in her late fifties who has suffered repeated cardiac arrests. On one occasion, the only reason she didn't die, according to a report from her family doctor, was that she happened to be in an intensive care unit. The prognosis in this case is by no means good, yet she is not considered to be disabled.
This kind of thing must be brought to the minister's attention. If he is a good minister, as I think he probably is, he should check very carefully into the kind of judgment which is passed out by this so-called board of medical advisers and find out the nature of these other mysterious reports which they are supposed to read. Will he give some personal attention to this matter, or appoint somebody to look into it, because a great many people across Canada are affected? I am sure every member of this House has received correspondence from his constituency on the subject. It is purely an administrative problem and I believe the minister should exercise, as soon as he can, his administrative authority in this regard.


Mr. Rynard:: I should like to say a few words on the subject which my hon. friend from Oxford has brought to the attention of the committee. What we are dealing with, now, is the examination which takes place under the Canada Pension Plan in connection with applications for disability pensions. It appears a person has to be dying before he can qualify. From an examination of the list showing the number of applicants rejected it would appear that the conditions are getting tougher every year, despite the fact that increasing numbers of people are unemployed. In 1970, 78 per cent of the applicants, or 3,087, were determined as being disabled and 16.9 per cent were determined as being not disabled. In 1971, there were 10,019 applicants, 78.5 per cent of whom were listed as disabled and 17.7 per cent of whom were refused. In 1972, we find the ratio of those refused pensions had risen. Only 74 per cent passed and 22 per cent were refused. These figures reflect an increasingly tougher position in the granting of disability pensions. Looking at the situation from the point of view of the economy, I would think this trend should be reversed at a time when more than 600,000 people in Canada are unemployed. Leniency should be shown when a man is sick and becomes unemployable.
I have just one case history here. The person concerned underwent five operations, I think, two for cancer; his gall bladder and stomach have been removed; he was in hospital three times during the first four or five months of last year. Yet his application for a disability pension has been rejected. There is something very peculiar about the whole business. I am astounded to learn that the word of a general practitioner is not accepted, or even of the internist who examines an applicant locally. The board simply wishes to hear what treatment has been prescribed, and then makes up its own mind. This goes against everything we know of medicine, because the doctor who clinically examines a patient, knowing the history of the case, is in a better position to know the facts than anyone who sits

February 20, 1973
Supply
down at a desk and makes a ruling on the basis of a report.
We learn that the applicants' own physicians are not asked to determine whether a person is disabled under the terms of the Canada Pension Plan legislation, on the ground that a decision is more than purely medical in nature. So the decision is more than purely medical in nature! As the hon. member for Oxford asked, what else is it? What is being hidden? The standard reply of the department goes on to say that the decision must be made, as required by the legislation, by the Canada Pension Plan administration. As the hon. member for Oxford also pointed out, here is the administration itself deciding whether or not a man is disabled.
The reply continues, and I quote:
The applicant's physician is simply asked for objective findings of any functional limitations.
It is something like playing checkers at a distance and you phone in your moves.
This procedure, including the medical report form answered by physicians, was approved by a committee of experts on disability assessment-
I should certainly like to meet these experts, as I am sure would other hon. members of the House who have had some difficulty with the CPP administration. The reply continues:
The statistics of the nature requested are not kept since the applicant's physician is only forwarding a medical report; that is, the physicians are requested to report their objective findings rather than to provide their opinion as to whether the applicant meets the requirements of the Canada Pension Plan legislation.
Can you beat that, Mr. Chairman? I am sure that the minister feels he has a lot of cleaning up to do in his department. The reply continues:
After the application is received along with the medical and other reports, if it is felt that more medical information is required the applicant is asked to undergo an examination by a medical specialist (consultant) at Canada Pension Plan expense. With this information, a large number of applicants are able to meet the legislative requirements-
So, in addition to an applicant's own family physician examining him, the department wants a specialist to make an examination. That really burns me up, Mr. Chairman.
-whereas, had the specialists' reports not been obtained, many would not meet the criteria-
In other words, many applicants are more or less forced to go at their own expense to see a specialist. Is that fair to the ordinary citizen, or even to the doctor who originally examines the applicant?
-many would not meet the criteria to be determined to be disabled under the legislation; that is, if the decision had simply been based on the report of the family physician only.
I suggest that is partisanship at work there. Many applicants would be rejected if the family doctor only examined them. Therefore, through you, Mr. Chairman, I would ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare to clean up this mess and to put a stop to the unhappiness and unfairness created across Canada in respect of those who do not always have the opportunity to be examined by an internist. I know the minister will reply that every-

one has this right, but how many people have the ability to exercise that right, especially those who are sick and down and out? Some people with cardio-vascular failure can hardly get about. Yet in some cases they are told they can take another job. I suggest the department is being unfair to people who are sick, to those who do not have the fortitude and courage to pursue their application, unless someone does it for them.
There is one other point I should like to make and it relates to women who work and contribute to the Canada Pension Plan on the same basis as men. When a working woman dies, her husband and minor children get not one penny in survivors' benefits, aside from a small death benefit which goes into her estate, unless, of course, they can prove they were financially dependent upon her. Yet widows and minor children automatically collect survivors' benefits when a man dies, the assumption being that wives are dependent on their husbands.
I suggest that the minister take another look at this question. There are today 2,831,000 women in the labour force, which I suggest is ridiculous since more than half of them are married. This is, therefore, no longer a valid assumption, and it is time to end this discrimination in the Canada Pension Plan in both of the situations that I have outlined, including that of the single woman.


Mr. Matte:: Mr. Chairman, I just want to add to the remarks my colleague from Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) made a moment ago. I am referring to a matter which I feel should receive more serious consideration from the minister than at present.
Examination of the items of the supplementary estimates reveal that operating expenses account for about one third of contributions.
Mr. Chairman, we have there a typical illustration of the fact that bureaucracy and technocracy sometimes cost as much as contributions themselves. And that is one of the reasons why our party stressed the necessity of the universality, for instance, of old age security, family allowances and minimum guaranteed income. That would eliminate ipso facto expensive investigations, bureaucratic waste and would further ensure greater justice towards the population since the granting of benefits on an overall basis would preclude omissions and ensure justice.
That is why, Mr. Chairman, I believe that a step forward was achieved yesterday. Old age security and the guaranteed income supplement will henceforth total $325 a month, approaching the minimum vital income required by people of 65 and over. However, apparently some considerations have been overlooked, which should have concerned not only the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) but also the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), namely the plight of people aged from 60 to 65, which is very unfortunate.
At 60, Mr. Chairman, people have been working for more than 40 years. Most of those who are now 60 started working at 15, or earlier. And when one has worked for 45 years, one has directly contributed to the progress of one's country; one has also directly contributed, through taxes, its share of the revenue needed for the administration of the country. And when one has reached the age of 60, one
February 20, 1973

is not asking for favours or gifts, one is just claiming his due.
How is it that this possibility has not been seriously considered yet? It is quite surprising. And what happens to people aged 60? They have to call, at least in Quebec-I know the figures-on the Department of Social Affairs which, through its various local offices, grants, not pensions, not a vital minimum income, but rather an indecent pittance for 1973, since they evaluate the needs of a person, for clothing, food and other personal needs, at $39 a month, that is $78 for a couple. Add to this the rent, electricity and some insurance, for theft or fire-if you take the case of a 60-year-old couple that has no income or cannot find any work-and it is impossible for a person to contemplate the possibility to get any income at all. This is why one has to call on welfare services and then, they generally grant a couple about $125 or $130 per month.
If the needs, at 65, are estimated at $324.30, Mr. Chairman, how is it that, at 64, these same needs are estimated at only $125? Why this difference of $200? This is not a question of wondering whether it will cost too much to lower the age of entitlement to 60; we must simply wonder whether it should be done. If so, the cost does not matter because we are facing a deplorable and disastrous situation.
That is the reason, Mr. Chairman, which must prompt us and the minister to consider the matter seriously. And then, we have two alternatives: either the eligibility age is reduced to 60-which would settle the problem of many heads of family-or, as demanded by the Quebec Minister of Social Affairs, the province is entrusted with the care of managing or co-ordinating the entire welfare program.
If the Minister of National Health and Welfare would agree to consider seriously the problem so as to reach a realistic conclusion in that field, we would solve some very serious and painful problems for the Quebec government.
Mr. Chairman, it would be more than ever advisable for the government during this session to assume its responsibilities and to consider immediately the possibility of introducing a bill to reduce the eligibility age for old age security pension from 65 to 60.


Mr. Peters:: Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to add to the length of this debate and I agree with everything that has been said, but I was particularly interested in the fact that the minister did not reply to the hon. member for Oxford and the hon. member for Simcoe North.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Deputy Chairman:: The minister of National Health and Welfare rises on a question of privilege.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, when the estimates of my department were called, it was agreed, if I stand correct, that I would let the spokesman for each party state their views and that I would then answer. If the hon. member
Supply
who, I think, was then in the House remembers he will admit that his comments about me are out of order and surely not proper.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I was not aware of those comments. Many hon. members have the same difficulty outlined by the hon. member for Oxford and the hon. member for Simcoe North, and I wanted to suggest to the minister that if he was not now in a position to make a detailed reply in respect of arriving at the criteria in areas where experts are not available he might give us a written reply at a later time. He might indicate how we, as members, can assist people in isolated areas who do not have access to heart specialists or internists. Some of these people are only now having their requests rejected, and I ask the minister to give us a reply in a written form for the edification of hon. members.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, since the main estimates have been tabled and will be before the various standing committees shortly, if we get this kind of information in detail from the minister at this time it will prolong our consideration. Hon. members on both sides are entitled to these detailed explanations, and I am sure the minister is prepared to give them.
However, if the minister deals at length with these matters now, and other ministers do the same in respect of other estimates, we on this side will have difficulty avoiding participation in the debate, and that is what we wanted to avoid in the interests of getting this bill through all stages before five o'clock.


Mr. Allard:: I should like to add a few words to what my colleagues have said concerning people aged 60 to 65.
This is sad, but these people are very penalized in their life and it is impossible for them to find a job now. When they lose their job, they are discriminated against because of their age and their performance.
Reference has been made to various solutions; it has been suggested that we lower pensionable age to 60. My party has made many proposals in this respect. Apparently, the government turns a deaf ear to our representations. Nowadays, you always hear about freezing this and freezing that. Perhaps I would make a suggestion which would be a lot less expensive, in view of the fact that the government is short of money: we should freeze people when they reach 60 and wake them up when they get to 65. This way, we could save a fair amount of money.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I have a very brief remark to make. I think the minister implied a moment ago that he was ready to take notice of our suggestion and comment on them at the end, that is, in his own speech.
I have always noted-and this is confirmed by last night's budget-that older people are considered differently depending on whether they are heads of families or not. The head is granted the sum of $170 in addition to the guaranteed income supplement, whereas-


Gérald Laniel: Order. I do not wish to limit the comments of the hon. member, but I would ask him to

February 20, 1973
Supply
coniine his remarks to the vote now under discussion by the committee. He may discuss, generally, the Department of National Health and Welfare votes, but when his comments are related to yesterday's budget they are not in accordance with the rules of the House.


Gilles Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I shall refer to the figures which have been used to establish these estimates. I mean that instead of referring to $170 I will quote the figures which were then established, that is $150 and $142, for exactly the same reasons.
I am sorry about the fact that women are considered as being less important than men, which is completely ridiculous. It is all very well to talk about family unity, but there are several instances where full pensions are paid to couples living as man and wife as allowed under Canada Pension Plan regulations.
Could the hon. minister say whether his department or the government are going to encourage family disunity much longer? Social Credit suggests that one and for all the status of women be recognized and that they be considered on an equal basis with men as regards old age security pensions.


Gérald Laniel: Order. I think the hon. member for Lotbiniere was in the House yesterday when the Chairman of Committees of the Whole (Mr. McCleave) referred to Standing Order 58 (13). I doubt he can be recognized a second time as he spoke before. Besides even the minister did not have the opportunity of replying.
Can the committee, which has until now allowed some members to speak several times, encroach upon the 20 minutes allowed each member in committees of the whole? In fact, according to the interpretation given yesterday by the Chair on committees of the whole, it does not seem that this would apply to the study of the supplementary estimates.
I mention this point, and invite the observations of the hon. member.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order.


Gérald Laniel: The member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, when I rose you called me back to order. I was rising on a point of order, because I know as well as you do that when the House sits in committee of the whole members speaks only once, for 20 minutes, that is all. I rise because the minister said a while ago, in reply to the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), who had raised a question of privilege, that he would be willing to answer at the end of the debate. I wanted to ask him, through a question of privilege or a point of order, whether he meant and, in fact, that he would not accept questions at the end of his speech?


Erik Nielsen: On the point of order, with all due respect to the views of the hon. member, an hon. member is entitled to speak once, but after that if an hon. member
[The Deputy Chairman.]
wishes to speak he must obtain the consent of the committee. That is my understanding of Standing Order 58 (13).


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order.


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully tell the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that I did not ask to be recognized twice. I simply asked, through a question of privilege, whether the minister had agreed to answer questions at the end of his remarks, in view of the question of privilege he has himself raised earlier following a question from the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters).


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Chairman, I would not like to interfere but if some points need to be clarified, it is up to hon. members to ask me questions.
I am rather embarrassed by the present situation. I understood, from the statement of the hon. member for Yukon, that it would be better if I gave a more elaborate reply in the more relaxed atmosphere of the committee to which the estimates tabled today will be referred. I am prepared to reply to the questions raised today by hon. members but I fear that this might extend the debate.
I am in the hands of hon. members. If they insist that we should discuss the points raised this afternoon, I have no objection but I think that the various party leaders would like to expedite consideration of the items presented to the House. I am ready to co-operate with the party officials to accelerate this study mainly because the budget debate will take place soon, because a bill amending the Old Age Security Act will be introduced and finally because the estimates will be referred to the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee.


Erik Nielsen: We are in full agreement with that, Mr. Chairman. As an added argument, may I say the minister could give a fuller explanation before the standing committee and in the meantime he and his officials would have an opportunity to study in detail the points raised by hon. members and obtain detailed answers to their questions. That could be one of the first orders tackled by the committee.


William Arnold Peters: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman; I think the decision is not up to the acting something of the Conservative party but rather is up to the minister. Because of the detailed questions which were asked by the two members, I had asked if we could be given a written critique. I would still hope that would be possible because if it were written members would have the benefit of being in a position to study it.


Marc Lalonde: I fully agree with the hon. member and will be pleased to provide hon. members with a written answer on this subject.
I might say I am very sympathetic with many of the points raised by various members in this regard, including many members on this side. I have had, I suppose, as
February 20, 1973

many letters on this subject as on any other in my department in the last few months. I have asked my officials for a full report and review of this situation. In particular, I want to be quite sure that we are not applying to private citizens in this area tougher criteria than are applied in respect of public pension plans and that the public plan is not tougher on Canadian citizens than the private sector. I expect to have a report on this subject very soon. I have asked my officials to review the whole situation. However, I shall be pleased, before I appear before the committee or at some other time, to give a full reply in respect of this subject.


Gérald Laniel: Is the Chair to assume that this completes the committee's examination of votes 5a, 35a and 40a of the Department of National Health and Welfare.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: The Committee will now proceed to the consideration of vote 5a relating to the House of Commons.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, we are now discussing, as you have just announced, vote 5a relating to the House of Commons: Program expenditures and the grant listed in the Estimates.
An article was recently published in a daily newspaper of the Ottawa-Hull area on bilingualism in the House of Commons, particularly among the protective staff. I imagine-


Gérald Laniel: Order. I do not wish to prevent the hon. member from making his remarks, but vote 5a which is now before the committee deals with the administrative responsibility of the government towards the House of Commons and specifically with inter-parliamentary relations. The point raised by the hon. member has nothing to do with government responsibility, but concerns rather the responsability of the Speaker of the House who answers for that. It is not in order to raise that question at this time.
Does this complete the consideration of vote 5a? Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


René Matte: Mr. Chairman, I listened carefully to your remarks, but when I read vote 5a-House of Commons- Program expenditures and the grant listed in the Estimates-it seems to me that, with all due respect, that vote can easily include the 7 per cent bilingualism premium claimed by bilingual employees of the House of Commons.


Gérald Laniel: Order. I must point out to the hon. member that the Chair has made its ruling. He only has to refer to the supplementary estimates which were distributed to the hon. members and he will see that it is clearly indicated that the amount of $15,000 deals specifically with grants respecting inter-parliamentary relations. Although the subject is broader, the issue of bilingualism and the organization of the protective staff in the House
Supply
of Commons has nothing to do with government administration and cannot be discussed at this time in committee.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, with regard to the item for inter-parliamentary relations which we are asked to vote, I recall a trip to Washington within the framework of Canada-U.S. inter-parliamentary relations. I then met representatives of the American government. It was at the time we were discussing salaries, working conditions of hon. members, senators and Congressmen. My hon. colleague from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) is aware of that. His party was very ably represented by his colleague from Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).
Mr. Chairman, I recall the discussions that took place then and which greatly interested our American colleagues. The state of the Canadian Parliament was being considered. Our American friends, within the framework of inter-parliamentary relations, came to Canada and I had the honour to be among the delegates who received them. I recall that at a supper in the National Arts Centre, the discussion bore precisely on this typical aspect of bilingualism in the House of Commons.
The Americans were very surprised of this situation and they were enthusiastic and they congratulated us.
Mr. Chairman, so that countries with which we have interparliamentary relations get a better image of the House of Commons, I suggest that the minister who requests the adoption of vote 5a should ensure that in inter-parliamentary relations we not only discuss better friendly relationships between countries but we should also emphasize this particular feature of Canada as a country that we want to recognize as bilingual and bicultural.
Consequently, when representatives of foreign countries are welcomed to the House of Commons, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the members of the security staff should get equal treatment, with regard to competence and salary, when it comes to the official languages. Mr. Chairman, why not give an interesting picture to the representatives of those countries, within our inter-parliamentary relations-


Gérald Laniel: Order. The hon. member knows that he is now trying to do indirectly what he may not do directly. I would invite him to respect the ruling of the Chair. Surely the committee has enough work to do without trying to elude the decisions of the Chair. Does this complete study of vote 5a concerning the House of Commons? Agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: The committee will now proceed to Vote 10a and Vote 15a related to the Department of Public Works.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Chairman, I anticipate staying in order because we have support for the estimates, the bill, and if necessary for the budget. The only thing that bothers me is the influence of the hon. member for Yukon, but really

February 20, 1973
Supply
that has not been much. It has been more of an irritant than a deterrent.
I am interested in two problems connected with the vote dealing with accommodation. I notice that we are erecting a number of single purpose and general purpose buildings, and I am interested in one general purpose building that simply is not being built. It has appeared in and disappeared from estimates with some regularity. But before dealing with it, since the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Public Works are both present I would like to deal with what I consider a fairly serious situation in terms of parliament, with respect to the vote just passed.
I do not intend to transgress the rules, but the Minister of Public Works has responsibility for accommodation with respect to rooms 601 and 602. You will remember, Mr. Chairman, that a green rug was placed in the Blue Room. This has now been overlaid with another rug, at some expense. I would like either minister to tell me what happened to the $5,000 genuine antique Indian rugs that were in rooms 601 and 602, and to tell me if there is any intention to re-instal them?


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. Again, I wonder if the hon. member is getting away from the prerogative of the Department of Public Works, and coming into the realm of the responsibilities for administration conferred on the Speaker of the House of Commons with respect to accommodation in this building. Although there might be an in-put contributed by the Department of Public Works, the decision would come under the jurisdiction of the Speaker of the House of Commons.


William Arnold Peters: I certainly do not want to reflect on the Speaker of the House. I know he does not have such poor taste as to put a green rug in a blue room. It was not his fault. Obviously, it must have been done by the Department of Public Works. All I want to know, either from the President of the Treasury Board or from the Minister of Public Works, is what happened to the rugs, and why can't we have them back? It is my guess somebody took them home.


An hon. Member:: Prove it.


William Arnold Peters: I want them brought back.
What I am mainly interested in with respect to this supplementary estimate is why provision is not made for a new federal building in my riding at the Earlton airport. The Prime Minister came into that area last summer, and gave an indication to the people there that he was surprised that the airport was operating with pre-war facilities.


An hon. Member:: Which war?


William Arnold Peters: In Northern Ontario we flew off water most of the time during the first World War, so the facilities must be pre-Second World War. Good airport facilities have been built at Val d'Or and Rouyn. I ask the minister to give serious consideration to replacing the building at Earlton, which is obviously obsolete.
As I have said, this building was previously mentioned in supplementary estimates, but does not appear in this

estimate. It also appeared on several occasions in the main estimates. I believe a terminal should be erected there such as was built at Rouyn. Rouyn has a municipal airport. The Department of Transport owns the airport at Earlton, and a new building could house both radio technicians and weather technicians, as well as other facilities operated by the federal government. I make the plea that the minister discuss this with the Prime Minister who at least has had the opportunity to be there. I believe this is a reasonable request as I have already waited for 15 years. I think the people of that area should have a similar service to that being provided on other routes. It seems very odd to fly from a nice airport in Montreal to Ottawa, Val d'Or, Rouyn and then come to the archaic facility at Earlton, and on to the good facilities at North Bay, all on the same route.
I hope that the minister will give consideration to this minor expenditure which would provide a facility which is badly needed already, and will be more so in the future since that airport is now servicing three airlines and a very large flying club.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, this is too good an opportunity to miss. On several occasions since I became a member of this House, I have asked the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) to look into the matter of retaining walls along the St. Lawrence river. Either I did not get answers or they were in the negative, that is they did not mean a thing. I am surprised about this because we often get more co-operation from other departments. Finally, I did get excellent co-operation from this department through its Victoriaville office.
The St. Lawrence contains unheard of wealth. It is the largest inland waterway of the world and it flows along the constituency of Lotbiniere as well as others on both shores. I am sure my Quebec colleagues recognize the importance of this situation.
Quite some time ago, the federal government would agree to build retaining walls, piers and harbours, but despite the legitimate representations made by municipalities, by the people of these areas and hon. members -regardless of party-nothing has been done in recent years.
Mr. Chairman, the primary consequence is an obvious danger of erosion along the St. Lawrence, specially on the south shore in the Lotbiniere area. Along the St. Lawrence the land is constantly eaten away by tides and the passing of ocean liners, in the narrowest straits of the river, notwithstanding the content of the department's studies.
And through you, Mr. Chairman, I would tell the minister on the occasion of the budget debate that it would be extremely important for himself as for Canadians that he commit himself to review his department policy to earmark a portion of the credits granted by the House to protect a natural resource such as the St. Lawrence River.
I do not quite understand why at a time the federal government invested several thousand dollars to build wharves and retaining walls whereas today it allows to be
February 20, 1973

destroyed what was built and is not even prepared to study the dossiers.


René Matte: Mr. Chairman, my colleague mentioned the south shore of the St. Lawrence River and as my constituency is located on the north shore, we have similar problems.
I have been trying for five years to have the minister understand that the standards which have been adopted when the retaining walls were built are inadequate and nothing is more astonishing not to say insulting for the St. Lawrence riverside dwellers than to be told: The standards are not met. The shipping channel is over 3,000 feet away and we cannot undertake this responsibility.
They completely disregard the concrete fact that there are dwelling along the river. Behind those dwellings, there used to be 100-foot backyards but one day the owners woke up and saw the river under the veranda! Considerable damages are made to properties by landslides. More time should be devoted to study this problem.
In some places and among others at Sainte-Marthe du Cap-de-la-Madeleine and at Champlain, Highway 2, which is only a few feet from the river, will eventually be damaged. Why wait then for disastrous damage to happen before changing standards which, in my opinion, are inadequate. They are the more so since statistics show that, until 1967, all retaining walls built along the river were entirely paid for by the federal government. Since 1967, it has been decided that the standards would be changed. I do not know what happened in the course of one year that the situation was so radically changed.
There have been expensive investigations made during the last two years. I think a few million dollars were spent for an investigation into this matter and retaining walls would have cost about the same amount. Then, let us put an end to investigations.
Whether the minister likes it or not, damages are being caused by navigation. We must now take into account that navigation is going on all year round, even in winter. Therefore the movement of ice resulting from the maintenance of the river, even in winter, is increasingly eroding riparian land. In my opinion, navigation is always indirectly responsible for most of the damages.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, how could one explain for instance the complete uprooting of trees which had grown for over a hundred years on the shores? If those trees could grow for 100 years, it means that nothing stopped them from growing. So why are they gone today? It is because of year-round navigation, and I think that problem is one the minister should attempt to solve since spring is already here and it is the best time to assess the damage. The minister should therefore send people down to size up the situation, review the standards of his department and do justice to those who live along the St. Lawrence River and are unable to remedy that situation themselves.
And when they are told that 75 per cent of the damages could be paid when they total $200,000, for example, even a contribution of 25 per cent is prohibitive for the riverain owners in the municipalities of my riding, and none of
Supply
them would be in a position to pay $50,000 to have their property reinforced.
The minister should realize that immediate steps are necessary in order to change those standards.


Mr. Dube:: Mr. Chairman, may I be permitted to say a few words in reply to the recommendations, representations and suggestions made by the three hon. members who have just spoken.
In the case of the representations made by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) with regard to rooms 601 and 602 of the central building, as you pointed out yourself, Mr. Chairman, I think that this question comes under the jurisdiction of the administration of the House of Commons rather than the Department of Public Works. Nevertheless, in compliance with the wish of the hon. member, I will try to find out who ever thought of putting a green carpet in a blue room, or a blue carpet in a green room, and I can assure him that as far as the old Indian carpet is concerned, it is not the Minister of Public Works who brought it home because his wife would not allow it.
As for the second representation, I understand it is about a terminal or some other building for an airport in his constituency; I must say that the airport problem does not fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Works but under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport. However I am sure that my colleague the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) will, while reading Hansard as he does every day, take notice of the very interesting representations made by the hon. member for Timiskaming and will see to it that he gets justice, especially if it is an airport which has already been visited by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
As for the hon. members for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) and Champlain (Mr. Matte), they dealt with erosion and retaining walls along the shores of the St. Lawrence river. The position of the government in this regard is quite clear: when erosion results from navigation and marine works, we assume full responsibility and build retaining walls; when it results from natural erosion, that is, ice, floods, the causes are natural: the responsibility is not ours but that of the province or the individual, whether it concerns his property, his home or his cottage.
Still, if those two hon. members know of specific cases which really fall within the responsibility of my department, I shall be eager to have retaining walls built where they are needed.


André-Gilles Fortin: Would the hon. minister allow me a question?


Gérald Laniel: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a question.


André-Gilles Fortin: I thank the hon. minister for his courtesy towards us and his readiness to reply. I appreciate this and want to express it sincerely.
He is no doubt aware of the many cases we have discussed concerning retaining walls in some municipalities, for the protection of a national highway, as the hon. member for Champlain indicated on the north shore. However, the hon. minister was kind enough to send

February 20, 1973
Supply
people for a field survey with tide-gaugers in order to establish whether this erosion is the effect of tides or of oceanic currents. According to his department's standards, the minister had to give a negative reply. My question is as follows: Since in any case, as he and I both know, the province of Quebec will take no action for the preservation of this unparalleled resource, and since private interests, as the hon. member for Champlain indicated, cannot afford to deal with the problem, would the hon. minister consider a review of standards in order to enable the federal government to assist in rebuilding walls the government itself built a few years ago?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Mr. Chairman, we are constantly reviewing the works for which we are somewhat responsible, and I take note of the representations of the hon. member. I can assure him that we shall consider what he has just outlined.


Gérald Laniel: Will this conclude consideration of votes concerning the Department of Public Works?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: The committee will now proceed to the consideration of votes concerning the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, that is votes 31a and 32a, as well as vote 35a concerning the Cape Breton Development Corporation.

Is it agreed that the committee has completed consideration of these votes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: Shall we move on to the next item?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: The committee will now proceed to the consideration of Votes 15a and 35a relating to Secretary of State.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gérald Laniel: We will also consider Vote 90a, relating to the National Museums of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Gérald Laniel: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: Shall we proceed to the consideration of the next votes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: We will now proceed with consideration of vote 10a concerning the Department of Supplies and Services. Is this agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: The committee will now consider votes concerning the Department of Transport, namely votes 65a, 85a, 90a, LI 10a and LI 15a.


Mr. Harney:: Mr. Chairman, I wonder if I could make a few remarks under the rubric of this aspect of the estimates. I hope I can say all I wish to say at one time, so that I do not have to proceed through the various pilotage authorities one by one. There are two matters which interest me, and I will be brief. One of them has to do with the Severn River, in Ontario. It is a navigable river. For many years mooring points for pleasure craft have been established on the Severn River. They were used extensively by pleasure boaters, being offered as a free service to the boating fraternity. On certain locations of the Severn River, particularly in the west end, mooring points have been closed for the past several years and many boaters have had to use privately operated marinas in the area. I do not see the minister present. Perhaps his parliamentary secretary is here. The question I wish to ask very simply is whether it is the policy of the ministry of transport to close down these public mooring points.
My other question is this: has the ministry of transport or any related federal authority entered into any kind of agreement with the Ontario Department of Lands and Forests with regard to these mooring points? I think the question is relatively important, because the boating fraternity in the area is increasing. Many more people are trying to and wanting to use these facilities, but at the same time they are finding it rather awkward to be forced into the not-so-tender embraces of the private operators of marinas. I trust that the Minister of Public Works was correct when he noted that the Minister of Transport pays religious attention to Hansard. As he is not here perhaps, in his reading, he may pay attention to my question and provide us with an answer.


An hon. Member:: Where is he?


John Paul Harney: I expect he is coming. The second matter I wish to raise, and I am ready to be ruled out of order on the ground that I am not speaking to the correct estimate, has to do with the Richelieu River in Quebec. I bring up this matter under the rubric of the Department of Transport estimates because, until recently, the Chambly Canal, part 6f the canal works connected with the Richelieu River, was under the direction of the ministry of transport. I am not sure if there has been any change during the past couple of years in the department which has responsibility for the canal. I say that because the canal has stopped being, in any real sense of the word, a commercial canal and is now almost totally devoted to pleasure needs. The point I want to make is this: during the past few years flooding of the Richelieu River in the region above St. Johns, Quebec, has become serious and it is quite likely that this coming spring the flooding will be worse than that which occurred last spring.
We are told by the experts that the level of Lake Champlain in the United States, a lake which as many hon. members know flows out through the Richelieu River, is 19 inches above normal for this time of year. There was
February 20, 1973

flooding last year and there will certainly be flooding this year. This matter relates to this or a related ministry, because over the last couple of years there have been some very serious changes to the shape of the Richelieu River at St. Johns, Quebec. St. Johns is the point where the river has the first rapid. This is the point where the river and lake levels are effectively controlled. In the past couple of years, there has been a widening of the canal at St. Johns and a consequent narrowing of the river. Therefore, even normal flows of water from Lake Champlain would be restricted. This year they are expecting higher than normal flows of water.
It is important to note that, along with the widening of the canal which has brought about a considerable change in the size of it and the consequent narrowing of the river, there has been no dredging of the Richelieu River below St. Johns in the rapids section since 1942. Dredging should be carried out quite regularly in order to keep the river level below the point where it would cause problems in the spring. I feel that all of these factors combine to increase the natural level of the lake and river waters, but the widening of the canal and the subsequent narrowing of the river as well as the failure to dredge the river will combine to cause very, very serious flooding this spring. Possibly the Minister of Transport or the Minister of Public Works, if he has any jurisdiction over the projects going on there, could comment on whatever steps might be taken to obviate this flooding danger.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, I want to say something on the Department of Transport estimates, Vote 115a, with regard to the Pacific Pilotage Authority. I do not know if there is a minister present who can answer some questions that are very current concerning that body.


Erik Nielsen: None of them can.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If not, I hope this is not an indication that the treasury benches are not all that concerned about whether the supplementary estimates are passed tonight. However, I will make my remarks in the hope that somebody will draw them to the attention of the Minister of Transport and possibly he might reply at eight o'clock.
At the moment we are involved in a work stoppage or a failure to renew contracts with the B.C. Coast Pilots Association on the Pacific coast. The Pacific Pilotage Authority reports directly to the Minister of Transport. I notice in the supplementary estimate an additional $24,000 for the Pacific Pilotage Authority for a deficit of the authority occurring between January 1 and the end of March this year. Is that $24,000 allotted in anticipation of any additional cost to the authority that may result from a settlement between the pilotage authority and the B.C. Coast Pilots Limited? If it is, we would like to know. If not, if it is just for the expected deficit from normal operations, we would also like to know.
We would like to know if the minister is prepared, either under supplementary estimates, in the new estimates or in the new budget, to provide additional funds to the Pacific Pilotage Authority so that they can be in a better position to arrive at a settlement with the B.C. Coast Pilots Association which, by the way, is not a union but a limited
Supply
company. The negotiations are between two companies, so to speak.
I understand that the Department of Transport is responsible for some of the costs incurred by the Pacific Pilotage Authority and that if some of the demands of the B.C. Coast Pilots Association were met expenditures would be required by the Department of Transport for safety equipment. I presume that includes navigation devices. Some of these demands are related to working conditions, which I take it come under the purview of the Minister of Transport. If this item involves additional expenditures by the Pacific Pilotage Authority, were they to meet the demands of the B.C. Coast Pilots Association? If that is so, it is incumbent upon the Minister of Transport to acknowledge this and to say what additional measures his department is prepared to take or what additional funding he is prepared to provide to the Pacific Pilotage Authority so that that authority can negotiate with the B.C. Coast Pilots Limited on a much more positive and constructive basis then they have been able to do at present. It would be good if the minister would provide that information this evening, as it might help a settlement to be reached much more quickly on the Pacific coast. I am not referring to any kind of pay raise, implied, asked for or offered by either side in the dispute. That is between them.
I do not believe the ministry of transport is very much involved in that area, although it may be. In any event, I think it would be useful if the minister could at least answer some of these inquiries so that the negotiating parties at the other end of the country might be able to reach a settlement that much sooner. Unless they do, a great number of commodities, particularly in constituencies in the four western provinces and possibly right across Canada, may be affected. In my case, and in the case of my colleagues from Saskatchewan, it would affect cargoes of grain. Therefore, we are anxious that these two parties agree to settle very quickly.
During the oral question period on two or three different dates, we asked the minister questions in this regard. As far as I am aware, he has not provided any answers that indicate what measures he is prepared to take to further fund the Pacific Pilotage Authority, as well as what responsibilities the Department of Transport would have, in what areas and what kinds of money. Surely, it is time for the minister to give us those answers, if for no other reason than to give the two parties in the dispute something more on which to negotiate and settle their disagreement.


William George Knight: Mr. Chairman, I have refrained to a considerable degree from discussing the estimates. However, in view of the fact that the estimates of the Department of Transport relate to the Pacific Pilotage Authority, and in view of the particular situation which we face today, I find it appalling that neither the Minister of Transport nor his parliamentary secretary are here. Possibly the government whip or government House leader could tell us where they are at this time. We would like them to answer some questions relating to their estimates. I presume they feel they are important and would like to answer the questions of opposition members relating to the two estimates. If the minister cannot be with us, where is the hon.

February 20, 1973
Supply
member for St. Boniface? There has been a withdrawal of the services by the pilots on the west coast.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order, please. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. If I might intervene at this moment, I should like to say that I have reliable information that the pilots went back to work voluntarily this morning. I think they are to be commended for doing so. Negotiations, I understand, are still in progress. In these circumstances, I think the hon. member's last comment ought to be changed.


William George Knight: The information conveyed by the hon. member in the back row is appreciated. I wish we could get some answers like that from ministers or from parliamentary secretaries. Maybe the Leader of the Opposition will give the hon. member a post as minister of labour or minister of transport in certain circumstances. I hope the hon. member for Vegreville is not listening to me.
Negotiations are still in progress, he tells us. In this situation, the questions we are asking are still open questions. We want to know what action is being taken by the pilotage authority to deal with points at issue in the negotiations involving safety precautions when moving ships in and out of harbour. If the minister could give us this information, we might be inclined to look more favourably on these estimates.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Transport had planned to be here this afternoon but, I regret to say, he has gone to the hospital for an x-ray instead. I hope his absence will be forgiven.
The hon. member for Scarborough West is correct in assuming that the Chambly Canal no longer comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Transport, but it comes under the jurisdiction of the Department of Northern Affairs. I shall be glad to convey to the minister concerned his representations with respect to flooding and steps which might be taken to alleviate this situation. In this case, I think the appropriate minister would be the Minister of Public Works rather than the Minister of Transport. The Minister of Public Works has already heard the representations, and I believe he will take them under consideration.
With regard to the representations made by the hon. member for Scarborough West-


John Paul Harney: Excuse me, Regina-Lake Centre.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Regina-Lake Centre, I am sorry. I am sure he will welcome the good news that the pilots are back at work. I would not think that in the midst of negotiations between two semi-public bodies he would wish the government to declare its negotiating position outside of the actual negotiations. As long as negotiations are proceeding, and as long as there is no interruption of work, I think he would agree that it would be unhelpful for the government to declare, if you like, its final negotiating position.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I agree, Mr. Chairman, that to intervene in any manner in the midst of any negotiations-


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat? The Chair made the point yesterday that contributions to the debate are restricted to one per member on any one item of business. So, perhaps the hon. member could make his point by way of a question.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am sorry. I meant to say it was a question I intended to ask. My remark was a preliminary one. I should like to know whether the minister could tell us this: has the Minister of Transport intimated in an indirect manner, if not on the floor of the House, to the pilotage authority that the additional funds which are needed to enable the authority to arrive at a settlement will be available? I am under the impression that the hands of the authority are tied because of a lack of assurance that funds will be forthcoming to the authority on the basis of which a settlement could be reached. Has any kind of assurance of the kind I have in mind been given?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I believe the minister has been in communication more or less continuously with the pilotage authority.


William Arnold Peters: I should like to ask a brief question on behalf of the hon. member for Yukon who has limited himself. I am aware of his interest in this item because he has taken part in discussions on a number of occasions having to do with the Northern Transportation Act. There is an estimate here which originally amounted to $1 million. It has now been raised to $4 million and, on behalf of the hon. member for Yukon, I would like to know what facilities are provided in return for this amount of money.


Erik Nielsen: Since the hon. member was not present in the committee at the time this item was fully discussed he cannot be aware that this sum, as the minister explained, was for the purchase of new barges to accommodate the great influx of freight into the Mackenzie to cope with the rapidly increasing oil and gas exploration work. This is an item with which I and the hon. member for Northwest Territories, I believe, would fully agree.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Does this complete the discussion on the five items under the Department of Transport?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The next item is Treasury Board Vote 5A.


Erik Nielsen: Again, Mr. Chairman, in the interest of getting this item through, we intend to restrict ourselves from participation at any length in the debate, bearing in mind that there will be another opportunity to discuss these matters when the main estimates go to committee. We do, however, have serious reservations about this item, particularly with reference to the abuse of the contingency fund which is rapidly getting more and more out of hand. But we shall reserve our observations on that matter for another occasion.
February 20, 1973


William Arnold Peters: I agree with the hon. member for Yukon that the contingency fund has grown immensely over the years and that it has obviously been augmented.
This is the question I wish to ask the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday, I got into trouble with one of my confreres about what was covered by one of the votes under discussion-a vote in connection with which the Appropriation Act was used. I find that similar circumstances arise in connection with a dollar item on page 11 of the schedule-the vote relating to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. Turning to item 35a on page eight, we see that the Cape Breton Development Corporation estimate has been increased by $5 million, $4 million of which was provided through the Appropriation Act. My own impression is that the procedure would be far simpler to understand were some regular form adopted in all cases where the Appropriation Act is used.
In the matter I was involved in yesterday, we were not talking about training at all but rather operating expenses for the manpower department. The hon. member for Hamilton West took me to task for being opposed to on-the-job training, which may or may not have had anything to do with the supplementary estimate or with the Appropriation Act since reference is also made to section 5 of the statute itself.
Certainly, I am confused when these statutory items are not separated from the others, such as the operating expenses in the supplementary estimates and the items that arise as a result of a section of a statute. It seems to me that in this bill we have done three things. We have used the Appropriation Act for the purpose of incorporating a $1 item; we have also used it in respect of the full amount requested in the supplementary estimate; and we have used it as part of a supplementary estimate. I am aware, however, of the problem created by the contingency fund.
Today the minister said that he was willing to consider making the supplementary estimates more understandable. I suggest that not only new members but also established members are confused when use is made of the Appropriation Act, statutory items and the section of an act, and then a supplementary estimate is used in its pure sense, none of which can be distinguished either upon examination of the supplementary estimates or the regular estimates, or even the bill itself.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has asked a rather technical question, and with his agreement I should like to study the representation he has made. I will provide him privately with an answer later on.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, it is now five o'clock-as a matter of fact it is five minutes after five-and by pure coincidence the private member's bill coming forward for discussion today is the one standing in my name on the order paper. I should like to suggest to the committee that we pass this item under treasury board and the items under urban affairs and veterans affairs, which are the only ones left, and pass all stages of this bill without debate. If that is not acceptable, I suggest we go on with
Supply
private members' hour and resume the debate; but I hope that the former suggestion is acceptable.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, it is certainly acceptable to me, provided I can ask one question of the President of the Treasury Board regarding his estimate. I promise I will not make a speech; I will simply ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the President of the Treasury Board about a matter that is of concern to the Secretary of State having to do with the grant for arts and culture. Approval of grants for a number of museums and art galleries were given by the Secretary of State's department in October and November last. May I specifically mention the Norman Mackenzie Art Gallery in the city of Regina which has still not received its grant and is awaiting approval of treasury board. The museum is in a very difficult position at the moment owing to the delay in authorizing the grant. I should like to ask the minister whether action is being taken and what is holding up the grant. Does the Secretary of State's department approve grants too easily and too readily? Why is it necessary for this length of time to elapse before approval is given by the President of the Treasury Board? People who have been waiting for months now are finding themselves in a very difficult situation.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that I am not aware of the circumstances surrounding this particular museum, but I shall be glad to make inquiries and let the hon. gentleman know.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Chairman, if the proposal is that we pass the remainder of the items without debate, I would have to put in a reservation. I have been waiting for some time to make some comment on the estimates of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Order. It being five o'clock it is my duty to leave the chair in order to permit the House to proceed to the consideration of private members' business, in accordance with section (4) of Standing Order 15.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean)-Finance- Meeting of federal and provincial finance ministers-Discussion of means to relieve tax burden on rural residents; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Gleave)- Grain-Reported advice by Minister of Agriculture to

February 20, 1973
Senate Representation
farmers on amount of wheat that should be planted; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Opposition of Canadian Teachers Federation to transfer of rights to film and videotape to private company.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
Erik Nielsen: that Bill C-12, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965 (Yukon and Northwest Territories Senate representation) be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it might be said that my motivation for placing the bill on the order paper arises from the fact that I have spent some 16 years in this place and I am, perhaps, getting a little tired of it and looking forward to a greener and more casual pasture. But really this is not the motivation for the bill. All Canadians represented by members here, save a few, are represented in the Parliament of Canada. Two exceptions to this full representation are the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. It may come as no surprise to some of the older members of this House that this is the case. I am sure quite a number of the newer members here will be quite surprised to hear that this area of Canada, over 40 per cent of the area of the country, and all of those citizens who live north of the 60th parallel, have no representative in parliament as a whole. They have a member in this place. The seat for the Northwest Territories was established in 1949 by a change to the act and, of course, the seat for the Yukon has existed since 1903. From then, I may add, until 1949 one member represented the whole of that vast 1,600,000 square miles.
I want to bring to the attention of hon. members that the joint Senate and Commons committee on the constitution, when it completed its work, recommended that there should be Senate representation for each of these two northern territories. I would hope this alone would cause members to agree to send the bill to committee for, after all, that is all that is being asked on second reading, that the bill be sent to the committee for consideration. Undoubtedly, the committee would go into the recommendations of the joint Senate-Commons committee which held hearings throughout the Yukon and Northwest Territories and, after very careful consideration, came up with the recommendation that indeed these two northern territories should have Senate representation in order to

be fully represented in parliament, not merely in this chamber.
The bill does nothing to affect any Senate representation in any other province in Canada. It retains that Senate representation intact. All it does is add two members to the Senate, making a total of 104, and gives to the Yukon a senator and to the Northwest Territories a senator.
I could go on at great length about government reform and all its aspects in the Yukon and Northwest Territories; reform that is so urgent and spoken of by the minister during the last campaign in real terms of promises of things that would happen when we came back. I shall not do that but will maintain my usual non-partisan approach to matters such as this in the hope that we can get the same kind of co-operation from members opposite that we have shown them over the last several days in getting their estimates and supply bill through. All we ask on this side is that the bill be given second reading and sent to the committee where all its aspects can be examined.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate on Bill C-12, which I suppose is really an act to amend the British North America Act to provide Senate representation for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. I should like to commend the hon. member for introducing this bill. I, personally, support the measure but, as a Canadian from western Canada, I do not feel the hon. member has gone far enough in his proposals.


Erik Nielsen: Do you want half a dozen?


Len Marchand: I do not feel this bill gets to the root of the problem of Senate representation, and I am speaking now of the need to redistribute the seats in the Senate to more accurately reflect the regions of Canada. Western Canada, especially the province of British Columbia, in terms of numbers is under-represented in the Senate. To put it mildly, this is an understatement. The facts show that the proportion of Senate power accorded to my home province is the lowest in the nation. Another glaring discrepancy is that the Prairie provinces, with a proportion twice that of the Atlantic region, have only slightly better than half the number of senators of the Atlantic region.
For the purpose of Senate representation, the west in 1915 was considered as one unit. While the four western provinces share many concerns, even in 1915 it could not be said that the whole of the west was one economic unit. It is even less so today. Furthermore, since 1915 the economic power of the west has dramatically increased. There is a real need for reform to correct-


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The bill has nothing whatever to do with the Senate except to provide for representation for the Yukon and Northwest Territories. It has nothing to do with the subject to which the hon. member is referring.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, this bill which deals with the Senate is such that I should be permitted to range a little wider than the hon. member
February 20, 1973

may want. There is a real need for reform to correct the unjust imbalance of Senate representation so that the distribution of Senate power will be fair and accurate.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I must insist on a ruling on the point of order I raised because the bill itself-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am prepared to make a ruling. Does the hon. member for Windsor-Walk-erville (Mr. MacGuigan) wish to make a contribution to the point of order?


Mr. MacGuigan:: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would sustain the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand). Obviously, his remarks are necessary in order to consider the balance of power in the Senate. I support the arguments the hon. member has been advancing and feel they are quite in order.


An hon. Member:: They are just as relevant as the Senate is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would think the hon. member is in order.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) please resume his seat. I think the hon. member is clearly in order. For example, it would be in order for him to move some amendment to the clause under consideration to support the points he is making, and the Chair cannot anticipate that he will not do so. I would ask the hon. member to continue.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It might have been helpful to the debate and to your decision had you heard me, having heard the hon. member on the other side on this point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I thought the hon. member had made his point. Indeed, he raised the point of order and then sat down. I recognize the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo.


Len Marchand: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like now to address a few remarks to the fundamental question of Senate reform. At the outset, I think it is fair to say that many Canadians lack faith in the Senate as an institution. I am certain that many members of the NDP would like to see the Senate abolished. Personally, I have a very high regard for our distinguished senators, but this high regard does not necessarily carry over to the institution itself. I do not favour abolition of the Senate, but I would like to see it reformed and made more functional. The role of the Senate must be made more effective and more in tune with the needs of the democratic process in Canada.
In recent years, the Senate has taken the initiatives toward making its role in parliament more effective. Hon. members in the other place are to be commended for this action. They have undertaken a number of impressive studies into particular areas of policy, and resulting Senate reports have been both highly competent and thorough. A fair amount of legislative action has also resulted. I should like to mention a few examples including Senator
Senate Representation
Croll's report on poverty in Canada, Senator Lamon-tagne's report on science policy, and Senator Davey's report on the media in Canada.
In addition, senators have joined with members of parliament on special joint committees to study such questions as divorce reform and the constitution of Canada. It was my privilege to serve on the constitution committee. I look forward to increased initiatives of this kind emanating from the Senate. I feel the Senate must involve itself more and more in detailed investigation of important questions facing the Canadian nation.
My colleague, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin) made a very concise speech calling for reform of the Senate in the recent debate on Bill C-10 which, it it had passed, would have effectively abolished the Senate. I wish to lend my support to the reforms my colleague suggested, and I would also call to the attention of hon. members the recommendations in the final report of the constitution committee in regard to the Senate. I am hopeful that the Senate, with the full and active support of our eminent contingent of senators from British Columbia, will continue its welcome moves toward greater activity and greater reform.
I must reiterate my very strong feelings that none of these reforms can succeed until the Senate is truly representative of the regions of Canada. The constitution committee made a series of recommendations to achieve this most important goal. The committee recommended that the number of Senate seats be increased to 130, 28 more than there are in the present Senate. The committee recommended that central and eastern Canada maintain their representation at the present level, while western representation should be increased to 12 members from each of the four western provinces. The Yukon Territory and Northwest Territories should have two Senate seats each under the plan the committee felt would best correct the inequities of Senate representation. I do not think that an increase in Senate seats of that magnitude is warranted to solve the distribution problem.
During the course of the deliberations of that committee, my colleague, the former member for New Westminster, and I concurred in a proposal for redistribution of the Senate. I would like to put this proposal forward today for the consideration of all hon. members.
The first thing about the current situation in the Senate, which really drove home to us the inequitable distribution of seats today, is the fact that Ontario and Quebec have 24 Senators each, almost half the entire representation in the Senate. In an institution which is supposed to reflect the diversity of our great nation, this seems to be a most peculiar and unwarranted situation in terms of present day conditions.
It has been a major complaint, and in many instances a fully justifiable one, from western Canada that the interests of central Canada are protected over and above those of the rest of Canada. I do not fully subscribe to this view but I do feel that the inequitable distribution of the Senate adds symbolic fire to the flames of what has come to be known as western alienation.

February 20, 1973
Senate Representation
I propose today that consideration be given to reducing the number of Senators from Ontario and Quebec to 20 from the present 24 as an important first step toward redistribution of the Senate. Then, there is the gross imbalance caused by the over-representation of the Atlantic provinces in the Senate. I have very great reservations about the province of Prince Edward Island having four seats in the Senate when its total population is somewhat similar to my own riding of Kamloops-Cariboo. British Columbia, with a population more than 20 times as great as that of Prince Edward Island, has only two Senators more than the island province. But despite my reservations, I suppose full marks must be given to the Fathers of Confederation from Prince Edward Island for having the wisdom and the foresight to have this entrenched in the British North America Act as part of their conditions for union with Canada in 1873. For obvious reasons, I propose that the present level of representation of Atlantic Canada in the Senate be maintained for each of the four provinces of the region.
I should now like to discuss the crux of the problem of distribution of Senate Representation. In order to redress the inequities of western Senate representation, I suggest that each of the four western provinces have their representation increased to 10 Senators and that, in line with the spirit of Bill C-12, one seat each be provided for the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories.
These proposals would bring the total number of Senate seats to 112, 10 more than at present. It would correct the unjust proportion that the current situation perpetuates. And, with a smaller Senate than that recommended by the Constitution Committee, the same purpose is served as that which was sought by the committee in its recommendations to cure the problem of Senate distribution. Western Canada and the north are the keys to the future of this nation. I commend to all hon. members the need to recognize that reality. Let us make the Senate truly representative of the great regions which make up Canada. When we consider the role of the Senate, let us look to the future, not to the failings and inadequacies of the past.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, at this time I should like to make a few comments on the bill introduced by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I wish to commend the hon. member for expressing his concern regarding more representation for the north. In particular, I am concerned about more members for the Northwest Territories. In making my point, I wish to refer to some of the difficulties members of the north experience in representing that very large part of Canada. I might mention that it is most important, not only for the north but for all of Canada, that the north have more representation because at this time we have only a partially elected and partially appointed legislature for the Northwest Territories. In its present stage, I consider it to be somewhat like a colonial type of government. Within the next few months and the next few years some very important decisions will be made which will affect the native people of the Northwest Territories.
Decisions regarding natural resources and so on in the north are most important to all of Canada. I think wise decisions can be made only if there is sufficient representation from the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory. Some of the problems members from the north face are centred around transportation and communication. It is very difficult for the members from that area to cover that part of the world adequately. For example, a member going from Yellowknife in the Northwest Territories to, say, Frobisher Bay would have to travel about 6,000 miles. This would involve a journey of two days and an expense of $650. The cost of flying in a small aircraft is something in the order of one dollar a mile. Telephone service, where available, is something in the order of one dollar a minute. Therefore, the cost of transportation and communication is very high. The area of the Northwest Territories, which involves 1) million square miles, makes it very difficult for one person to represent all that part of the world.
The formula of representation by population does not allow sufficient representation for the Northwest Territories. Although there are only approximately 40,000 people in that part of the country, the diversity of the way of life of the several peoples in that part is shown by the fact that the languages spoken are English, French, Louchoux, Dog Rib, Slovey, Chipewyan and in some areas three or four of the major Eskimo dialects. A large proportion of the population is unable to either read or write. This, again adds to the difficulty in respect of representing that area. The idea that perhaps we should have Senators representing the Northwest Territories is an idea I cannot accept, because I do not believe appointed people are representative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter (Wally) Firth: Therefore, I suggest the important thing for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory is more representation in this House and not in the other house. I suggest that the government pay some heed to the idea of having an ombudsman perhaps to represent the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories because of the many problems which are faced by the people up there. These people have many problems in respect of forms, the courts and so on. They have a difficult time. As I have said, I suggest the government pay some heed to this suggestion and that the hon. member for Yukon should reconsider his position and perhaps ask for more representation here in this House.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to support this measure for increased representation in parliament from the Yukon and Northwest Territories. I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Marchand) could not see fit to endorse the bill as it stands as a prerequisite to his efforts toward Senate reform.
Because of the responsibility respecting Indian affairs and northern development which I have been given in caucus, I have been particularly concerned with problems of the north, the pros and cons of rushing resources into development and the way developers and conservational-ists are striving to work together in this area rather than as protagonists. They realize that conservation and development must go hand in hand in the north. There are few

February 20, 1973

places in southern Canada where such an approach has been tried, let alone carried out.
I have met with northern native leaders and believe, as their struggles for equality become more intense, that it is only just that there should be more people in parliament who know their feelings, who represent those huge areas, who are familiar with the problems, who come from that part of Canada which too many people consider to be the periphery and, therefore, too far away to be concerned about.
I have been fortunate enough to have travelled in both the Yukon and Northwest Territories, those remote but very beautiful parts of Canada. It is indeed difficult to appreciate the magnitude of our north. It has always been of interest to me to know that if we were to travel as far south as we can travel north, we would be well into South America. We can appreciate this if we ever have the opportunity to visit Frobisher, Resolute, Cambridge Bay, Inuvik, Yellowknife, Whitehorse or a score of other northern places.
While in the north I felt what most northerners learn to live with, a sense of remoteness and isolation. But for all its remoteness, many of the problems of the north are remarkably similar to those of southern Canada. For too long our northern territories have been considered quaint areas of hinterland into which no one goes because of the cold. It is difficult for those of us who have not spent much time there toappreciate the feelings of long-time northerners, the feelings of the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) and of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).
The hon. member for Yukon first introduced this measure in 1959 shortly after he was elected to this House. Three years later, in 1962, the hon. member's bill was debated in this chamber. His reasons for urging greater representation for this area which he delineated 13 years ago stand even more firm today and are more urgent because, surely, all Canadians living above the sixtieth parallel have the right to be heard in both Houses of Parliament. While over the years there have been motions by hon. members advocating reform and even abolition of the other place, there has been little or no action. Northerners, all this while, have not had the same sort of representation as other Canadians.
When Newfoundland entered confederation in 1949, the British North America Act was amended to allow for Senate representation of that province. The Northwest Territories and the Yukon have not been accorded the same consideration. I believe that wider representation in parliament by northerners would help those of us from the south whose knowledge of the north is limited, and in many cases is minimal; it would help us to a greater understanding of this vast, rich area that we are privileged to have as part of Canada.
Late last year an organization called Federation of Natives North of Sixty brought together seven Indian, Metis and Inuit groups of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. They felt they needed a stronger voice, particu-lary with respect to land claims. Their particular, yet special problems as natives are compounded by living in the north. I think it would be particularly fitting if a representative of the native peoples could sit in the other
Senate Representation
place for one or both of the territories. I would like to point out that in 1971 the census figures showed that in the Northwest Territories there were 34,800 people, 6,400 Indians, 11,000 Inuit and 17,400 others, and in the Yukon there were 18,400 people, 16 per cent of whom were natives.
Southerners have learned much over the years from hon. members who have represented the Yukon and Northwest Territories in this chamber. I am firmly of the belief that our education can be enlarged and enhanced even further by giving the territories the representation they merit in parliament as a whole.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has done this chamber a service in bringing before it Bill C-12 which would have the effect of instituting Senate representation for the Yukon and Northwest Territories. But I regret that his interest in the debate extended only to his own words; he has not remained to hear other hon. members participate.
The joint parliamentary committee on the constitution dealt fairly extensively with this subject and I would like to draw the attention of the House to its recommendations and reasoning. Recommendation No. 71 in the report of that committee provided that the Yukon and Northwest Territories should each be entitled to representation in the Senate. That had been preceded by recommendation No. 38, dealing with the Senate itself, in which the distribution of seats in the Senate as recommended by the committee was spelled out. The recommendation of the committee was that both the Yukon and the Northwest Territories should have two seats in the Senate. It would not usually be possible for a member on this side of the House to describe the hon. member for Yukon as a piker, but in this case he has not gone so far as the recommendations of the parliamentary committee.
Turning now to the chapter in the report of the committee dealing with the constitution of the territories, I should like to refer to the comparatively brief reasoning given with respect to Senate representation for the territories. The paragraph I shall quote is the last one on page 65 of the report which reads as follows:
In order to improve communications between Ottawa and the territories at the parliamentary level, we advocate immediate Senate representation for each of the two territories. Under the constitutional rule that a province cannot have fewer members in the Commons than in the Senate, the appointment of two Senators for each territory would lead to an increase in the number of Members of Parliament to two for each.
Perhaps this is the reason the hon. member for Yukon, not wanting company in representing his part of the world, has chosen to stay at the figure of one. Be that as it may, Mr. Speaker, I should now like to turn to the chapter in the report of the constitution committee dealing with the Senate where this matter is more fully canvassed and put into the perspective which the hon. member for Yukon attempted to prevent this House having. I will first read some of the comments of the committee at page 35 of the report as follows:
Two regions, the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, remain without representation in the Senate. There is precedent for
1472

February 20, 1973
Senate Representation
having senatorial representation for the territories. In 1888 the Northwest Territories were first given two Senators under the authority of a constitutional amendment of 1886. This was increased to four in 1904 prior to the acquisition of provincial status by Saskatchewan and Alberta.
I interject at this point that of course the geographical area of the territories was somewhat different before the creation of the western provinces, so that statement may be somewhat misleading. But so far as the theory is concerned, there is no more reason now why both territories should not have Senate representation than there was in this period earlier in their history. Continuing on the same page of the report of the constitutional committee I read the following statement:
Two of the most obvious deficiencies in the current distribution of seats are: (1) the disparity in representation in geographical and other terms between the western provinces and the other provinces; (2) the fact that the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, being a major part of the Canadian land mass, are not represented at all in the Senate.
As the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Mar-chand) has pointed out to the House, this matter cannot be considered in isolation from other changes which should be made in respect of Senate representation. For instance, I would not allow my preference for two seats for the territories, as opposed to one which the hon. member for Yukon is recommending, to stand in the way of referring this bill to committee, but I think we should recognize that in the public mind, at least in many parts of Canada, there is just as much urgency with respect to increasing representation from the west generally and not just providing representation for the territories. If this matter is to be seriously considered by this parliament and referred to a further stage for discussion and debate, it might be well to include such a provision.
The constitution committee, of which I had the privilege and honour of being joint chairman, conducted hearings across Canada. It found consistently that when people spoke about the Senate they did not want abolition, they wanted reform. They wanted a Senate which would function somewhat differently but, above all, they wanted a Senate which they felt to be more representative of the people of Canada. It seems to me that this fact is also relevant to the consideration which members of this House are giving, not collectively but individually, to the question of redistribution which is presently under the aegis of a commission.
From my discussions with many members it seems they hold the view that this House should not be based entirely on the principle of representation by population but should somehow include regional representation. I would agree with the bare minimum limitation of the "Senate rule" which protects the province of Prince Edward Island. I trust my hon. friend from Kamloops-Cariboo was not serious in suggesting that Prince Edward Island should have fewer than four Senators or four members of this House. There has to be some minimum for this very important part of Canada, the smallest province.
Surely the principle of representation in this House has to be that of representation by population, just as the principle of representation in the Senate surely has to be one of geographic or regional representation. I believe

this is the principal reason for having a Senate-not for sober second thought in legislation, although this is one of the advantages. The fact of regional representation is the raison d'etre for the continuation of the Senate in the Canadian political system.
This is the theme which the constitution committee heard again and again across the country and everywhere in the west. The plea was made that the west had to be more adequately represented in the Senate, that its representation should be doubled or that all provinces should have equal representation in the Senate. The committee very seriously considered this question of equal representation for the provinces-something like ten Senators for each province. I suppose this would be, by way of analogy with the American system, a feasible way of arranging representation in our Houses of Parliament. We decided to stay closer to the present distribution.
As the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo indicated, there was some division among members of that committee with respect to the number of seats that should be allocated to the various areas, but I think everyone agreed that the number of seats for the west should be dramatically increased.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Just the House of Commons.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I was speaking of the Senate. If my words were understood to mean the House of Commons, I assure the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) that I did not intend to refer to this House; it is the Senate which should have its membership very greatly increased.


An hon. Member:: No.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I realize that the hon. member's party is not especially keen to continue the Senate at all. I would point out to them, however, that the role of the Senate relates very much to the debate we are now having in the country and may be having in future in parliament with respect to the principle of representation in this House.
Mr. Speaker, this cry came from all across the country; I do not think it is placing it too high to refer to it as such. In some places in the west it was a cry from the heart, for greater representation in the Senate. I think the answer lies in the report of the constitution committee, which recommended that the western provinces should have a total of 48 seats in the Senate and that in addition there should be two members each from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. This would increase the total representation in the Senate to 130 members. Some members who are opposed to the Senate believe that this would be too many, but if we are to have an active and functional Senate-which I believe we have-we want one that is more representative, and it seems to me it would function better if we were to have a larger number of active Senators.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Ce n'est pas possible, 130.


Mark R. MacGuigan: My hon. colleague from Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), who objects to the number, was a member of the constitution committee. I do not think there was any subject which engrossed the constitution
February 20, 1973

committee more than these questions concerning the Senate. It was often thought, and reported by the press, that we were deliberating about a great many other subjects, but most of our time was spent discussing the question of the Senate.


George Albert Proud: And self-determination.


Mark R. MacGuigan: In time taken, that was a very secondary subject.


Mr. Gilbert:: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


John Gilbert: Could the hon. member tell us whether the main criticism with regard to reform of the Senate was on the basis that it should be an elected rather than an appointed body? Would he agree that it should be elected rather than appointed? Would not the Yukon and the Northwest Territories have better representation if the representatives were elected rather than appointed?
Would the minister also reply to the question raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), that perhaps an ombudsman should represent some of the people in the Yukon because of the size of the territory and the multiplicity of people and their problems?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, to deal first with the question of an ombudsman, I am generally in favour of the Droposal for this and for other areas. However, I would prefer the services which Members of Parliament can render their constituents to be greatly increased by the provision of office space and facilities of that kind. This would enable them to better serve their constituents. While I would be in accord with the suggestion, it is not the only step that I would like to see taken in that direction.
With respect to the mode of selection of members of the Senate, it is true that there were people all across the country who urged us to have an elected Senate, but by and large that was not the view taken by the majority of witnesses who appeared before us, nor would it be my own view. It seems to me that an elected second chamber would rival this chamber and, as a member who prizes the prerogatives of this chamber, as the premier legislative part of our parliament, I would not want to see a second chamber which would in any way infringe upon our prerogatives. I think I would be more inclined to the abolition of the Senate than I would be to an elected second House, if I had to choose between them.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, not so much from the standpoint that the legislation we pass needs sober second thought, though in recent times we have had to admit that some of it can be improved, as from the standpoint of geographical representation that the Senate ought to continue in existence. At the same time, there should be greatly expanded representation from western Canada; and if I may include the great, Northern Territories as part of western Canada, there should be more members in the Senate who speak for and are from that area.
Senate Representation
I think the hon. member for Yukon has done us a service by raising this matter once again. This problem will not disappear until the general problem of Senate representation is solved, but it is perhaps more urgent than other problems relating to Senate representation. Although I would prefer to see any terms of reference of a parliamentary committee expanded to include the question of broader representation from the west, I nevertheless think that Bill C-12 which the hon. member for Yukon has proposed is a step in the right direction. One cannot always have a whole loaf; one must be satisfied sometimes with half a loaf. I think this bill is a step in the right direction and will contribute, if adopted, to a more representative Senate in which the people of Canada can have even greater confidence.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I shall speak briefly and deal with one specific aspect of this problem because I think, judging from the comments which have been made, that everyone is favourably disposed to accept the recommendation of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), the sponsor of the bill, and refer it to the committee.
I want to focus narrowly on the basic issue before the House in Bill C-12. Let us be sure that we take at least one small step in the right direction, one small step in this instance but a giant step for the people of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. Let us not bring in extraneous matters such as general Senate reform. I say this because only within comparatively recent times has parliament and the government of Canada taken a direct interest in northern affairs. The department was first established in 1952. Actually, we have not gone very far in moving toward greater autonomy and self-government in the north since then.
I had the responsibility as minister of northern affairs and we set as our target 1967, centennial year, when we would take a giant step forward in bringing about a greater degree of autonomy for the northern territories. That target date passed; we had no responsibility at that time. There has been no improvement or change for over a decade. I feel that what the hon. member for Yukon proposes would at least deal with one fundamental inequity, namely, lack of representation in our upper house.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: One need not listen. No one is missing anything.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Arguments have been made around the issue. The one fundamental issue at stake is that so long as there is a Senate, so long as there is an upper House as part of the Canadian parliamentary system-and I am sure even members of the NDP would agree-we are being grossly discriminatory and unfair if the people occupying 31 million square miles of this country are not represented in that chamber. I heartily endorse the recommendation of the hon. member for Yukon and hope that other hon. members of this House will do the same.


Mr. Ian Watson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised at the bill proposed by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) because it has the effect of playing down his own role as an elected Member of Parliament. If there is

February 20, 1973
Supply
any raison d'etre for the Senate, it has to do, as the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) pointed out, with regional representation. However, I keep coming back to the basic thought that a body which is not elected and is non-representative is really out of place in 1973.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: You chaps have learned a lot this session.


Ian Watson: Several countries recently have adopted a unicameral system, preferring to be governed by one house. Sweden, Finland and New Zealand, the last named country having adopted this system somewhat earlier, have moved in this direction. There is perhaps some slight thought in my mind that representation by region might offer a solution for those in favour of keeping the Senate, but if its members are not elected and are not representative I am afraid I will have to remain a member of that group which favours Senate abolition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Watson: I should like to talk at length about the question of better representation in the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon. Let me say this, however. The last two parliaments, by making use of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development which visited many parts of the north and heard from people throughout the north, allowed those people to be better represented in parliament. I strongly recommend to this House that we continue that practice and perhaps expand it in this parliament, thereby giving the people of the north direct contact with members from other parts of the country. This process, in turn, would lead to members of this House becoming more aware of the serious problems existing in that area and of the huge stakes involved in the questions that will have to be decided, as the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) pointed out, during the next few years.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Perhaps the House would agree to revert to committee of the whole before I call it six o'clock. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-141, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March, 1973-Mr. MacEachen (for Mr. Drury)-Mr. McCleave in the chair.
On clause 2-Schedule.
Robert Jardine McCleave: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The committee will resume at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gérald Laniel: When the committee rose at five o'clock p.m. vote 5a relating to the Treasury Board was being considered.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, on a number of occasions concern has been expressed regarding the deadlines which we are trying to meet in the passage of these supplementary estimates.


Erik Nielsen: In the past four days.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I have been advised that with respect to the Manpower and Immigration programs, allowances to persons on Canada Manpower training courses, LIP grants and further payments in respect of LIP grants under the 1972-73 program and contract payments to companies giving on-the-job training to unemployed workers, all further payments in respect of these programs will have to be suspended commencing February 22. On that date the funds available for these programs will be exhausted. Without further parliamentary authorization it will not be possible to continue to make payments.
Similarly, on the same day, Thursday, with regard to 74,700 recipients of war veterans allowances who are normally paid on the third last banking day of the month, unless approval is received by February 22 for mailing them, they will be delayed by the number of days beyond February 22 that it takes to secure royal assent to this bill. I might add that in addition to the 74,700 recipients of war veterans allowance there will also be similarly affected 3,300 recipients of civilian war allowances.
I appreciate the necessity and desirability of giving adequate consideration to the estimates but we wish, if we possibly can, to meet these deadlines.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, on the point that has been raised by the minister, we have been very keenly aware of the consequences of delaying these estimates. We were aware of this in committee. We sat long hours there, as we have here. We were Thursday, Friday, all day yesterday and today trying to get all the items passed without debate, and all stages of the bill. I want to again put on record that in the debate while we have been in committee of the whole 32 New Democratic Party members and 18 Social Credit members have spoken. With 46-member representation in the House, they have had a total of 69 speakers. When these are added to the Liberal speakers, we have had a total of 85 speakers. We in this party have had 33 speakers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: So that there will be no mistake about our intentions of seeing these estimates through, we are pre-
February 20, 1973

pared here and now to pass the remaining items without debate, and the remaining stages of the bill so it can go to the other place for debate and royal assent.


Gérald Laniel: May I inquire whether consideration has been concluded.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gérald Laniel: If so, we will now proceed to item 10a, urban affairs.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Chairman, I shall begin by asking the Minister of State for Urban Affairs a couple of relatively simple questions of a non-controversial nature. When I have asked these questions and received the quality of answers that I expect to receive, I should like to make some general remarks about the item in the schedule.
During a question period a few weeks ago I directed a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs with regard to tri-level conferences, federal, provincial and municipal. I understand the minister has been encouraging these over the past year, particularly during the past few months, and that there have been conferences between governments. However, there is considerable evidence that there is interest in particular localities to hold tri-level conferences of elected officials. For example, a conference of elected representatives in a community or small town could involve federal members, provincial members, municipal councillors, members of school boards and, possibly, leaders of community associations. It would be an extremely good way of having the elected members from a locality get together to understand the problems of a locality and, better still, to work out a concerted program for themselves, working, as it were, in harness.
I know the minister said several weeks ago that the federal government was more than ready to encourage and assist tri-level conferences. I do not want to distort his answer to the point of saying he would similarly encourage tri-level conferences of the more informal kind I have described, but would the minister not take this possibility under consideration? I repeat that it is an excellent way in which elected representatives can get together to work out problems and also to set projects for themselves.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I believe the Chair ruled the other day that the appropriate Standing Order would be applied and that ministers would answer all questions on these items at the end of the comments of hon. members generally on the particular items in the estimates. I am in the hands of the committee. I would be quite happy to answer either now or at the end of the comments, but there was a ruling on this matter the other day.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Chairman, I would submit that once an hon. member rises in his place and speaks to an item, whether it be by way of a question or a speech, in committee of the whole he has spoken and Standing Order 58(13), if applied rigidly, would prevent his speaking again. I leave the question with the Chair, but I believe this interpretation to be correct.
Supply


Gérald Laniel: If I remember correctly-and I have consulted the Clerk-the suggestion was made that the minister would wait until all hon. members had finished before replying.


Erik Nielsen: That is not my point, Mr. Chairman. The point is that under rule 58(13), which is applicable when the committee is in ways and means as opposed to the rule which applies in committee of the whole generally, once a member rises and speaks he may not participate further in the discussion, whether he makes a speech or merely asks a question. I am not urging this on the Chair but I am leaving the point with Your Honor for consideration.


Gérald Laniel: According to the rules, once an hon. member has spoken he may not speak again. But no decision has yet been made. Does the hon. member for Scarborough West wish to continue?


John Paul Harney: Yes, Mr. Chairman. In light of what has been said with regard to procedure, I shall make all my points in one fell swoop, as it were. But they concern very different subjects and I thought they could be dealt with more easily if I kept popping up and down.
I wish to ask another question of the minister. It has to do with a statement he made this morning on the subject of rent freezes in projects directly controlled or managed by CMHC. I am thinking particularly of limited dividend projects. I know of projects in Toronto which use standard forms of lease as the contract between the owner and the tenant. These forms contain a clause which provides, in effect, that the rent agreed to shall remain fixed unless approval of an increase is given by CMHC.
I invite the minister to look into what has happened regarding 230 Oak Street. Tenants of this project signed leases on December 31, only to be advised two days later that their rents would be raised, the owner having received permission to do so from CMHC. In the private business world such a thing would rarely occur. The minister should take into consideration the circumstances in which it is possible to raise rents in these circumstances. He should consider making the rent freeze retroactive at least to the beginning of this year, because a number of rental agreements were signed by tenants around December 31.
The estimate has to do with research in housing and community planning. More money is to be devoted to such research from allocations which apparently have already been agreed in the House. There are one or two areas which ought to be examined very seriously. Everyone who has studied housing is aware that one of the most serious problems facing those who enter the housing market is that of raising money, in some cases, and the high interest charges applied to those who borrow it.
Many of us remember years when an interest rate of 6 per cent was considered high for a prime mortgage. For a number of years now the standard rate has been between 9 and 10 per cent. There is no doubt that such rates, seen in historical perspective, are usurious. Interest rates on domestic mortgages are prohibitive. It is not long ago that the minister, in order to help more people buy houses, raised the limit which could be borrowed from CMHC to $30,000. I wonder how many members have calculated the

February 20, 1973
Supply
amount of interest which has to be paid on such a sum over the life of a mortgage. The total amounts to $42,000.1 wonder how many people have calculated the length of time the average man has to work to pay off this $42,000, not counting the principal and leaving aside the down payment.
In Toronto, where I live, the average industrial wage is about $4 an hour. That figure is probably high, but let us take it to be $4 an hour. At $4 an hour a person can expect a gross income of about $8,000 a year. We all know the Canadian Tax Foundation tells us that a person earning $8,000 a year with the usual number of dependants-in this case let us say two-will pay about 37 per cent of his income in taxes of all kinds. If you subtract this 37 per cent in taxes from $8,000 a year, you are left with a net income of $5,100. If you divide the $5,100 into $42,000, you will see the number of years that the average working man has to put in just to pay the interest on the property he has purchased for himself and his family.
People have suggested in the past few months that something must be done to bring down interest rates. Perhaps some suggestions have been a little utopian, but I am sure very few hon. members would agree that an interest rate of, say, 61 per cent or 7 per cent is utopia. I am sure several members of the House have bought their homes in the past at this rate or at a higher rate. It was not too long ago that many of us considered a rate of 7 per cent to be high. But let us say that by various devices-I hope to suggest one or two in a moment-we could bring down interest rates by 21 per cent, or in other words reduce them from the 9 to 91 per cent level they are now to a 61 to 7 per cent level.
If I may again entertain the committee with a few more calculations, let me suggest that the saving in the interest payments over the life of a mortgage contract brought about by a reduction in the interest rate of 21 per cent would amount to about $17,000. Again going through a process of rough division, we find out what is the net income of the average wage earner over the course of a year, and we discover that by bringing the interest rate down by 2} per cent we will save him, in effect, some three years of work in that lousy factory or that boring office, work that is devoted solely to earning money to pay off this 21 per cent interest. It is not devoted to the other 7 per cent interest, or to the principal he has had to put into the house as a down payment, or to buy food or shoes for his kids, or to put money aside for entertainment or travel; it is devoted solely to paying off that 21 per cent.
Let us ask ourselves what we are doing with all these grand programs that we use in pretending we are helping the working people of this country, when we cannot come to the stark realization that the better part of a working person's life is devoted to paying off the interest on the mortgage he takes on his house. No one can tell me that a lot of people do not buy houses. I know that a lot of people rent them, but if you rent rather than pay off mortgage interest on your own house you are merely helping to pay off the mortgage on the landlord's house, which is really the same thing.

Suggestions have been made with regard to ameliorating this situation. It has been suggested, for example, that people with a certain income should have their mortgage interest subsidized. That is a fairly good suggestion but I think it would be too indirect and would apply to too small a percentage of the population for it to have any real effect. As hon. members know, many other suggestions have been made to reduce the original cost of housing. However, in the past we have had many figures proving that by far the most massive part of the cost of housing is the cost of money and the cost of land.
Some time last year the minister suggested establishing some kind of mortgage clearing house-I forget the exact title-in which the lending and financial institutions of this country would be encouraged to invest more money for lending purposes; I think they were his very words. I have a few suggestions to make in that regard, suggestions that could be forwarded to the research groups that will be doing further research into housing and community planning. Although it does not always appear to us to be the case, there is a fair amount of money in this country available for investment. I am not suggesting that the government has its hands on very much of this money. When one looks at the figures showing the amount the government has available for discretionary investment- that is to say, amounts that it can or cannot, may or may not, place into certain areas-the amount is relatively small when one considers the vast sums that are now under the control of the financial intermediaries of this country. By "financial intermediaries" I mean banks, lending institutions, trust companies, insurance companies, and so on.
I will take just one example from among these financial intermediaries and deal specifically with trustee pension funds. Those of you who have been looking at the figures over the past few years will have noticed that trustee pension funds have grown in size; not alarmingly, but certainly rather strongly, to say the least. In 1960 the total assets of the trustee pension funds amounted to $3.5 billion. In 1970 they had grown to some $11 billion, and of course it goes without saying they have grown since then. That is not hay; that is a lot of money.
What is done with this money? According to a publication by Statistics Canada, this money is spread over various forms of investments such as bonds, government bonds at all levels, municipal bonds, school bonds, and so on. The Minister of Finance is not here, but let me point out to the President of the Treasury Board that the proportion of these funds invested in government bonds has gone down considerably over the past few years. A fair amount of money is invested in stocks, and the proportion of money invested in stocks has gone up rather strikingly over the past ten years.
In other words, trustee pension funds, in carrying out their design to make money, are finding it more lucrative to invest their money in stocks. It is also rather alarming to discover that there has been a very marked increase in the amount of money invested in stocks of non-Canadian companies. I can try to flummox this committee by saying that the increase over the past ten years has been 71 times, though perhaps that would be a little misleading since I am merely following a trend.
February 20, 1973

The figure I want to concentrate on in relation to assets of trustee pension funds is the amount devoted to mortgages. We find that in 1960 the proportion that was devoted to mortgages of all kinds-not necessarily residential mortgages or mortgages on family dwellings or single family homes, but mortgages of all kinds-accounted for 8.3 per cent, and this amount has grown enormously over the years and now accounts for some 9.2 per cent of the total of assets invested by trustee pension funds.
What I am getting at is this. If we were to do a little more in this country than simply saying to these companies that they must invest in safe securities, and we said to them that not only must they maintain the security of the original investment placed in their hands in trust but they must also invest a certain proportion of their assets in socially useful projects that would satisfy the real needs of Canadians, then we might find that this would have a significant effect on the interest rates of domestic mortgages in this country and indeed on the whole field of housing.
In other jurisdictions, particularly the one to the south of us, there are financial institutions, savings and loan companies, for example, which are forced by law to invest a certain proportion, be it 30 per cent, 40 per cent or 50 per cent of their total assets in domestic mortgages. That is why in the United States mortgages are more easily available at lower rates than here in Canada.
I would suggest to the Minister of State, through you, Mr. Chairman, that rather than even invite these financial institutions through a form of encouragement to invest in what is, after all, a vital necessity, one of the elements which ought to be produced in quantity by our economy is investment by these people in the area of domestic mortgages. Rather than even encouraging them to invest, they should be told to invest. One does not have to be radical or drastic about it, telling them they have to invest 40 per cent; this could be progressive and conservative-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Paul Harney: I suggest that pension funds in trust could be used for investment in domestic mortgages to the extent of some 5 per cent a year for the next four or five years. I will not go into specific calculations because the point is obvious. If this large segment of our economy, financial institutions which do nothing more than hold the savings of the nation in trust for us, was told to put our savings to use in the realm of mortgages, particularly the domestic mortgage market, we would find that in a relatively short time not only would there be more mortgage money available but the cost of that money would go down.
This government in the past has effected a two-price program for various commodities. Why should we not have a two-price program for mortgage money, a certain price for the commercial market and another price for the domestic market, being the average individual who wants little more from us than the possibility of buying a home for his wife and children? I hope to come back to this point on a number of other occasions, perhaps this spring
Supply
and again next year. What I suggest at this stage is that this is an area in need of considerable attention.
A few weeks ago I asked the Minister of Transport a question regarding the CNR pension fund with particular reference to a horrible example. A number of years ago when I was a boy at school I was a rather clumsy person. One of the seniors said to me, "Don't worry, Harney; no one is totally useless: you can always serve as a horrible example." The CNR pension fund is not totally useless; it serves for us as a horrible example. This pension fund is held in trust for the workers of this country who are, in effect, direct employees of this government. This is a pension fund over which the workers have almost no influence-I will not use the word "control"-yet we find the fund invested in mortgages and other fields. This money is invested in what kinds of mortgage?
Let us consider the Fidinam case. The fund loaned $33 million to this foreign corporation to build another fancy office building in Toronto, and I assure you we did not need another fancy office building there. One thing we need in Toronto, Montreal and other communities in Canada is mortgage money at reasonable interest rates for these workers whose funds are being held in trust. Without going very far, not even to the private lending institutions, we could take some of this money held in trust for the public and parapublic workers of this country and put it to work building houses, rather than fancy office buildings wholly controlled by foreign corporations. Some of these office buildings were built with money raised totally in Canada and, in too many unfortunate cases, from money raised from those employed in our public institutions.
I have another suggestion in respect of a program quite dear to the heart of the previous minister in charge of housing and CMHC. I refer to the special and innovative $200 million program for low-cost housing. There was an interim report which came out in May of 1971. I believe originally $200 million was put into this program, with $100 million added to it. I would very much like to see a full report on that program in order that we may determine how the money was used. There are many questions in many areas of the country that need to be asked about this program, perhaps in no area more particularly than the province of Quebec.

If I may, Mr. Chairman, I should like to deal with the $200 million program and ask whether we could perhaps get an extensive report explaining in detail how this money has been invested and how it has profited Canadians.
One need not enquire very long to realize that people, particularly in Quebec, are very dissatisfied with this program.
Many construction projects have proven to be failures. Tenants and landlords are unhappy and dissatisfied with the quality of housing that was built for them. I could give a list of the projets-this would only take a moment-that should be closely inspected to see-


Gérald Laniel: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.

February 20, 1973
Supply


Mr. Godin:: Mr. Chairman, I think I should say a few words about Bill C-141 and mainly about item 10a, which is of particular interest to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford). This item appears on page 53 in Supplementary Estimates (A) and reads as follows:
To extend the purposes of Urban Affairs Vote 10, Appropriation Act No. 3, 1972 to reimburse Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for expenditures incurred during the period January 1, 1973 to March 31, 1973 on housing research and community planning.
Mr. Chairman, clearly, like any responsible corporation, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation employs research personnel, people who conduct analyses. In the present case, the analyses are naturally specifically related to residential housing in our country.
In view of complaints reaching us from Ville Belair, Val Saint-Michel and even Ville Vanier and other locations in my constituency, I am led to wonder, Mr. Chairman, at what level the studies have been conducted, and to what end? Were these studies fruitful? Did they focus on improving the quality of houses or on downgrading it?
Mr. Chairman, I am wondering about those things because, as the previous speaker stated, there has long been discontent in Quebec. I have here an article in the October 27, 1971 issue of Action Quebec, titled as follows: Owners of Place Pierre-Bertrand are under the impression that they have been had.
Those owners are angry. They all feel they have been cheated on their houses, costing an average of $14,000. The building defects found reveal that residential standards of the building code were absolutely disregarded.
On the occasion of that meeting, the members of that association stated, and I quote:
The federal government is involved in this matter because the Place Pierre-Bertrand project was subsidized by the housing department.
Furthermore, according to the majority of owners present, there may have been collusion between the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the contractor in order to avoid an inquiry, since they say that had there been an inquiry, the houses would never have been accepted.
So, Mr. Chairman, such is the situation for a particular area. I have here another letter from Neufchatel. It is addressed to the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, it deals with file No 430-LH-19861 and is signed by Roland Simoneau, Neufchatel. Mr. Simoneau writes:
This is to inform the CMHC about flaws and defects in my house.
Clause 7 of my contract provides that:
The borrower shall, during the period of this loan, keep in good repair the said building with dependencies and make all necessary repairs, and representatives of the lender and the Corporation . .. can inspect it on occasion ...
So he wonders:
How can I keep in good repair a house I received in bad condition?
He goes on:
Is it any wonder that it costs us $300 to heat three walls when the seller told us it would cost $130, which is quite a difference.
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman.]
Moreover, since the inspector from CMHC never came to inspect the house, has he the right to come five years later when the inspection has never been done . ..
You understand that it is impossible to look forward to the future in such a house. The builder does not honour the guarantee he gives us, he probably wants to wait until the five years have passed. How can we fulfil our commitments? We might just as well move into rented housing again; this experience has been enough.
Mr. Chairman, these are the impressions of an owner.
After examining a house in Neufchatel, Mr. Louis Carrier, a Quebec City architect, said this:
This report was prepared following an on site inspection on Wednesday, September 27, 1972-
It is three pages' long. It is the inspection of a small $14,000 house, and I quote further:
(1)	FOUNDATION:
The main front foundation wall is inclined outwardly by 11" at the top-
(2)	FRAMEWORK:
(a)	In the basement, the center beam is made of four assembled 2"x8" beams. In violation of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation's standards, cuts in the composing parts are located 6" beyond the bearing center (or the steel column).
Moreover, this beam should rest on a pilar when meeting the anti-fire dividing wall instead of being imbedded in it.
(b)	In the basement, a wood column, made of two 2" x 4" frames for the girders along the staircase and bearing a goundfloor partition, is truly defective-
(c)	The groundfloor floor framework does not meet the standards of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. The 1 5/8" x 7 1/4" beams, spaced 164" center to center, stand out 12'- 21" which is inadequate since the C.M.H.C. minimum requirement for this wood (Eastern spruce) holding living quarters is: 2" x 8" beams . .. with 16" spacing center to center-
Because of this inadequacy, the floor sank by at least 1 " at the center of bearings, namely in the middle of the living room, kitchen and bathroom.
This report states further:
(c) cont'd
One also finds by jumping slightly on the floor that a strong vibration is transmitted to the partitions thus unlevelling the pictures hanging on them.
3-	INSULATION
(a)	The dividing wall, firestop, visible in the roof space, is made of empty concrete blocks 3 inches thick; these do not reach the roof board everywhere and the top part seems badly insulated, which allows cold air to enter and get down to the first floor.
(b)	Insulation of outside walls is provided by mineral wool bats 2 inches thick inserted between the studs on which gyproc is nailed directly.
It would have been preferable, for this type of wall, to put on the studs an insulating board 1 inch thick and to put the gyproc on 1" x 2" strips placed vertically where the studs are. The consequence of this inadequacy is that, on very cold days, frost will form inside in several places on the gyproc.
4-	WAINSCOT AND EXTERIOR FINISHING
(a)	The Alcan enamelled aluminum wainscot is not properly installed. Several open joints let in snow and water driven by the wind.
(b)	The lower edge of the wainscot is neither protected nor reinforced by weather moulding and it easily loses its shape, besides being dangerous for children playing nearby because these aluminum sheets are very sharp.
(c)	On both sides of the main entrance, the plastic joint between the wainscot and the doorframe has been badly made, or rather it does not resist because of the flexibility of the wainscot which is not solidly fixed to the frame.
February 20, 1973

(d)	The drip, made of perforated aluminum is poorly designed for our climate. Snow and rain driven by the wind get into the roof space and damage walls and ceilings.
Mr. Chairman, I know that it is disgusting and boring to hear me read that, but I wish to point out that it is still more boring for those who are compelled to live in those shacks.


George Albert Proud: Did you inspect them yourself?


Roland Godin: Yes, I went on the premises and with my card of former carpenter, I can speak with full knowledge of the facts. I continue to quote:
3-GYPROC FINISH:
(a) The gyproc on the outer walls is damaged at several places near or on the ceiling by the water or melting snow which filtered through the drip.
Mr. Chairman, I have read only a page and a half and I will spare the House the remainder. Now-


George Albert Proud: Mr. Chairman, could I put a question to the hon. member?


Roland Godin: February 20, 1973
Supply


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs a question which is important to cities the size of Yorkton which I have the honour to represent. It concerns relocation of rail lines in downtown centres. Can he tell the House when we may expect some financial assistance for the relocation of rail lines from the downtown cores of cities of this size, and what will be the amount of such financial assistance? One point I wish to stress is that I would not like to see this assistance go only to the CNR and the CPR. I am concerned that when the program comes into effect too much emphasis will be placed on larger centres such as Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. Cities the size of Yorkton are very interested in this matter. Perhaps the minister can comment later this evening on this point.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the minister three short questions for which I am sure he will have answers. What steps has he taken to implement the Liberal election promise to build an $80 million waterfront park in the city of Toronto? Either the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources made such a promise just prior to October 30 last, hoping to gain political capital. The good citizens of Toronto realized that this was the aim.
As a supplementary question, Mr. Chairman, I ask what citizen participation will be involved in this park. It will be a big job to co-ordinate the efforts of the federal, provincial and municipal authorities in assembling the land, designing the buildings and carrying through with the program. I hope local citizens will be involved in this work.
My second question is: when will the minister bring forth the CMHC capital budget? Further, does he anticipate including in that budget the programs he has set forth in Bill C-133, the bill he recently introduced? If they are not included in the CMHC budget, how will he fund the rehabilitation program, the NIP program and the other programs mentioned in the bill? I heard the hon. member from Hamilton asking about the NIP program: it is the Neighbourhood Improvement Program.
My third question concerns the guarantees the minister promised with regard to defective materials and workmanship in the construction of homes. The previous speaker for the Creditiste party mentioned some of the disasters that have occurred in building programs. The provisions in the new bill presented by the minister only go to a certain extent and include the completion of work by a builder who becomes bankrupt. Many people have had work done with CMHC and NHA financing which was later found to include defective materials and bad workmanship. Will the minister be introducing separate legislation with respect to building guarantees, or will they only be included as part of the new bill he has introduced?


Mr. Blackburn:: I have one or two questions to ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs on the question of urban renewal, which concerns all municipalities. Two or three weeks ago the minister indicated that there are changing trends in urban renewal. If I remember correctly, he said that we were going to place more money in and

greater emphasis on the re-establishment and rejuvenation of already established neighbourhood communities. I commend the minister for this new trend. In other words, we are not going to concentrate so much on the bulldozer, but on rebuilding and rejuvenating existing communities. Going back as far as 1968 and 1969, many municipalities across this country have drawn up position papers and gone to a great deal of expense in order to establish urban renewal in the context in which we interpreted it ten years ago-in other words, the brick and mortar, blast and bulldozer approach-to clear out downtown urban areas and rebuild.
I represent the riding of Brant. At the present time the city of Brantford has budgeted approximately $2.3 million for a downtown urban renewal program which takes in the former market square which was established as a result of the construction of the city hall 112 years ago. Some of the merchants in that area are struggling, and this development would put capital and retail trade in their direction. Brantford city council has budgeted $2.3 million for market square development.
I ask the minister whether funds are available to a municipality for this kind of development under what might be called the new terms of reference of his department with regard to urban renewal. I listened to the minister but, Mr. Chairman, I do not believe that the taxpayers' money should go toward commercial development. I wonder whether there are still funds available for this kind of development, even though eventually this downtown market square development in the city of Brantford will be entirely privately owned and commercially oriented. Could the minister reply to this question as well?


Mr. Beaudoin:: Mr. Chairman, I am going to be very brief. I only wish to direct a question to the minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (Mr. Basford).
Could the minister tell whether his department could ensure that CMHC stops lending money to contractors who build bad houses, unhealthy houses, and who come back year after year, under a new name, to build shacks in other towns with the approval of CMHC? I wish the minister could tell us whether his department intends to find mechanisms to control this situation.
At present, the building industry is growing ever faster. A 24' X 40' house with a 1140-foot floor area, built of "Gyproc" and heated by a forced-air system, costs about $18,000, whereas last year the same house was selling for $16,100. The individual who buys such a house must meet payments during 39 and often 49 years under the new system; often the house is built to last no more than 10 or 15 or 20 years. What I am about to suggest could protect the money invested by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as well as protect the consumer.
We are rather lucky around Sherbrooke. I know of no contractor who builds such shacks but I did visit some in Montreal, for example, where the situation is terrible. Last year, we saw 34 houses that could not be sold by the contractor and yet the inspector from Central Mortgage and Housing had been there and had approved those
February 20,1973

houses. The builder could not sell them because you could see right through the walls, Mr. Chairman. It was as gusty inside as outside. I went there in the month of July. This was called the "Nid d'abeilles (Honeycomb)" project or something of the sort. I do not remember exactly but in any case there was a sleek word in the name. The sewage system had not yet been put in and I think that the city around Montreal where those houses were located thought it would be desirable not to instal the system too rapidly because the houses were not selling.
If a man who knows nothing about construction refuses to buy a house which was built by a contractor and checked by two or three inspectors from Central Mortgage and Housing who are supposed to know their business, how is it that those things can go undetected by those who seek to protect the consumer and would like him to be happy in his one-family or multi-unit dwelling.
In view of the high demand for housing again this year, I would ask the minister if it would not be possible to have Central Mortgage and Housing to thoroughly research the matter so as not to let the consumer be fleeced in such an unreasonable way.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I have listened with interest to hon. members' questions and comments. Many of the questions can be dealt with at great length and exhaustively when the main estimates are considered in committee. There we can review the issues that have been raised. Others can be dealt with in debate and discussion when Bill C-133 is before the House for second reading and in committee, that is, the amendment to the National Housing Act that I have proposed. Also, Bill C-135, the financial mechanism bill, raises all the issues that the hon. member for Scarborough West brought forward in his speech about the flow of money into the mortgage market. I shall be brief tonight and touch upon just a few of the comments that have been made.
To the hon. member for Scarborough West, I would say that we are meeting with considerable success in major metropolitan areas across the country in organizing trilevel committees involving the federal government, provincial governments and municipalities or the local governments concerned. There are tri-level committees of government to deal with matters involving the various levels of government and are a means for consultation between governments. That is their purpose, unlike the kind of committee that the hon. member for Scarborough West suggested. There is nothing wrong with his suggestion and nothing to prevent it taking place; in fact, I would encourage Members of Parliament to meet with their provincial MLAs and local politicians. I have done this in my own city on occasion, but it is a different kind of concept from the tri-level government committees that I have been discussing and organizing across the country.
With regard to the question of rent increases, I shall of course look at the situation of 230 Oak Street. From the hon. member's comment, I take it that the building is a limited dividend project which means that the mortgage moneys are put up by Central Mortgage and Housing, that under an agreement with the builder and owner there would be rent control on the building for the first 15
Supply
years, and that he would receive a limited return on his property during that period. The agreement also provides for the costs of operation to be taken into account. If the owner is able to show real increases in costs, they must be considered and CMHC must allow an adjustment in rents. So we are bound by an agreement in that case. The owner must show an actual increase in costs. However, I will examine the question of that particular building.
When the hon. member spoke about costs I think he indicated that he agrees with the provisions of Bill C-135 which will be before the House and which is designed, in principle, to encourage the flow of mortgage money into the residential mortgage business. He spoke of trustee pension funds. One of the purposes of that bill is to make mortgage investments more liquid and mortgages more attractive to the managers of trustee pension funds. It is my hope that the bill, which will be dealt with in committee more fully, will make trustee pension funds invest in residential mortgages and provide the medium and mechanism for them to do so.
Other amendments to the National Housing Act have been proposed. I agree with the hon. member, about the need to introduce more money into residential mortgages and that that puts a downward pressure on interest rates; there is no question about it. I hope that if he has any influence with the trade union movement he will use it and encourage the members of unions to invest their pension funds in residential mortgages. He should make suggestions along that line.
May I bring an example to the attention of hon. members to illustrate what I mean. A certain company had developed a technique for building houses. It was a very good technique and they came to me for money because they wanted to provide mortgages for the new houses and market them. I said, "You have a huge pension fund; why don't you use it for house mortgages?" They had not even thought of that. They went back and applied their money in that way.


Mr. Gleave:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, would the minister elaborate on those remarks? I think there are some restrictions on union pension funds in relation to where they may be invested. Did the minister check into this particular pension fund and find out if the people concerned were entitled to invest in mortgages?


Stanley Ronald Basford: In that particular case it had never occurred to the company or union that although they were in the homebuilding business they could use this money for putting mortgages on homes. That is why we must keep talking as the hon. member for Scarborough West talked.
A number of comments were made about the quality of housing. This is in connection with the $200 million innovating program. The hon. member for Scarborough West, the hon. member for Portneuf and, I believe, the hon. member for Richmond mentioned this problem. I will examine Hansard and see that the particular developments those hon. members mentioned are looked at. I think they have all been looked at already because the same names keep cropping up. There are examples of
1482

February 20, 1973
Supply
badly built housing. I can only say that in cases where remedies are available, CMHC is implementing them. In many cases we have hired engineers and consultants to advise us and the owners on what can be done. If possible, we have taken action against the builders, and in order to make sure that our inspection procedure is adequate and that those examples do not occur again we have reorganized substantially procedures within the province of Quebec.
Also, in Bill C-133 we have proposed a system of warranties for purchasers of new homes. This is very much needed in this country in order to avoid bad housing construction and the kinds of incidents that were mentioned in the committee this evening. I assure the hon. member for Broadview that Bill C-133, which will be dealt with in committee, is designed to cover the mortgage insurance fund and it will cover the completion of construction of a home in the event that the builder goes bankrupt during the course of construction. It will cover, as well, the matter of CMHC mortgages. In certain instances an NHA mortgage will not be granted or insured unless certain warranties are provided. Both amendments are provided for in the legislation. We will deal with them in committee.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville asked about policy on railroad relocation which, as was announced by my colleague, the former minister of transport, involves amendments to the railway and grade-crossing legislation. That legislation is being drafted. I hope it can be introduced in the house within six weeks and dealt with. All the matters raised by the hon. member will, of course, be dealt with then. We did, in replying to a specific question, say in our policy statement-and this ought to be enacted in the legislation-that the railroads should not be allowed to profit from the imposition of the provisions of the act; that was basic to our policy.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I refer to the question of the Toronto urban park raised by the hon. member for Broadview. The purchase and acquisition of the property in question is proceeding. All the areas available through voluntary purchase have been acquired by the Department of Public Works which is handling the land assembly for the Toronto waterfront park. There are currently under way negotiations with the Toronto harbour commissioners for the acquisition of land that was mentioned in the statement; the harbour commissioners will yield the land for this park. With respect to the third lot of properties which could not be acquired by purchase or by agreement with the harbour commissioners, notices of expropriation have been published in the Canada Gazette. So we are attempting to carry out the commitment of the government to acquire the property for the Toronto urban park.
With regard to the question of whether citizens will participate in the planning, may I say very firmly that we are committed to consultation with the government of Ontario and with municipalities surrounding the area of the waterfront park, as well as with the public, on the development of the site and how it should be planned and used. I have indicated this federal commitment to His Worship Mayor Crombie of Toronto, to Mr. Dennis Barker of the Toronto planning board and to Mr. S.B.
[Mr. Basford.l
Dewan of the Toronto Citizens for a Better Waterfront Association. As I say, we are committed to the development of this waterfront park through a tri-level process involving the federal government, Ontario and metro Toronto. I met with the former minister, Hon. Charles MacNaughton, in an attempt to set up the committee. There has been some delay in establishing the committee owing to changes in the responsibilities of ministers at Queen's Park. I certainly hope that the committee will be set up as quickly as possible so that through it we can begin planning the waterfront park for which we are in the process of acquiring property.
I have made my points rather quickly and briefly and hope hon. members will understand why I have done so. I hope these issues can be discussed in more detail when the estimates are-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I asked the minister a question and it appeared to me he had finished his answer without dealing with my question.


Mr. Paproski:: He was being evasive.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: May I ask if he will answer my question.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, yes, I will. I thank the hon. member for bringing my attention back to his question. As I say, all these questions can be dealt with in greater detail when the estimates are considered in committee and when the two pieces of legislation I mentioned are before the House and the appropriate committee.
The hon. member for Brant spoke about urban renewal. He correctly stated the proposition that the old urban renewal program was frozen. We have made it clear that no further money will be forthcoming. My predecessor announced this, and that is the policy of the government. The view at that time, and this continues to be our view, is that in many cases urban renewal was being used, not to provide housing but to underwrite and finance commercial redevelopment of downtown areas. There are many places where commercial redevelopment is necessary, needed and would be useful within a city or municipality, but we are operating a housing policy and urban renewal was aimed at a housing policy. This is the reason it was cancelled. It has been replaced by the proposals I made for a Neighbourhood Improvement Program.
I am not familiar with the matter raised by the hon. member for Brant. If he wishes to make representations to me, I invite him to do so. But within the framework of the policy I have just announced I do not see how there can be money made available for the commercial redevelopment of the market square area.


John Gilbert: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. The minister forgot to answer my question with regard to when the CMHC capital budget will be made, and just what financing will take place with regard to the programs in Bill C-133 if they cannot be included in the CMHC capital budget.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, I will deal with that matter fully when the bill is before us, because we will want to
February 20, 1973

examine how the programs are to be financed. The capital budget of CMHC has been approved by the three ministers who are to approve it, the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance and myself. It has to be approved by cabinet and will be discussed in committee on the main estimates. It covers the capital budget for the calendar year 1973. Under the rules that apply, it deals with existing law.
We cannot put into a capital budget moneys to be spent under proposed legislation which is not yet passed. When the legislation is before the House I will deal with the question of how we are to finance the various programs which are proposed in Bill C-133. However, much of the money is contained within the capital budget. For example, there is the program of support of non-profit associations. There is a very large commitment of funds for that in the existing budget, under the existing law. If the amendments are carried, we can use that money more effectively than we do under NHA.


Roland Godin: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a simple question.
I would like first of all thank the hon. minister for the information he provided us with. However, he said that bill C-135 includes guarantee measures in the case of a buyer who would have taken possession of badly built house. Could the hon. minister tell us if that policy will be retroactive in its effects?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, we can examine that question in committee when the bill is before us. However, it would seem virtually impossible to make it retroactive.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Chairman, can the minister enlighten us a little on what plans he has in mind for low-rent public housing?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Chairman, they are outlined in Bill C-133. I can deal with those plans when the bill is before the House and in committee.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Does this complete consideration of the item under urban affairs?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Jardine McCleave: We now turn to the items under veterans affairs, votes 10a and 35a. Are these items agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.
William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, if you give the bill to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), he will take it over to the Senate for us.
Capital Punishment CRIMINAL CODE


REINSTATEMENT OF LAW RELATING TO CAPITAL
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, January 31,1973, consideration of the motion of Mr. Allmand that Bill C-2, to amend the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, it may seem anti-climactic to shift in midstream from the important matter of money consideration to the more mundane matter of human lives. Your Honour will recall that at the close of the debate on capital punishment on January 31,1 was cut off, with good cause, in mid-sentence at the very peak of oratorical excellence. As I recall, I had sympathized with the protagonists of capital punishment who because of their emotional bondage to the topic felt bound to call for the blood of all those convicted of homicide, but I had rejected emotion as suitable grounds for a decision.
I have since noted that most of the speakers who rose in self-righteous indignation to demand the blood of convicted killers have at the same time demanded with equal vigour an end to the slaughter of innocent civilians in Viet Nam, both North and South. I had rejected the arguments based on statistics as well on the grounds that in effect liars figure and figures lie. I sometimes think that if all statisticians were laid end to end, it would be a good thing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nels Edwin Nelson: There is no proof that capital punishment is a deterrent to capital crimes, as other speakers have pointed out. I will not dwell on that aspect of the topic. Revenge, too, it seems to me is too base a motive for settling such an important issue and can be dismissed out of hand.
My suggestion was that any favour in which retention was being held was possibly due more to the frustration of society with seeming permissiveness-a section of the public is ready to lash out at all those who violate the laws directed against homicide, despite the futility of capital punishment as a deterrent, despite the ambivalence of arguments based on religion and despite exhaustive studies by qualified authorities.
I had reached the point, then, of examining the question from a philosophic point of view. What is it, I asked, that separates man from the rest of the animals? Not reason, because some animals have shown the ability to reason in various degrees. The one thing we can do that animals cannot do is to store experience. While the animal, generation after generation, teaches its young in the same way, through example and experience, mankind is able to store his experience through history books, literature, artifacts, monuments and the like. Despite this superiority, however, I pointed out that there still lurks the beast just below the sophisticated veneer of modern man. The reason I gave for this was the relatively short period of time during which man has been on this planet, taking into account the tremendous span of life forms. Man has

February 20,1973
Capital Punishment
been on earth a relatively short time in comparison with the entire scale of life-the continuum of life in all its forms on this earth.
At the close of the session I was about to paraphrase an example used by a Dr. Mdller. I ask you to imagine a rope stretching from Toronto and ending at the Speaker's chair in the House of Commons. This rope will represent the entire scale of life from the very beginning of life forms to this date in 1973. Now, scientists have estimated that life forms have existed on the earth for something like a thousand million years. On a rough scale, therefore, we might say that one yard of this imaginary rope represents 10,000 years. One human generation would be represented by less than one-eighth of an inch. On that scale of life we would find the dinosaurs making their first appearances at the entrance to the Commons chamber.


Some hon. Members:: They are still here.


John Gilbert: Still with us.


An hon. Member:: Mostly from the Prairies.


Nels Edwin Nelson: The first rude forbears of mankind would not appear until well past the position of the mace, and perhaps even past the position of the Clerk before the Speaker's chair. About half an inch from the end of the rope we would come to the beginning of the industrial revolution.
I draw this rough comparison to indicate what a relative newcomer mankind is to the earth which he dominates. It seems evident that the rapid advances in technology in the past few decades have by far outpaced the growth in man's social awareness and social consciousness; we can fly to the moon but we cannot deal with our social misfits. It is for this reason that we are still able to employ, despite the sophistication of our technology and the growth of our experience, such bestial methods in the wars, terrorist activities and homicidal acts which take place every day all over the world.
Mr. Speaker, we are not beasts, but men and women. We are not savages, but civilized human beings. What we need is not a revival of the old ways of killing people, or discovery of new ways of killing people; what we need is an end to killing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Nels Edwin Nelson: What we need is the vision to look into the future for a method of separating those members of society who are not capable of functioning within our society, without succumbing to the forces of anger and animality that lie so near the surface of our civilized veneer.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that this House get out of the business of killing and into the business of co-operating to find workable alternatives to protect our society. I do not have the answer, but I believe there is an answer to our dilemma. As a grade 7 student in Vancouver put it with instinctive wisdom:
It's a tough decision to make because you are not dealing with potatoes or carrots, you are dealing with a man's life. You are dealing with a person's life, and that is why it is a hard decision.
It may take time, but meanwhile we can find comfort and solace in the belief that we will, with a deep convic-

tion in the worth of man, raise him yet another step on the evolutionary ladder to the heights at which he can say with conviction: It is wrong to use society's laws as a licence to kill.


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister oi Justice):: Today we are talking about abolishing or retaining capital punishment but I must say that I would have liked it better if we had started with a debate on the causes of crime before discussing its punishment.
A lenghty debate on the means to bring about a genuine reform to the whole society, to its judiciary system, its penitentiary system, its rehabilitation system for those on the fringe of society, would have been still more meaningful than the one we are having today.
If genuine and efficient means of rehabilitation and, most of all, crime prevention could be guaranteed and provided to the society, it would mean that we would have to establish throughout the country adequate rehabilitation programs because I would agree with the hon. Cyrille Vaillancourt who said that there is no use in trying to rehabilitate those on the fringe of society if, at the same time, they are taught to do wrong.
We are now worried about the life of the murderer, but not about the causes which led him to commit a crime.
When criminals are jailed, are studies made of their life and their past to find out about the reasons why they got there?
Since there is little certainty that abolishing the death penalty would be beneficial to our society, which is responsible for the protection of the community, and in view of the fact that most citizens of my constituency are in favour of the death penalty, I cannot vote in favour of the bill now under study.
Abolitionists say that there is some danger of condemning innocent people. If it can be proven that judicial errors were committed in the past, it is not the penalty that should be changed, but the judicial proceedings on evidence and doubt.
Even though governments throughout the world seem to be moving towards abolition of the death penalty, they do not do so with the support of the majority of the people. The most recent Gallup poll in Canada, published in February, 1972, showed that almost two thirds of Canadians want the death penalty to be reinstated, after the five-year trial period, in the case of murder.
If it is true that we represent our electors in the House, I think that it is logical to vote on this bill, in accordance with the wishes of most of them. Some members regularly speak in favour of retaining the death penalty and at the same time, some citizens would like other crimes such as kidnapping, rape and drug traffic be also liable to death penalty. Public opinion remains inexorably in favour thereof; most people, especially police officers and prison guards, feel it is effective; therefore, that view deserves to be upheld. It would almost be impossible to find another punishment to be substituted for the death penalty; even long-term imprisonment is not sufficient and the custom of an early parole makes it less effective.
i
February 20, 1973

On the other hand, life imprisonment which, in my opinion, is more cruel than death, leaves no hope to the criminal and does not lead him to repent as does the prospect of an immediate death penalty.
And if one does not think sufficient the reason that public opinion in Canada is definitely in favour of capital punishment and that it should not be abolished against the will of the majority of Canadians, let us consider that the law enforcement authorities are of the opinion that death penalty is an effective deterrent against murder, particularly since it deters professional criminals from procuring weapons and committing acts of violence.
In a country such as Canada, which is young and in full development, where the people are a mixture of several nationalities, there is a greater need for a deterrent such as capital punishment than in some other countries, in Western Europe, for instance, which have been constituted over a longer period of time and in a much more homogenous way in terms of race, language, religion and mentality. The incidence of murder and the proportion of premeditated homicides are higher in the United States and Canada than in western Europe. The abolishment of capital punishment would therefore involve a greater risk in the United States and in Canada than in Western Europe; it would result in a recurrence or an increase of crimes of violence. Furthermore, those who resort to violence are predominantly professional criminals for whom capital punishment is a more effective deterrent than mere detention, to which they are already accustomed and which they tend to consider as a professional hazard.
The Royal Commission of Inquiry stresses the fact that any world history teaches us that the threat of imminent death is the most effective deterrent there is. Death is death and there is no better description of the terror it inspires. When capital punishment really exists, would-be killers has little or no conception of his changes of not ending his life by the executioner's hand. Capital punishment therefore retains its deterrent effect. When homicide is committed, it is evident that the deterrent effect of capital punishment failed, but that does not mean it did not prevent many others from committing a homicide. When a murder is premeditated, it is not logical to suppose that its author would ordinarily have thought of the danger of getting caught and its consequences.
Most statistics that do not usually show up the death penalty as a deterrent are gathered by abolitionists. In other words, their figures are not compiled with a view to drawing a conclusion; they are gathered instead to confirm a conclusion already arrived at through moral, philosophical or even intuitive reasoning. Statistics lend themselves to various interpretations: they are doubtful and misleading. It is next to impossible to make useful comparisons between countries, because of the differences in legal definitions of crimes, government department and court customs, political, economic and social conditions.
That is why, instead of suggesting the abolition of the death penalty for the next five years, I would suggest on the contrary that the House agree to vote its reinstatement for the next five years.
That way, we would be in a position to get the comparative statistics we need to discuss coherently either a per-
Capital Punishment
manent abolition or permanent reinstatement of the death penalty.
We would then have available the data required to compare the last five years to the forthcoming five, and such a comparison would indicate clearly whether or not capital punishment has a deterrent effect on criminals.
Of course, I would suggest that alternative only if the House were unwilling to vote in favour of permanent reinstatement of the death penalty.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, in view of the debate that has preceded me on the subject of capital punishment, I find it difficult to advance any arguments which have not been previously articulated. Thus portions of my address may sound repetitious and familiar. None the less, as the elected representative for Winnipeg South Centre I feel it is my responsibility to express the feelings of my constituents on this very important matter.
Like all other hon. members, I have received great quantities of mail with regard to the issue of capital punishment. While letters have been written espousing the abolitionist position, the great majority of my correspondence, 80 per cent in fact, has come from those within my riding who advocate the retention of the death penalty for murder in Canada. I believe their biases are similar to those held by the majority of Canadians. As such, the death penalty for murder should be reinstated. Personally, I favour the retention of capital punishment. However, I would prefer to see some flexibility incorporated in any amendments to the Criminal Code.
The arguments offered by my constituents for retention of capital punishment are similar to those put forth by most Canadians. People make reference to the Bible, to statistics and to the deterrent effect of a death penalty. Even though the Bible is contradictory on the subject and says "thou shalt not kill," many quote what they see as a biblical axiom, an "eye for an eye". The Bible says that society has the right to put a murderer to death. Numerous people in my riding believe that the current government, which is society in this case, is fulfilling neither its moral obligation to its people nor its Christian obligation to God.
The crime rate is rising in Canada, and while statistics prove little or nothing most people believe that abolition of capital punishment would, among other things, only aid and abet organized crime in its current expansion into Canada. People are afraid. They are afraid of being mugged, robbed and beaten. We as politicians have all witnessed this fear. During an election people are afraid to open their doors to us and our fellow campaigners. They peek out from behind closed doors, bolted with chains.


William Arnold Peters: Only when Conservatives call. It does not happen with the NDP.


A. Daniel McKenzie: They would not even open the door then. Policemen are afraid. So are prison guards. What protection do they have, or have they had during the past five

February 20, 1973
Capital Punishment
years when the government has granted clemency in every capital case? The hired syndicate gangsters and others who commit premeditated murders have had little to fear since 1967 and would be even less afraid with abolition. The death penalty prevents a criminal from repeating his offence. Hanging may not deter murderers, but it sure gets rid of them.
Several years ago in Winnipeg a man named Westgate murdered a young secretary in a local hotel. Sentenced to life imprisonment at the Stony Mountain penitentiary, Westgate was a model prisoner. He earned a free pass or leave to go to Winnipeg, whereupon he proceeded to murder another girl in the same hotel. He repeated his offence. I could cite numerous other instances where murderers have repeated their crime, but this is unnecessary. The point is clear. Most people believe that it is time the government gave some thought to the innocent victims and their families.
Abolitionists point to studies showing that a halt in executions leads to no increase in capital crimes, that the death penalty has not been proven to have a deterrent effect. Such studies include all murders, a great percentage of which result from disputes between persons who know each other, and this percentage probably cannot be deterred by penalties of any kind. However, a great many people are sure that hold-up murders and similar crimes can be reduced in number by the fear of death, particularly if that death is imposed quickly rather than after years of legal delays. To determine whether a murder was premeditated or impulsive is impossible. That is why people believe there must be a uniform penalty applicable to all murderers.
While I am in favour of the capital penalty, I disapprove of the rigid inflexibility of a uniform penalty for all murderers. Every person is different. So is every murder. This is to be considered in any future legislation. There must be clearly defined maximum and minimum penalties for murder, dependent upon the nature of the crime. Obviously, a premeditated murder by a hired killer deserves more severe punishment than the impulsive murder committed by a drunk in a fit of wild anger. Judges must be empowered to levy sentences which fit the particular crime. It is only through legislation incorporating such flexibility that any law on capital punishment can be said to be just.
In conclusion, my constituents definitely favour capital punishment for murder. I feel likewise, but would like to see a greater degree of pjj^ncy injected into any legislation. It is not capital punishment that is barbaric, but murder. Capital punishment seeks retribution, and not vengeance as some have implied. This retribution is what my constituents demand. I feel that their desire is characteristic of the majority of Canadians. Because of this fact I think it is necessary for parliament to retain the death penalty for murder in Canada.


Mr. H. T. Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak either in favour of the death penalty or for abolition. I am, however, hoping that this bill passes second reading so that in committee it can be amended as necessary and the majority result returned to this House

for final decision. My own opinion is best expressed by an extract from an editorial in the News and Chronical which reads as follows:
Is it Ottawa's ... duty to see that we do what is right, or at least what they think is right, whether we want to or not... or is it their responsibility as our elected representatives to ensure that the decisions and wants of the majority are respected?
While the abolitionists . .. may argue over the morality or even the effectiveness of the death penalty, neither side seems to have questioned the validity of a number of polls that have been conducted and show quite clearly that the majority of Canadians are in favour of capital punishment.
-majority of Canadians are convinced that dangling a man from the end of a short rope is a deterrent to crime or justice well-served or an effective protection for society-
... it is the responsibility of those who are opposed to capital punishment to persuade and convince enough other Canadians to their way of thinking to form a majority.
But is it the right of our members of parliament to enforce what is now a minority opinion down the majority's collective necks?
-when the vote comes in Ottawa let it reflect the will of the majority of Canadians.
That poses the question: what is the will of the majority? Like other members of this House, I have received a large number of letters expressing all points of view and I wonder whether the several hundred letters I have received are really representative of the majority opinion of my constituents. Some of the opinions expressed are as follows:
We are shocked at the increase in crime and feel that the authorities must help the police, who badly need the death penalty restored.
Another opinion is:
I wish to urge you to vote in favour of the bill being presented to the House on capital punishment. This legislation was a positive step forward in our system of justice-a step toward civilization. Please do not let us slip back to legal murder.
Another opinion is:
We seem to be in times that steadily are becoming more lawless and therefore further relaxation of penalties would not be advisable.
This is another opinion:
Why should we not punish criminals with a Canadian "Siberia" in the north, building settlements, railways, airports, pipelines?

Those who favour capital punishment do not do so for the fun of it, or for the sake of justice; they all believe that the government is much too soft and indifferent towards law-abiding citizens.
A lawyer who is a friend of mine had this to say to me:
Among the criteria for sentencing, the example factor should be considered-if punishment is not severe enough, there is the risk of a relapse.
It is difficult to determine which punishment would be best suited in each individual case.
In our permissive society, however, this penalty seems the most adequate punishment.
It would be advisable to suggest to the capital punishment abolitionists that they should oppose wars.
Surely the murderer does not share the opinion of those who want the death penalty to be maintained.
We often hear: it is better to let a criminal go free than to hang an innocent.
February 20, 1973

However, before a convicted person is condemned, there are four stages to go through before the final decision is made.
1)	Trial before jury: 12 citizen jurors.
2)	Trial before the Court of Queen's Bench: 5 judges.
3)	Trial before the Supreme Court: 9 judges.
4)	Mercy request to Cabinet: 30 ministers.
It should therefore be realized that 56 persons have to have their say before the accused is condemned to death.
Perhaps sentences could be commuted if we knew for sure that the convicts would not be paroled too soon.
I think that the Parole Board legislation is adequate but they are not properly enforced. Paroled convicts are not properly supervised by our probation officers.
It has never been, and it will never be proven that a criminal was deterred from committing murder by the death penalty.
This was a lawyer's opinion.

On a number of occasions during this debate hon. members have quoted from the Bible. Let me refer to another opinion as follows:
When Noah stepped out of the ark God changed some of the rules of society. First he added animal meat to man's permissible diet but forbad the eating of blood. Then he instituted capital punishment:
"And surely your blood of your lives will I require; at the hand of every beast will I require it, and at the hand of man; at the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man. Who so sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made He man. Genesis 9:5-6.
Thus the institution of capital punishment was based on the doctrine of creation. And the sanctity of human life was to be protected by making murder a capital offence.
Later we find this statement:
Capital punishment is a command, not an option. Gentile governments have the responsibility to maintain the sanctity of human life. God's command for doing this is: "At the hand of every man's brother will I require the life of man."
Then we find this statement:
Mercy is often in order. But to terminate the use of capital punishment, and to remove it from the law books of the land, whether by courts or by cabinet... or by parliament, is national disobedience to the word of God. And the nation, like the individual, shall reap what it sows.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but it is ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

[Stage Direction]
Hon. ]. A. MacLean (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, on January 15, as recorded at page 269 of Hansard, I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) the following question:
Adjournment Debate
Will the minister be seeking jointly with the provincial ministers of finance means of relieving the tax burden on rural people? I ask this in light of the fact that the number of people employed in agriculture dropped by 31,000 in the recent 12-month period.
It was reasonable for me not to expect a definitive reply on the subject matter of the discussions which I hope the Minister of Finance held with his provincial counterparts until the budget was brought down. Now that the budget has been brought down, I expect I will be told that the problem is solved and I have nothing to be concerned about. Undoubtedly I shall be told this, for two reasons. It will be said that the problem is looked after, first because the government has seen fit to remove, under certain stringent conditions, the capital gains tax on a family farm when a farmer dies and the farm is passed on to a member of his own family. In that connection, I feel the imposition of this tax in the first place was an unwise move. I think its partial removal does not go far enough. I believe a capital gains tax should not apply to a farm when passed from father to son during the life of the father. I do not think a farmer should have to die in order to obtain the benefit from this supposed tax relief.
Second, no doubt I shall be told that the inclusion of municipal taxes imposed for local school purposes in the equalization system will have some resulting benefit to the poorer provinces. This is true, and I welcome this item in the budget. However, I am not satisfied that these two measures alone meet the problem on which I based my question. The second budget proposal I mentioned does not give any relative benefit to a rural or urban area. In his budget speech, the minister spoke of the hard pressed property owners. Perhaps this is the case. Because farmers in the business of agriculture must own a great deal of real estate and, due to the trend over recent decades of larger and larger farms being encouraged under the farm credit system in which all levels of government have indulged in recent years, where large loans have become popular and more liable to be approved than modest loans for modest operations, the trend has been that farms have been getting bigger and bigger. However, it does not follow that their earning capacity has been increasing in proportion to their size.
The farmer finds that his capital investment in land is being taxed more heavily by municipal school boards which base their tax on real estate values chiefly for educational purposes. These taxes must be paid whether or not the farmer is making a profit, and the rate of taxation often bears no relationship to the potential productivity of the land in question from an agricultural point of view.
I recognize this as primarily a provincial responsibility, but there is an urgent need for improvement of the assessment methods used in assessing real estate for tax purposes. Many cases can be cited where farmlands are assessed, and therefore taxed, on values which bear little resemblance to their potential productive possibilities or to their profitability as farms. They are valued because of their potential as land for a subdivision, or in my province quite often because they contain a waterfront with a beach, or something of that sort. This creates a situation where the farmer who has waterfront property is forced to pay a higher rate of tax than one who does not.
I think my time has expired, Mr. Speaker.
[Stage Direction]
February 20, 1973
Adjournment Debate
lTranslation]
Mr. I.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, replying to the question of the hon. member for Malpeque (Mr. MacLean), I would like to remind him that the budget which the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) introduced in this House last night includes many provisions that will help alleviate substantially the tax burden of people in rural areas. Some of these provisions are extended to all Canadians, including those in rural areas, whereas others are intended specifically for rural people.
Among the former is the increase in the basic exemption from $1,500 to $1,600 for single persons and from $2,850 to $3,000 for married couples. I should also mention the reduction of 5 per cent in the basic federal income tax and the provision for a minimum reduction of $100. This provision is particularly important in that it will allow for reductions in federal income tax of up to 100 per cent in the case of low income people. It is estimated that these measures will take 750,000 people off federal income tax lists and I think it is reasonable to assume that a great number of them will precisely be people from rural areas.
Among the measures dealing specifically with people in rural areas one has to mention that which provides that from now on family farms, upon decease of the owner, will be transferred from one generation to the other without being subject to capital gains tax.
Mr. Speaker, when referring to the tax burden of people in rural areas, mention is often made of the heavy land taxes that these people have to support; obviously, this is not a federal responsibility-and I think the hon. member for Malpeque will agree-but one must point out the broadening of the equalization formula proposed in the budget which will ensure that local school taxes on properties are included in the equalization formula.
Since those equalization payments will represent roughly $190 million during the next fiscal year, this means that about 28 per cent of local school taxes levied in certain provinces will be compensated by that amount. I hope substantial benefits will accrue to taxpayers.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to mention that other steps to alleviate the tax burden of people living in rural areas have been proposed; for example, the federal sales tax exemption granted on equipment and machinery purchases for farm production purposes.
In brief, Mr. Speaker, this shows that the federal government looked very seriously into the problem raised by my hon. colleague from Malpeque and proposed measures which will contribute to reduce substantially all those problems.


GRAIN-REPORTED ADVICE BY MINISTER OF AGRICULTURE TO FARMERS ON AMOUNT OF WHEAT THAT SHOULD BE PLANTED
Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, on January 22 I asked the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to clarify a statement which appeared in the press where he was reported to have advised the farmers of western Canada to plant some 30 million acres of
[Mr. MacLean.l
wheat. He subsequently said, and I of course accept his correction, that he was misquoted. At this point, however, I would suggest that the government, in the person of the Minister of Agriculture or the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, should clarify its position in regard to the market outlook and the plantings they are recommending to the grain producers in western Canada.
In a press release dated February 19, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board said that as of March 1 some clear direction in terms of initial prices and recommendations in regard to plantings would be forthcoming. In discussing this matter in the House I said that it would be useful to have these recommendations before the Standing Committee on Agriculture so that they could be properly examined and farmers would know the objectives and be able to study them.
We find now that the United States government has said it is going to bring some 15 million acres into production that would otherwise have been withheld as a stated policy of that government. We know that policies regarding production can change in other countries, which will effect Canadian farmers substantially. It is in these circumstances that I ask the Minister of Agriculture to clarify his position and that of his colleague and to tell us what their aims are.
The minister in charge of the Wheat Board is currently sending out a questionnaire of sorts to farmers in western Canada asking them what type of acreage payments they want, whether they want them to apply to grain, or how they want them to apply and what their intentions are with regard to planting. I do not know whether this questionnaire will clarify or confuse the situation. In a press release of February 17, the minister said that permit holders must weigh heavily the responsibility of possibly causing an overproduction of wheat by deciding upon distribution on a per bushel basis. On one hand he is worrying about an overproduction of wheat, and on the other hand we have had statements indicating that we should be going all out in grain production.
I think farmers might do well to take the advice of Mr. E. K. Turner, president of the Saskatchewan wheat pool, who is reported in the Globe and Mail of January 31 to have said that farmers in western Canada should sow 22 million to 24 million acres of wheat this year in order to meet market commitments, and that about 14 million acres of barley would be needed. Mr. Turner told a pool meeting in Saskatoon that we would probably need that much barley and about 31 million acres of rapeseed.
If these two ministers would hold a meeting with some of the farm leaders in western Canada, I think they might receive very good advice. In turn, the farmers would be given better direction than is the case now. I therefore ask the Minister of Agriculture if he will clarify the position of the government so that the farmers may know clearly its assessment of the present market potential and what assistance they can expect in terms of initial prices and guarantees of delivery for grain production in the coming year.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the hon. member's question may I repeat, as I said originally, that at no time did I say there
February 20, 1973

should be produced 30 million acres of wheat. I think the hon. member accepted what I said. I say that to clarify the situation. The mention of 30 million acres arose from the newspaper man quoting a member of the Saskatchewan wheat pool who expressed the fear that farmers in western Canada might produce 30 million acres of wheat.
When the newsman spoke to me he said that farm leaders in western Canada had intimated that they would produce 30 million acres of wheat this year. I said at that time that I had never suggested this. I had suggested that farmers should produce all kinds of grain; I included farmers producing grains in all parts of Canada, not just those of the west. A tremendous amount of grain is produced in western Canada. We know that it is possible to increase the production of grain with present cultivated acreage. By using weed control and fertilizers we can increase production by at least 25 per cent in one year. I might inform the hon. member that I met with fertilizer suppliers from across Canada, particularly western Canada, earlier this year and they told me that farmers are buying fertilizer and storing it and preparing for exactly what the hon. member suggested.
May I refer to one or two other matters. We talk about the United States government taking acreage out of land banks and putting it into production this year. According to my information, that government is asking farmers not to produce that much more wheat; they want to increase the production of protein in that country. They want greater soybean production and are trying to encourage farmers to produce additional millions of acres of soybean. We know what has happened to Canada because of lack of proteins for animal feeds. These feeds are very expensive. As well, in western Canada we are still asking farmers to stay in livestock production and even to increase it. We are continuing our grassland incentive program, hoping that farmers will participate in it because we know how important it is.
May I inform the hon. member, if he is not aware of this, that I met practically every farm leader in western Canada before the end of December and asked them the very questions that the hon. member is now suggesting I should ask. At that time the farm leaders made suggestions, although not as many as were made after the erroneous report about 30 million acres was circulated. After that we heard many more expressions of opinion. Perhaps that erroneous report was not so bad in its effect because we found out what people were thinking. To conclude, I have a lot of confidence in the farmers of Canada. They know what they want to do. They are not indentured to anybody, and they know as much as anybody about what can be done. They are the producers of these products.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-OPPOSITION OF CANADIAN TEACHERS FEDERATION TO TRANSFER OF RIGHTS TO FILM VIDEOTAPE TO PRIVATE COMPANY
Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, to give some background to the question I wish to discuss tonight, may I refer briefly to an extract of a brief presented by the Canadian Teachers Federation to the Prime
Adjournment Debate
Minister (Mr. Trudeau), dated January 5, 1973. Part of the brief reads:
(iii) That adequate arrangements be made for the full and free use in Canadian schools, for educational purposes, of programs developed with support from public funds under federal control.
The brief continues:
In connection with point (iii) we note with deep dismay that the exclusive rights to post-broadcast distribution of CBC materials are in private hands. In effect, the availability of such materials to Canadian schools is subject to the profit interests of a subsidiary of an American company which is itself a major producer of scholastic materials-
Departing from the text, the subsidiary is Visual Education Centre Limited of Toronto which is thought to be a subsidiary of Encyclopedia Britannica, an American company. The brief continues:
-and which is in competition with the CBC and other producers for sales in a limited market.
That is the Canadian market.
We do not believe that it is proper that the program materials produced by CBC, by a considerable expenditure of public moneys, should be placed in the hands of a commercial rival for post-broadcast distribution on a private profit basis.
It makes the distinction between that which has been produced by public funds and the material used over CBC obtained on contract, through agreement with private film makers or imported from abroad. It is not concerned with that particular material.
We recognize that problems of copyright arise in relation to the post-broadcast use of radio and television materials, and we shall address appropriate requests to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
That paragraph is not exactly central to the point I wish to discuss this evening. It is a copyright matter, but it is also part of the problem. This action of the CBC has caused some concern among teachers and school districts. I believe the contracts have run for about two years. I wish to quote briefly from a letter addressed to the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). It is from the Campbell River school district in his constituency. The co-ordinator of instructional resources makes the following points:
(1)	We object to the fact that CBC produces programs with our tax dollar, then sells these programs to a private company who resells them to us.
(2)	We object to the fact that even those CBC programs not purchased by Visual Education Centre Ltd. are being restricted by this same company.
(3)	We object to the fact that televised information from our leaders, in all aspects of Canadian life, as being restricted in its use for our students.
What they are saying involves a bit of the copyright question because for educational purposes it is sometimes necessary to delay broadcasts for rebroadcast at a more convenient time. This is a copyright matter. I repeat that I am not dealing with this at the moment; nevertheless a definite problem exists there.
In the couple of minutes remaining I wish to give a bit of information about this particular arrangement with the CBC and Visual Education Centre. It expires in 1974. What does the contract do? It authorizes Visual Education

February 20, 1973
Adjournment Debate
Centre to distribute educational films. This company makes prints and sells them. By its contract it is also given the right to exploit, sell, market or peddle authorized CBC films. In return, the CBC receives a percentage of the gross sales. It may be that the CBC feels schools are concerned about the fact they cannot videotape copies of CBC educational material. That requires action under the Copyright Act. Nevertheless, there is a very limited market here for Canadian production and the schools of our country, supported as they are by public funds in the same way as the CBC, should have the first crack at access to this material without having to make the payment prescribed by the contract which the CBC has concluded with Visual Education Centre.
I have, I believe, less than a minute left and in this time I wish to make certain recommendations. Though the cabinet may not meet, as requested, with the Canadian Teachers Federation to discuss this question, the minister should certainly do so and use his good offices to discourage the CBC from continuing this private distribution contract for the reasons I have mentioned, and for others which will be adduced by the CTF. Second, the CBC material should be distributed through provincial audiovisual services. Such services exist in every province. Thus, it could be carried out simply. Alternatively, we should set up a Crown distributing system. I believe the former secretary of state at one time suggested such a thing. I am anxious, now, to hear what the parliamentary secretary has to read to me from his prepared statement.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the laws or rules allow the hon. member asking a question to have seven minutes but leave only three minutes to answer, so I cannot give a complete answer concerning the point made by my hon. friend.
But if I refer to Hansard I see that my hon. friend for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) asked the minister whether he intended to meet the representatives of the Canadian Teachers Federation.
In this connection, I would like to point out that this association submitted a brief to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on January 12. Through its president, the federation asked for a meeting with officials of all departments mentioned in its brief, namely External Affairs, Secretary of State, Communications, Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Manpower and Immigration, National Health and Welfare, Finance and National Revenue.
It was then understood that the Secretary of State (Mr. Faulkner) would get in touch with Mr. Sparkes, the president of the federation, in order to set a meeting for the discussion of the brief. That meeting is scheduled for the beginning of next month; March 12 has been suggested but it has not been confirmed yet.
As for the brief, I would like to refer my hon. friend to a part of the introduction of the brief where it is mentioned expressly that the federation recognizes that the provincial governments have the authority to legislate on education. This being said, my hon. friend is well aware of the provincial jurisdiction in that area and he will understand that before making statements, the submission made by the federation, which will get special attention, will have to be examined in detail.
I also refer my hon. friend to the brief where it is said that teachers associations must try to maintain a constant dialogue with their government so that they agree, in view of the anticipated social changes. This is an excellent statement, the contents of which we support and my hon. friend and other hon. members may be assured that the members of the federation and its officials will be welcomed in a very friendly way. With them and with my hon. friend's co-operation, we shall try to examine the various proposals and to find a solution in keeping with the circumstances.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

Wednesday. February 21, 1973