1974-10-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
THE LATE J. G. MacKAY

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I regret to have to inform the House of the death of the Lieutenant Governor of Prince Edward Island, the Hon. J. G. MacKay.
Mr. MacKay had been Lieutenant Governor of Prince Edward Island for just over five years, having been sworn to that office on October 6, 1969. He had been looking forward to release from his responsibilities early in the new year and it is particularly sad that he should not have been able to enjoy the well-earned retirement for which he was undoubtedly planning.
Mr. MacKay had been active in the life and public affairs of Prince Edward Island for many years. He was first elected, by acclamation, to the Legislative Assembly of the province in 1949. He was re-elected four times thereafter. He entered the cabinet of the province as minister without portfolio in 1952 and was minister of public works and highways from 1955 to 1959. In many roles he rendered a distinguished service to the life of the province and the community in which he lived. I am sure all hon. members would wish that the sympathy of this House be extended through you, Mr. Speaker, to Mrs. MacKay and the members of her family.
Hon. members who were here in 1966 at the time of the death of the Hon. Paul Comtois, then Lieutenant Governor of Quebec, may recall that the death of a lieutenant governor in office presents a constitutional problem. There is no provision in the British North America Act under which an administrator may act during a vacancy in the office of lieutenant governor. To permit the operations of government to proceed, it will be necessary to advance the appointment that had been planned for the retirement of Mr. MacKay from his office. I mention this so that members of the House and the public may understand the reasons for what might otherwise appear to be unseemly haste in filling the office that has been left vacant so suddenly.


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak for all four members of parliament from Prince Edward Island when I say that we were all very saddened to learn of the passing of the much beloved representative
of the Queen in our province. In this post, as in his many positions of responsibility throughout a long and exam-plary life, his record is one of cheerful and untiring service.
The late J. George MacKay was a life-long resident of my constituency. I express my sympathy to his many friends and neighbours, whom I have the honour to represent. On their behalf, and on behalf of all Prince Edward Islanders, I wish to extend to his widow and family and to his executive council, our sincere sympathy in their great loss.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic Party members of parliament, I wish to join in extending our sympathy to Mrs. MacKay and her family on this sad occasion.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, most willingly I make mine the eulogy just voiced by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), who informed us of the untimely death of the Lieutenant Governor of Prince Edward Island. Very briefly his life can thus be summed up: his lamp has burnt out. He is beginning to see his Creator. I am convinced that he has believed and that now he sees everlastingly.


CLEAN WATER ACT
Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-359, relating to the control and management of the water resources of Canada.


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

Mitchell William Sharp: for leave to introduce Bill C-28, to amend the Animal Contagious Diseases Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
October 21, 1974
Order Paper Questions

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-29, respecting Canadian business corporations.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the name and job designation of the specific individual who authorized publication of the booklet Canada's New Capital-La Nouvelle Capitate du Canada?
2.	How many copies of this booklet were printed and what was the total cost?
3.	What is the specific name, job designation and salary of the individual, or individuals if more than one, who wrote the material appearing on page one of this booklet that states in effect that Ottawa is no longer the capital of Canada and what is the specific identity of the government official approving publication of such statements?
4.	Have all copies of this booklet been recalled and destroyed and, if not, for what reason?
5.	Is it now planned to print a further booklet making clear that Ottawa is still the capital of Canada and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am informed by the National Capital Commission as follows: 1 and 3. All publications of the National Capital Commission are published under the responsibility of the Chairman of the Commission.
2. 20,000 copies at an estimated gross cost of $18,000.
4.	It has not been thought necessary to,recall any.
5.	No. A reading of the complete publication makes it clear that there is no conflict with the provisions of Section 16 of the BN A Act which states that: "until the Sovereign otherwise directs the Seat of Government in Canada shall be Ottawa".


Mr. Allard: Does the government subsidize the Canadian Council on Consumerism and, if so (a) for how many years (b) through what department (c) what amounts were granted in 1971, 1972 and 1973 (d) did the government make a grant as capital for the Council at the time it was created or at some later stage of its development?


André Ouellet: The government provides funds, not a subsidy to the Canadian Consumer Council, an advisory council appointed by Order-in-Council to advise the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs pursuant to section 7 of the Consumer and Corporate Affairs Act. (a) Funds have been provided for six years; (b) Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs; (c) Expenditures were: 1971-72, $99,000; 1972-73, $154,000; 1973-74, $84,610; (d) No, the government did not make a grant as capital; it provided funds to meet its operating expenses through the usual budgetary procedures.
Note: The name in English is Canadian Consumer Council.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What were the names, positions and salary ranges of persons in the Public Service Commission who were sent on full time courses of a duration of more than one year during 1970?
2.	What were the purposes and anticipated lengths of such courses?
3.	What were the additional costs of such courses over and above the salaries of the individuals concerned?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. No employees of the Public Service Commission were sent on full time courses of a duration of more than one year during 1970.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What were the names, positions and salary ranges of persons in the Public Service Commission who were sent on full time courses of a duration of more than one year during 1971?
2.	What were the purposes and anticipated lengths of such courses?
3.	What were the additional costs of such courses over and above the salaries of the individuals concerned?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. No employees of the Public Service Commission were sent on full time courses of a duration of more than one year during 1971.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What were the names, positions and salary ranges of persons in the Public Service Commission who were sent on full time courses of a duration of more than one year during 1972?
2.	What were the purposes and anticipated lengths of such courses?
October 21, 1974

3.	What were the additional costs of such courses over and above the salaries of the individuals concerned?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: 1. Michel Desjardins, Executive Assistant to the Chairman, salary range of $16,650-$19,919.
2.	A 16 month course leading to a Master's Degree in Public Administration at L'Ecole Nationale d'administra-tion publique in Quebec City.
3.	Registration, School fees and other expenses, $817.50; Removal expenses, $1,164.93; Travelling and Transportation expenses, $4,083.40.


Mr. Herbert: How many public servants in the Department of Supply and Services and the Receiver General for Canada received T4 slips for 1973 showing gross remuneration in excess of (a) $20,000 (b) $30,000 (c) $40,000?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: (a) 457; (b) 17; (c) 3.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): How many, and what species of, wild animals were killed by (a) trains (b) automobiles (c) aircraft (d) fatigue as a result of deep snow (e) other non-natural causes in the winter of 1973-74 in (i) Jasper National Park (ii) Banff National Park (iii) Waterton National Park (iv) Yoho National Park?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: (i) Jasper National	(a) Park	(b)	(c)	(d)	(e)Grizzly bear	1	1	-	-	1Black l>ear	-	;;	-	_	5Beaver	1	1	-	-	Coyote	1	3	-	-	iMule Deer	11	26	-	12	4Whitetail deer	-	1	-	-	-Elk	32	28	-	20	6Fox	-	1	-	-	-Goat	-	-	-	2Golden Eagle	1	-	M oose	9	10	-	10	8Muskrat	1	-	-	-	-Bighorn Sheep	21	15	-	5	5Wolf	
(ii) Banff National	1 I'nrk	Coyote	-	4	-	-	-Mule Deer	-	5	-	-	-Elk	29	15	-	-	-M oose	5	3	-	-	Sheep	-	()	-	-	-
Order Paper Questions
(iii) Waterton Lakes Black Bear	National Park - 1	1Mule Deer	- 7	-	50	1Whitetail Deer..	1	5	1Elk	- -	-	30	7Moose	- -	-	-	1Bighorn Sheep	- -	-	20	-(iv) Yoho Nat ional Elk	Park 7 5	3Deer	4 (i	-	-	-Moose	2 	-	-	-


Mr. Herbert: Will legislation be introduced to correct the injustice that a woman loses her Canadian citizenship if she marries in Canada a citizen of another country yet a man would not lose his citizenship in similar circumstances?


James Hugh Faulkner: A woman who marries in Canada a citizen of another country does not lose her Canadian citizenship.


Mr. Fairweather: Since the Federal Court Act was assented to on December 3, 1970, how many certificates have been issued in each of the categories specified in Clause 41 (2) as being injurious to international relations, national defence or security, or to federal-provincial relations or that it would disclose a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council of Canada?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: One, in category of international relations and national security.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many teachers were employed by the Indian Affairs Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in the year 1971-72?
2.	Of this number, how many of the teachers were in the classification of (a) teacher aide or unqualified teacher who had no professional teacher training (b) the sub-level who had only Junior Matriculation education and one year of teacher education (c) level 1 who had Senior Matriculation and one year of teacher education (d) level 2 who had Senior Matriculation and two years of teacher education (e) level 3 who had Senior Matriculation and three years of teacher education (f) level 4 who had Senior Matriculation and four years of teacher education (g) level 5 who had Senior Matriculation and five years of teacher education (h) level 6 who had Senior Matriculation and six years of teacher education?


Iona Campagnolo: 1. 1673
2. (a) 176; (b) 51; (c) 413; (d) 354; (e) 213; (f) 304; (g) 108; (h) 54.

October 21, 1974
Oral Questions


Mr. Herbert: Do any uncertainties and resulting morale problems exist at Ste. Anne de Bellevue Military Hospital deriving from the contemplated transfer of the hospital to provincial control and, if so, can the Minister of Veterans Affairs advise the status of any discussions taking place with the provincial government, the estimated date of transfer and what measures, if any, will be taken to protect the security, seniority and salary of the employee?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Meetings held to date with the government of the Province of Quebec regarding possible transfer of the Ste. Anne de Bellevue Hospital have been exploratory and preliminary, and no firm arrangements have been made on any point. The hospital staff is being kept fully informed and has been assured that if transfer should be negotiated, all regular employees would have security of employment with the new management, and that none would suffer any reduction in salary or any shrinkage of total benefits at the time of transfer.
[DOT] < 0000)


Mr. Howie: 1.	Has any study been made or consideration given to the establishment of a Canadian Merchant Marine?
2.	What are the benefits of such a service to Canadian exporters, importers, potential employees on vessels and shipbuilding companies and employees?
3.	What are the estimated capital costs of such a service in the initial stage of development?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. A
study is being made by the Ministry of Transport of all aspects of a possible international shipping policy for Canada. This includes examination of the possibility of establishing a Canadian Deep Sea Merchant Marine.
2.	Until such time as the study is completed and reviewed, it is not possible to evaluate the benefits of such a service.
3.	These cannot be estimated at this time.



ORAL QUESTIONS


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: question to the Acting Prime Minister who is, I am sure, very aware of the violent storm which hit Nova Scotia over the weekend. Has the federal government taken any special measures to aid the people of the province who have suffered damage or who are threatened with damage as a result of the storm?


Mitchell William Sharp: The minister from Prince Edward Island and some of the other ministers have been held up as a result of this storm. We are awaiting their return before considering the question just raised by the Leader of the Opposition. In any event, we have not yet received any request for help from the government of Prince Edward Island.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am always anxious to see the people of Prince Edward Island helped as well, but my question related to the people of Nova Scotia.


Mr. Muir:: There is a more important island down there-Cape Breton.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether he has taken any steps to inform himself as to the dangers the storm has created for the people of Nova Scotia and, also, whether there have been any preliminary discussions originating with the government of Nova Scotia with regard to financial relief for those who have been injured or who will be injured.


Mitchell William Sharp: Before I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance to deal with the question the hon. gentleman has just asked, perhaps I should apologize-I was thinking about the minister from Prince Edward Island. He will be reporting on conditions in the Maritime provinces generally. We have not as yet received any requests from the other governments.


Robert Muir: There is a minister from Cape Breton, too.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The national emergency planning establishment is keeping the federal government advised of the situation almost on an hourly basis. It is anticipated that the provinces affected may seek financial assistance and if they do there are established procedures laid down. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned Nova Scotia. The base figure for that province is $800,000 and guidelines are laid down for sharing over and above that figure. The items in respect of which compensation can be paid are spelled out fairly clearly.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Can the parliamentary secretary tell us whether there is any present danger to residents of particular communities in Nova Scotia? For instance, in Cumberland County to the best of my knowledge supplies of electricity have been cut off for close to 24 hours and indications are that electricity will not be restored for at least another 24 hours. Water supplies have been cut off for Springhill and Amherst and there is real concern for the ability of people to maintain themselves in present circumstances. What emergency steps are being taken to ensure the safety and wellbeing of these residents?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Well, first, with respect to institutions, it was felt there was no requirement to evacuate major institutions due to the storm. Communication is being maintained wherever possible. I might say that in addition to reports which have already appeared in the press about one farmer being killed when a barn collapsed, we have reports of five deaths, including those of four fishermen who are presumed drowned. Both the federal and the
October 21, 1974

Oral Questions
provincial governments are on top of this situation and endeavouring to take care of the type of emergency to which the hon. member has referred.


Robert Muir: May I address a question to the Acting Prime Minister based on the fact that Cape Breton Island bore the brunt of this storm with the result that many families are now without homes and are being housed in high schools and elsewhere? Is there an arrangement whereby on the site examination can take place by federal officials, in co-operation with the provincial authorities, to ascertain whether much needed financial assistance can be provided as quickly as possible, so it will not be a period of months before assistance is given?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance has pointed out, there is a formula under which the federal government comes to the aid of communities where the cost is in excess of a certain amount for each province. I can assure the House that so far as the federal government is concerned we will act as promptly as possible, having in mind the primary responsibility of the province.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In Saturday's Ottawa Citizen there is an advertisement by United Aircraft Corporation, which also appeared in other newspapers across Canada on the same date, in which the corporation stated that it has received some $70 million in aid from the Canadian government. That is stated in the opening sentence of the second paragraph. In the immediately following sentence the advertisement states that "most of our federal contracts call for us to make repayments to the government".
In view of the fact that the $70 million funds referred to are exclusively grants, and in view of the statement by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce before a committee last Tuesday in which he referred to the same sums of money as being grants, not loans, would the minister investigate the ad that I have just referred to for misleading advertising purposes?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a matter of interpretation. I do not object to asking my officers to ascertain whether there is a violation in this case.


INCOME TAX
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Would the Acting Prime Minister inform the House whether or not this kind of advertising, essentially political in nature, is a deductible tax item for this corporation-that is to say, that it is paid for by the people of Canada? If that is the case, would the government take steps to change the tax law of Canada in this respect?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will see that this question is brought to the attention of the Minister of National Revenue who is responsible for the administration of the tax laws.


COMMUNICATIONS
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
Since the Quebec Telephone labour conflict is already many weeks old and consequently slowing down the economy of eastern Quebec, which is already faced with a very high rate of unemployment, and considering that this company is now under the wing of an American company, can the minister tell the House whether he has spoken with the Quebec Ministers of Communications and Labour with a view to finding an equitable solution and putting an end to the conflict as soon as possible?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize with the hon. member that the situation is very distressing for an area which does not need special difficulties in view of its permanent economic problems. However, the hon. member must be aware that the company falls under provincial jurisdiction, not only where labour relations are concerned but also from the point of view of telephony.
I have had no contacts with my opposite number in Quebec, nor with the Quebec Minister of Labour, but I am sure if they felt our Department of Communications could be of any help to them we would be only too happy to assist them in their efforts towards a solution to the conflict.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
In view of the seriousness of the situation, would the minister indicate whether he is prepared to order an inquiry into the dealings of the multinational General Telephone and Electronics Company, which controls Quebec Telephone, in order to throw more light for the public on
550

October 21, 1974
Oral Questions
the real causes of that deplorable conflict and solve it as soon as possible?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I will look into the question.


MONTREAL OLYMPICS, 1976-AMOUNT OF REVENUE ANTICIPATED FROM SALE OF COINS-PAYMENT OF COMMISSION OR DISCOUNT
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Postmaster General has given the Chair an indication of his intention to reply to a question which was asked one day last week.


FINANCE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that it is generally recognized that one of the most important factors in international inflation is the operation of the European Common Market, what instructions are given to Canadian commercial banks through the Bank of Canada and the department about plans for operating in that market?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as notice and ask my colleague the Minister of Finance to answer it as soon as he returns.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York-Simcoe asked a series of questions about Olympic coins, one of which I believe was based on an interim report I tabled pointing out the anticipated sales in the amount of $644 million under this project. The hon. gentleman is accurate in stating that the law limits the face value of coins sold to $450 million. The difference between the $450 million and $644 million can be attributed to the increased demand or unexpected demand for premium sets, including the packaging, and the fact that most are being sold at a premium rather than at face value.


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister to elaborate in two respects. First of all, he gave an explanation as to the difference between the $600 million some odd figure and the $450 million face value. I should like him to relate that to the report that is already in hand which indicates there is only a 5 per cent premium mark-up on the coins sold to March 31 of this year compared with a 43 per cent mark-up in the projected figures. The second and most interesting point on which I should like him to comment is this, has he in fact satisfied himself that there has been no commission, discount or other advantage paid by COJO or anybody else in respect of the sale of the coinage to the distributors?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, COJO has nothing to do with this program. I can assure the House that there is absolutely no distributor, no outlet, no chartered bank and no individual who is able to obtain Olympic coins at any discount whatever from face value. The private distributors, the people around the world who specialize in coins, do get a discount between the selling price and the $5 value coin. For instance, they may be sold at $7.50, so the price would be somewhere between $5 and $7.50. Under no circumstances are we permitted to give a discount on the $5 face value and respect the law. I assure the House and the hon. gentleman that the brokerage price or discount firms are permitted relates to their share of the premium rather than any discount on face value.


OIL-GOVERNMENT INTENTIONS CONCERNING EXPORT TAX-POSSIBLE LOSS OF UNITED STATES MARKET
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the recent cutbacks in United States demands for Canadian oil due to our oil becoming increasingly less competitive in the United States market, and in view of the expected appearance on the United States market in the near future of newly discovered oil from Mexico, is it the intention of the government to continue export taxes on Canadian oil at the present level?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be aware that the government indicated it would be prepared, at least in relation to heavy oil, to exercise the remission procedure under the Financial Administration Act, commencing on November 1, for the remission of some of the taxes paid on heavy oil. The reduction in the export price, which in due course would determine the reduction in the export tax, is a subject upon which the National Energy Board makes recommendations from month to month. The Board will be making such a recommendation within a few days. I will have to await the board's judgment in this case.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the reduction in demand has been principally in other oils, in addition to the heavy oil to which the minister referred, and as the government obviously has nothing planned to make our oil more competitive in this diminishing market, I should like to ask the minister is he not familiar with the way in which the principle of supply and demand operates, and also the fact that customers once lost are very hard to regain?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think I should point to the hon. gentleman that what he is proposing is that we in Canada should apply to our oil the United States price control system. I think we in Canada should
October 21, 1974

determine what the fair international price is for our product and should not have it determined by the United States administration.


George Harris Hees: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is not at all what I intended. What I am saying is, does he not agree it is good business practice to make our commodities competitive so that they will sell in satisfactory volume instead of having that volume continually stripped away?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if it is a free market, that is one question. If it is a diktat by a foreign government, that is another question altogether.


OIL-SHARING WITH PRODUCING PROVINCES OF FIFTY PERCENT OF EXPORT TAX-CONSULTATIONS WITH PROVINCES ON TAX ON ROYALTIES
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the minister. Prior to the arrangement made that the surtax is to be used or paid to the consuming provinces to assist them in respect of the price of petroleum, the minister said before the standing committee that 50 per cent of the tax collected prior to that agreement would be returned to the provinces. Has that money been returned to the producing province of Alberta as well as the producing province of Saskatchewan, and how much money has been returned to the treasuries of those provinces?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is quite correct in saying that in respect of the export tax which was exigible between September of 1973 and January of 1974, there was indeed an undertaking to return 50 per cent of that revenue to the producing provinces which has been done. As to the balance, we indicated we would invest that in energy related projects in the province, and as recently as a few weeks ago when I met the Alberta ministers I pointed out to them there was an account outstanding there and we would be happy to tall$ about co-operative energy investments together.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear the minister talk about co-operation. I am wondering now if he has had serious talks with the Minister of Finance who is meeting with the premiers of western Canada at the present time in reference to that budgetary provision wherein the federal government would collect federal tax on royalties and under that condition would not permit the producing companies to use that as an expense in respect of taxable income. I know this is a budgetary matter, but has there been a conversation between the ministers in light of the headlines in the past week in western Canada which state that 96 per cent of the drilling companies owned by Canadians are pulling out of Canada and going to the United States or Mexico to drill for oil.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the minister and I and our two departments have been in close touch on the appropriate tax regime for the industry in Canada. Of course in the last several days he has been consulting in this regard and I have not yet had an up to date report from him. I would anticipate that on his return.
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE IN ROME-SUGGESTED STATEMENT BY MINISTER ON GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs with regard to the upcoming World Food Conference which is to take place in Rome in a little over two weeks time. I wonder whether the minister is in a position now to indicate whether Canada has arrived at a position, when this position will be made public to the Canadian people and whether or not he has had an opportunity to review two national conferences which have been held here, the Agro conference in September and the Conference on Non-governmental Organizations about ten days ago?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian position to be expressed at the World Food Conference early in November is presently being considered by the government and decisions ought to be taken very shortly.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They will have to be.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have had an opportunity to review the conferences to which my hon. friend has referred. In fact, I attended briefly part of the proceedings of the first conference.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In view of the importance of this conference not only to the peoples of the world with regard to food requirements over the next decade but to Canada itself cosidering its own food production capabilities and its technological skills, can the minister indicate whether he is prepared either to intervene in the debate later today on my own motion in respect of establishing a world commission on resources or referring the subject matter in this particular motion and other matters of a similar nature relating to the World Food Conference to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence so that the minister as well as others might be able to give their opinions so that there would be a well defined position before the minister, with his officials, attends this conference in Rome?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have already expressed certain tentative views about the deliberations of the conference in my speech on the address in reply. I congratulate the hon. member for giving members of the House an opportunity to express their views. I would hesitate to interrupt that debate before it has reached its full hour's duration.


WORLD FOOD CONFERENCE IN ROME-REASON FOR DELAY IN DEVELOPING GOVERNMENT POSITION
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the same minister. I heard what he said in the House about the conference and I would ask the minister whether there is any justification for the government waiting so long before reaching a position with regard to a matter of great impor-
28305-36Va

October 21, 1974
Oral Questions
tance to Canadians and the world. Is there any reason, in fact, for the government not having its position already developed in respect of the food conference, because on the surface it looks like something which ought to have been settled some time ago. What is all the difficulty?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian position has been under consideration for some considerable time. It has been the wish of the government to take into account the views of quite a variety of organizations and individuals, including the conferences mentioned by the hon. member for Egmont, before taking a final decision on the attitude to be taken. The government realizes the importance of the conference, not only to Canada but particularly to the developing countries of the world and its attitude will be conditioned by that realization.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the fact that several years have gone by since the government launched an effort to secure reciprocal agreements on pensions with a number of countries and in view of the fact that thus far only one such reciprocal agreement has been put into effect, can the minister say whether the government is now prepared to activate this program in the hope that the reciprocal agreements might be reached fairly soon.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: At the present time, Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada is actively engaged in negotiations with those of a number of other countries concerning this. However, in such negotiations, the basic issue remains the same, that is, how much are other countries willing to give in exchange for the outstanding benefits available in Canada to retired people, as compared with those available in other countries. There are a number of countries anxious to avail themselves of all the Canadian benefits but unwilling to grant as much in exchange to those available to their nationals living in Canada. We always come across this problem in such negotiations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the indications that there is a meeting of minds between this country and the United Kingdom and perhaps also between Canada and the United States, can the minister give any hope that agreements with either of these countries might be effected soon?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there were discussions again recently boncerning this among Canadian and British officials. However, there still remains the basic problem I just

mentioned, namely whether the United Kingdom will grant anything in exchange for the extensive benefits presently available to Canadians.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Just activate the program.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration relates to some undertakings he gave several months ago on the admission of war orphans to Canada as a humanitarian measure without the necessity for such orphans being adopted, that is, being admitted to Canada under the sponsorship of provincially approved homes. Can the minister bring the House up to date on that, particularly the undertaking given in Calgary last June.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to get more details from the hon. member on precisely what kind of information he wants. I can say generally, with regard to the application of Mr. Maurice Spring in connection with institutions he wished to expand at Springhill, we have examined this very carefully and have expressed great admiration for his motives but have indicated regretfully that it is a matter of Canadian immigration policy not to encourage the immigration of orphan children to a destined institution no matter how commendable. We look with more favour upon the situation where children can go into an adoptive relationship with mothers or fathers in this country.


POSSIBILITY OF OBTAINING COUNSEL FOR PERSONS FACING
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In a recent speech to the Alberta Chamber of Commerce on October 7 the minister referred to Canada's policy of clearly informing foreign workers of certain rights and responsibilities while in this country. In the light of these admirable sentiments may I ask the minister if he is prepared to take the initiative to permit individuals faced with summary deportation procedures, adequate time to obtain and properly instruct counsel?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the whole matter of immigration procedures, policy and legislation is under intense review now and as has been indicated-


Mr. Baldwin:: It has been for the last five years.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, it has been under investigation since 1952 and this government is going to do something about it.
October 21, 1974


George Harris Hees: You are getting as bad as Herb Gray and you know what happened to him.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. It is certainly time something was done about it. In those cases where individuals are treated unjustly, or there is suspicion they may be treated unjustly by special inquiry officers at summary deportation hearings, what steps does the minister take to redress cases of that sort and what is his method of review?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member or any other hon. member will give me specific instances I will ensure a thorough examination of the practices of special inquiry officers is undertaken. I must say that they have a tremendous undertaking, acting in the interests of this country and generally speaking they do a very fine job.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and further to what the minister said just now, I want to bring to his attention that I wrote him a letter which I sent to him by hand on July 22. It dealt with one of these cases but I have not had a satisfactory response.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice, he having had the opportunity of reading the rather extraordinary judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in connection with search warrants in which the court concluded that one's home is indeed not one's castle, which is of course the essence of English common law. By this judgment, without a warrant, police may under circumstances enter one's home. Would the minister look into this question to the end that this right be returned to the position that it has always believed to have been, namely, that one's home is sacred and only a search warrant can be used, except in the case of rapid pursuit?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have had a chance to look at the decision of the Supreme Court. Of course that court found the justification for entry being permitted into the premises in the common law itself as well, in circumstances where a person suspected of having committed an offence was being pursued or sought. Those circumstances certainly do merit some special action on the part of law enforcement officers. I did notice, however, that the judgment raised the question of whether we might, by alteration in our rules in regard to warrant, provide at least in certain circumstances an alternative to the form of obtaining a warrant in order that they have it in hand if they do, in fact, find it necessary to enter premises. We will be giving consideration to that question.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister recognizes that as one of the characteristics of a police state. I am not suggesting that exists in Canada. However, those who operate as police are able to invade one's home
Oral Questions
regardless of the circumstances. I hope that the government, at the earliest possible date, will bring in an amendment to ensure that that judgment shall, to the extent necessary, be altered so that the rights of Canadian citizens will not be lost to the police.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I did indicate that we would give consideration to whether the existing form of warrant is adequate for that purpose. I should like to disassociate myself entirely from the suggestion of the right hon. gentleman that the decision somehow indicated that entry would be possible in any sort of circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: It is pretty nearly wide open.


Otto Emil Lang: The case was specifically related to the right to enter when there was reasonable grounds for thinking a fugitive from the criminal law was being harboured. Those are pretty narrow circumstances.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised to hear the explanation from the minister because he started off his answer originally saying that he had not read the judgment.


Otto Emil Lang: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make clear to the right hon. gentleman that I said I had read the judgment, not that I had not.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Communications.
Could the minister tell the House at what time a second TV station will be inaugurated in the Rimouski Area?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, that is for the CBC to decide and I do not report to the House for the corporation. In the absence of my colleague the Secretary of State, I shall take note of the question and have an answer in a few days.


ESTIMATES
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board who is responsible for the preparation and tabling of the estimates. Would the hon. gentleman advise if the estimated cost of two large public buildings in Montreal have escalated? I refer to Place Guy Favreau where the cost has risen from $42 million to $173 million and the postal complex which has risen from $56 million to $184 million. If that is so, why was there not a notation or addendum to that effect in the estimates recently tabled so that hon.

October 21, 1974
Oral Questions
members would have it before them later this week in the debate on estimates.


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we have proposed as a first step all estimates submitted to Cabinet starting from dissolution up to the beginning of this session of Parliament. Those are the estimates tabled. The next supplementary estimates will be submitted to the House in December next.


PUBLIC WORKS
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. Would the hon. gentleman advise this House why he has not laid before parliament the annual report of the department which is due within 21 days after the opening? Will he do this before debate starts on Wednesday and not conceal the information any longer from the House?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, subject to checking my recollection I think I do recall having signed a document forwarding to the Clerk of the House the annual report.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My staff phoned the minister's department today to ask for a copy of the report and were told it will not be ready or available for one week.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for that information.


George Harris Hees: The old pork barrel is in operation again.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Has the minister caused an inquiry into the situation which arose in St. John's over the week-end, whereby a foreign supertanker whose application for return to Britain had just been denied by the federal court authorities, whose parent company had declared bankruptcy and which had an outstanding fuel bill for $300,000 was somehow able to leave port and leave in her wake an RCMP patrol vessel. Why was precautionary surveillance not undertaken? Will the 
minister make information on this matter available to parliament?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have not a report on the matter but will get one as soon as possible.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries. In light of the excessive damage done to breakwaters, skidways and the like caused by the week-end storm in Nova Scotia, would the minister consider treating this disaster in a special way by requesting additional funds for this type of reconstruction and repair, otherwise the small craft harbour development program will be delayed for another two or three years.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, I have already asked for some information, following representations by an hon. member. I hope, God and the weather willing, to go to Halifax this evening. I will make it a point to bring this matter up with officials of my department, as I am the last one who would want to see any delay in bringing about improvements under the small craft harbour program.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Secretary of State, if such a minister is present. What has been the minister's response to a telegram from 75 delegates to a consultation here in Ottawa to prepare for International Women's Year, who deplored a change of the head of the program which is to take place within a couple of months of the beginning of International Women's Year.


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the question and try to get an answer for the hon. member as soon as possible.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, while the minister is kindly taking note, will he give us an explanation for the timing of the reclassification of the position involved. When will the new appointee start to work, and will she be full time?
October 21, 1974


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs and has to do with questions which have been raised here in the last few days concerning the tanker route. Has the Canadian team engaged in discussions with the United States taken exception to or protested against the reduction of safety standards in shipbuilding, involving, for example, the double-bottom standard, which the United States authorities had undertaken to ensure.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am not quite sure whether I understand the full implications of the question. With respect to double bottoms, I understand there has been some divergence of view on the part of experts on both sides of the border on the question.


Donald W. Munro: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As it is obvious to the House that no objections have been raised, is the Canadian team prepared to suggest safety standards of design for ships which will enter our waters and could endanger our shores.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian team has put forward and has under discussion with the United States the over-all environmental protection plan, including all aspects of the protection of the environment. My hon. friend can assume that that particular point has been looked after as well.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister and has to do with the conference coming up on October 30, I believe, between the federal government and provincial premiers, which shows that the Prime Minister has found out that inflation is very serious in this country. Has the government yet adopted any sense of urgency on this matter and, if so, is the Prime Minister going to present to the premiers a specific and updated timetable, to get an effective national policy under way, or will we continue, and I say this with great respect, with a dog-eat-dog society?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the meetings that are being arranged by the Prime Minister with his counterparts in the provinces are part of an approach that has been announced over a period of some weeks. There is nothing new about this. He has not, however, succumbed to the temptation to have a summit meeting in which there will be a vast assembly of people who will engage in talk and nothing else. The
Oral Questions
approach of the government toward this is one of careful planning and the kind of action which we hope will be effective. It is a problem of the utmost complexity and is unprecedented, and the kinds of ideas which have been put forward by the opposition on summitry are now outdated.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Acting Prime Minister has to express any sympathy for the unacceptable attitude of the Prime Minister in the past. May I ask this question: Is the process of consultation clearly aimed at establishing nation-wide consensus on voluntary guidelines? If so, is the Prime Minister going to make that clear to the premiers and exchange views on what guidelines should be sought? Is this on the agenda, sir?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the negotiations which will be carried on at many levels-the Prime Minister with the premiers of the provinces, the Minister of Finance with his counterparts, I hope the Minister of Labour with representatives of labour unions and various ministers with the business community-will be to put forward what the government conceives to be the nature of the problem we now face.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: And what is that?


Mitchell William Sharp: It will be to seek the views of the various groups in the community so that there can be an approach which has some chance of being accepted generally.


John George Diefenbaker: You are two years too late.


Mitchell William Sharp: The government does not intend at this time to press for wage and price controls or that kind of approach which the people of Canada turned down, as the hon. gentleman knows very well.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A final supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Is it not amazing how enlightened this government has become after July 8?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Keeping in mind that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is in Brazil, will the minister inform the House whether his department, or the government, is negotiating with a Brazilian company, Engeheiros Especializados, on the purchase of $200 million worth of armoured vehicles?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, no we are not in any such negotiation that would be nearing a purchase. We do, of course, examine sources of supply in all parts of the world.
Oral Questions ENERGY

October 21, 1974


ALLEGED SALE OF GOVERNMENT PURCHASED OIL TO COMMERCIAL COMPANIES
John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Supply and Services. In his absence may I direct it to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It concerns the 21 million gallons of heating oil the government purchased last year for approximately 90 cents a gallon. Can he explain to the House why the government had to sell that same oil back to Canadian Oil companies for 15 cents a gallon.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, my information is that the hon. gentleman is wrong in that respect. It has been used by the Canadian government in its own establishments.


John Douglas Reynolds: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister saying it is fact that none of this oil has been sold to Canadian oil companies?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would have to confirm whether any of it has been sold to them. In general, it is being used in Canadian government establishments rather than being put back on the market.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. In view of the recent Massachusetts Institute of Technology study, commissioned by the United States Department of Transport, that warns about the dangerous effects of supersonic transports to the upper atmosphere and in view of the news over the week-end that the Ango-French Concorde landed on Canadian territory, can the minister advise the House what is the government's policy regarding landing rights for supersonic aircraft?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, obviously, the Minister of Transport could tell the hon. member more about the policy than I can. As for the effect such aircraft would have on upper atmosphere ozone, the hon. member will be interested to know that a team of Canadian scientists is participating in an international study of this problem.


John Allen Fraser: A supplementary question. Can the minister advise how these studies have proceeded and whether in addition to these studies Canada intends to take any steps to raise this important international matter before the United Nations?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I think we will wait until we have the results of these studies before we enter into the steps the hon. member is suggesting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What is the working relationship between the minister and Mr. Ivan Head of the Prime Minister's office, a spokesman on foreign affairs? Specifically, does the minister see, or approve in advance Mr. Head's policy pronouncements such as those made to the press on September 25 and October 15?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I doubt the urgency of the question. That question might have been relevant in September, but in late October it is a bit obsolete.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: My working relationships with the Prime Minister and Mr. Head, who works for the Prime Minister, are excellent.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of substantial evidence revealed in last night's CBC program "Market Place" that there is widespread violation of federal regulations governing the fat content of hamburger, and excessive bacterial counts, and in view of the large number of cows now coming to market in Canada, which provide the bulk of our hamburger and ground beef, has the minister taken the necessary steps to ensure greater surveillance of this aspect of our meat trade, in particular to ensure there is no repeat of the rotten egg situation?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member knows full well that in Canada we have one of the best inspection services. I did not see the program last night. I will have to check the substance of the program. If in fact it appears the federal people responsible are not doing the job they should, they will be checked.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the recommendations contained in the report of the Food Prices Review Board on ground beef which was released on June 6, and in light of the shocking revelations made last night in the CBC program "Market Place" just referred to, showing diverse amounts of fat content and bacterial count, notwithstanding federal regu-
October 21, 1974

lations, as the minister responsible for the Food Prices Review Board, what steps is he taking to implement the recommendations contained in that June 6 report?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I hope the adverse publicity given on TV last night will have salutary effects.
On the other hand, my department's officials have already taken action against the persons who violated the regulations. In particular, I asked that very special attention be given to these inspections and we will not fail to take action against those who will not comply with the rules.


ALLEGED HIGH BACTERIAL COUNT IN GROUND BEEF- REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE REMEDIAL MEASURES TAKEN
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister now in a position to assure Canadians that his department has the inspection capability to enforce the food and drug regulations in Canada, and will he take steps to examine these very serious charges of shockingly high bacterial counts in ground beef which could, according to the researchers, cause poisoning to Canadians? Can he give assurance that he is taking steps to have this shocking situation remedied?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take steps to determine whether the bacterial counts come from the CBC program "Market Place" or from the stores. I will advise the hon. member of the results.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of the absence of 11 cabinet ministers. Can the government House leader inform the House if we have today witnessed the beginning of the roster system? If so, when might we expect a list indicating the days on which ministers expect to be in the House?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. The reason a number of ministers are absent today is that they are on government business in various parts of the world, including various parts of Canada. If the hon. member would give me a list of the kinds of questions he wants to ask, it would help greatly in expediting the business of the House. Possibly the other House leaders could do the same.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I beg the indulgence of the Chair on this point of order. I was recognized to ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, which I did. I rose to ask a supplementary question. It is my impression that a member has the privilege of asking a supplementary.
Indian Affairs


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may know that despite the freedom I try to let hon. members enjoy during the question period, nevertheless there are certain limits, even on the oral questions, as to what ought and what ought not to be asked, and whether by an oral question or by a question on the order paper. In every case, the judgment of the Chair must be exercised as to the number of supplementaries, if indeed any, ought to be permitted, in the interest of other members who also want an opportunity to ask their questions.
The hon. member well knows that the question he asked was of very questionable character vis-a-vis its qualifications as a proper question to be asked in the question period. For that reason, and using the discretion of the Chair, I did not recognize the hon. member for a supplementary. I did not feel his question ought to be followed by a supplementary in preference to other members who wanted to ask questions.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mitchell William Sharp: That the public accounts for the years ended March 31, 1972 and March 31, 1973 and the reports of the Auditor General thereon, together with the evidence adduced by the committee during the twenty-ninth parliament, be referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: that Bill C-15, respecting oil and gas in Indian lands, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the House was advised in the Speech from the Throne that the government intended to introduce legislation respecting oil and gas on Indian lands. Bill C-15 was given first reading before this House on October 7. It is my pleasure, as Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, to bring the bill forward for second reading today.
It is a bill which merits the support of all members. All of us are aware of the recent turmoil in oil and gas prices, markets and distribution. All of us are aware how essential it is for Indian bands and people to participate fully in the Canadian economy, getting all the benefits they can from the lands set aside on their behalf. This bill is

October 21, 1974
Indian Affairs
intended to ensure that equitable benefits from oil and gas production on Indian lands go to the Indian people.
Let me give the House a brief history of oil and gas production on Indian lands so that I may demonstrate how important this legislation is to a great many Indian people-important as a tangible indication that the people of Canada are determined that Indians shall receive the fullest benefits from the resources on their reserves. Most of the wells now producing on Indian lands were drilled between 1947 and 1956. Exploration, drilling and production were governed by regulations under the Indian Act. They were structured to conform closely to Alberta's regulations, for it was in Alberta that the major oil finds were made. They adopted the Alberta model of low royalty rates and long-term leases of 10 and 21 years. Under this plan, the bands received cash bonuses, royalties on actual production, nominal acreage rentals and compensation for surface rights.
This worked well over the years when the oil industry was relatively stable, and it fitted into the oil and gas environment where the wells were located. The need for change was made clear last year when the oil crisis erupted and it became apparent that the regulations of 1966 were not flexible enough to meet the situation. Difficulties arose when it became necessary to consider revising the regulations and it became apparent that the Indian Act was not a sound basis for applying the kind of controls and flexible approach which the situation demanded. It was agreed that new legislation was necessary to make certain that the regulation of this important resource was consistent with the best interests of the Indian bands concerned. The leases entered into under existing regulations called for royalty rates which were not consistent with the new situation, and these rates were locked into those leases. The royalties were determined by agreements which did not-indeed, could not have foreseen the changing times.
It is evident that this inflexible situation requires action and that only legislation will serve the Indian needs. It is essential that the royalties be adjustable without delay when circumstances in the industry change, it is imperative that Indian bands receive royalties which the latest market situation warrants, just as others do. Oil and gas resources on Indian lands cannot be allowed to provide windfall benefits for those operators fortunate enough to have their production coming from Indian reserves. All the oil producing provinces have enacted legislation to amend royalty scales as well as to establish elaborate marketing and production controls of various kinds. Indian bands alone are caught in a situation where regulations cannot be quickly adjusted to the new turn of events.
Fortunately, a study team had been appointed before any oil crisis was visualized. The team included the solicitor for the producing bands, the solicitor for the Alberta Indian Association, and experts in the oil and gas field. The study team worked fast. On March 28, 1974, an order in council set new rates of royalty and established the principle of variable royalties so that rates could be altered to rqeet changing conditions. This was an interim measure. The present bill was drafted to follow up the

provisional changes made by the order in council and to establish the framework needed. It is too bad it could not have been introduced and passed-for I am sure it will be passed quite quickly-before prorogation. However, that was not to be, and the next best thing is the early introduction of the bill which I am presenting today.
Bill C-15 provides a framework for the future regulation of oil and gas activities on Indian lands in the best interests of the bands. Dealing as it does with this one resource, Bill C-15 in no way conflicts with the government's commitment not to amend the Indian Act until the Indian people's proposals are put before the government, the House and the Canadian people. Far from conflicting with the principles of the Indian Act, the bill provides solid benefits to Indian people. Let me summarize its objectives: It reiterates the principles set out in order in council PC 1974-732 which increased royalty rates significantly. It elaborates the scope of the authority contained now in the Indian oil and gas regulation. It set aside the royalty provisions of the existing oil and gas contracts and provides for royalties to be prescribed from time to time by order in council, thus giving the flexibility needed in an ever-changing situation. It enables the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, after first getting the approval of the band concerned, to enter into special arrangements for reducing royalties where conditions warrant that step. It provides that all oil and gas rights granted on Indian reserves may be subject to legislation which is suited to the industry conditions of the day.
In early 1974 there were consultations with the Indian bands about proposed changes in the regulations. The more important proposals concerning royalties have been brought into effect through amendments to regulations. This bill ensures that in the future the regulations will be more flexible and responsive. This bill is concerned mostly with the future. The oil and gas resource is a "once only" proposition. Once the oil is removed from the ground, it will not again enrich the band. Oil and gas production is a relatively shortlived proposition. The Pigeon Lake Indian reserve has oil which was estimated in 1969 to be good for 30 years production at the then prevailing rate. Today, five years later, it is thought these reserves will decline drastically in the next three years due to increased production. The greatest possible return must flow to the band when the oil is taken from the ground and is lost to them forever.
Indian bands will receive, in royalties, about $40 million this year from this important resource. Last year they received $9 million. As oil and gas production declines, there may be a reduction in this income, although with prices being the way they are, no one can tell for certain what the future will bring. Royalty income is based on production and the current selling price of conventional oil and gas. Several reserves are known to be underlain by many millions of barrels of very heavy crude oil. When technology improves, and the price is right, we can expect to see royalty income from this resource flowing into band funds. The bill before us anticipates the day when that happens, for such a particular resource will require flexible approaches, being different in many ways from what is produced today.
October 21, 1974

The bands which enjoy oil revenues will certainly make as good use of the money in the future as they have in the past. Many hon. members-especially those from Alberta-know, for example, how the Enoch, Sawridge and Hobbema bands have improved their communities in economic, cultural and social terms with the benefits of oil income. Others have done the same.
Canadians generally will, I am sure, want to see the Indian people enjoy whatever benefits they can from the reserves set aside on their behalf. Oil and gas were not foreseen in Alberta when the Indian reserves were set aside. They are an accident of time and circumstances. For a people who have generally suffered through the accidents of time and have repeatedly lost their struggles with circumstances, it is an important principle that this bill sets out. The principle is that parliament will do its best to see that the Indian people get the greatest possible benefits from the resources set aside on their behalf. The government believes this bill is important to the Indian people and hopes the House will support it in that view.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Does the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) wish to ask a question? The minister may certainly accept a question if he so desires.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister spoke about royalties being changed under the new bill or the regulations. When the federal government charges royalties-not the provinces, because I assume we are dealing with a resource on federal land, not only on reserves but also in areas outside provincial jurisdiction-can the minister assure the House that the producers, the drillers, will be able to write off as a legitimate expense any royalties collected by the federal government, rather than paying tax on a federal tax, as is now the case under the arrangement whereby the federal government presently imposes its tax on provincial taxes?


J. Judd Buchanan: Basically, that does not involve a decision to be taken by my department. We are aware of this question and have been engaged in discussions with representatives of the industry with regard to it. However, it is a matter which will be dealt with by my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) when he introduces his budget.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. That is the kind of nonsense of which this government is guilty. They are ruining the resource industry of this country. This bill will do nothing.


An hon. Member:: That is hardly a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I had not thought to commence my debating in this House with this particular bill. I say that, not because I am not interested in it; there are, in fact, Indian bands and Indian people in my constituency and the area that I know so well who are interested in this bill and in the proceeds and royalties derived from petroleum wells that have been drilled. However, some of the most concerned people in our party are not here today because they did not expect the legislative program to proceed as rapidly as it has.
Indian Affairs
This is probably an indication of the extent to which-he was different in his role as Secretary of State for External Affairs-the present government House leader (Mr. Sharp) has been made more mellow and his task smoother so that it has become, in the best political sense of the word, even more slippery so far as the conduct of House business is concerned. Perhaps the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), the former House leader, may derive the same benefit. Who knows, even the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald), at one time House leader, might become a good House leader if he has experience in external affairs.
I am glad to speak following the minister, whom I wish well in the responsibilities that he has assumed. His is one of the most difficult tasks facing any government. We in this country have to come to grips with the problems of the Indian people. I do not say "the Indian problem" because I think there are a number of Indians who have problems, as there are a number of white people and non-Indians who have problems. But the Indian question is a difficult one, as all of us who were here for the opening of parliament are aware. We know what could happen and we know the dangers inherent in the relationship between the government of Canada and the Indian people. But knowing the minister, I think he will do his very best. He had the advantage of getting his start in the city of Edmonton, in the province of Alberta, and he has not been in the east long enough to have all of those good qualities buried under the weight of eastern problems which we all see from time to time.
We must look pretty carefully at this bill, for it is not quite as simple as the minister indicated. In the first place, it is probably the forerunner of other matters that will arise in the future. I am not going to go into them. There is the Mackenzie Valley pipeline and the rights of the Indian people there in connection with petroleum reserves. In addition, the Indian people face many other problems with which the government of Canada will have to contend. I think it has to contend with them on the basis that the long period of wardship, of trusteeship, must now come to an end and the Indian people must be deemed to be qualified to deal with their problems as they see fit. This does not mean that they will not make mistakes, as we have made mistakes in the past. But if they are not given the opportunity to find their own methods of dealing with their difficulties, then they will stay as our wards for a long time-a situation that is undesirable both for them and for us.
Although what I now say is probably a little irrelevant, it is nevertheless related to this whole question. Just a few days ago I had the pleasure of accompanying the new Lieutenant-Governor of Alberta, Ralph Steinhauer, himself a full-blooded Indian, into the Rainbow Lake area in the Assumption district where there is a band of Slavey Indians who have petroleum reserves in respect of which the government has been receiving royalties from time to time. On my visit there I met with people I have known for 15 to 20 years, such as Chief Harry Chonkolay, his wife Elizabeth, and many others. Some I met for the first time almost 40 years ago when I went into Fort Vermillion country. At that time we went by boat. There were no roads, railway or aircraft and so I walked 30 to 40 miles into the area and first met some of these people.

October 21, 1974
Indian Affairs
They have done a pretty fair job of trying to conduct the affairs of their band. They have had problems with the department and also with the white people who have gone into the area, but generally the chiefs and the band councils have brought the affairs of their people along with a moderate degree of success. In speaking to the chief at the banquet given for His Honour, I learned of the difficulties facing them. He told me, "We are older; we are getting on in years. We have managed the affairs of our people, with their consent, as their elected representatives, and have negotiated with the government for many years. But it is time to yield our place to young men and women and let them manage the affairs of the band instead of us".
Their complaint was that as they looked around and talked to the young people, they were told, "We do not want the job. The government of Canada and the representatives of the Indian Affairs department have not over the years conducted themselves in a way that lends itself to a reasonable arrangement being arrived at between our people and the rest of the people of Canada so that in due course the Indian people can, if they see fit, take their place with the other people of Canada or, if they see fit, stay on the reserve". These people read about and watched on television the violence at Kenora, British Columbia, and in Ottawa. In light of this, these young people are most reluctant to take upon themselves the responsibility of acting in the band councils, in the councils of the Indian people, and of carrying on in the same way as did their parents, not wanting to use methods of violence, anger and hatred, but of reason, compromise, understanding and co-operation.
This bill might well be an indication of the government's intentions regarding the Indian people. We may be able to go back to the Indian people and tell them that the government has changed, that it is prepared to negotiate with the Indians and give them responsibility for conducting their own affairs. We may be able to say, "We ask you, the young people, to take your place in the councils of your own people and to conduct affairs for them". For this reason I attach a great deal of importance to this legislation.
I am confident there will be other bills to follow. There is even talk about a complete revision of the Indian Act. One young gentleman who has been prominent for some years in the councils of native people in my province-he was originally from my constituency-namely, Harold Cardinal, has with the aid of Indian councils taken it upon himself to provide a model Indian Act. He was here with it not long ago at the time of discussions with the minister and his colleagues.
I use that fact to illustrate that many of these young people are competent, knowledgeable and capable of taking their place as representatives of the Indian peoples. They are still suspicious of the extent to which the federal government and the federal department, with a long and sad history of colonialism which I hope has now ended, are prepared to accept them in a relationship which will vest in them the right, at long last, to handle their own affairs. For that reason, while we shall not oppose the passage of this bill, we follow that course dubitatio; we go along with it, but we are a little doubtful. We will use the opportunity

in committee to examine in close detail some of the reasons, consequences and factors which relate to the application of this legislation.
For the reasons I have mentioned, I would refer the minister to clause 3 of the bill. I do not intend to go into the bill in great detail, as that will be done in committee, but to illustrate the point I am trying to make it is essential to refer to the legislation in that we are dealing with its principles. The bill purports to seek ratification and confirmation by this House of certain regulations purported to have been enacted by the governor in council under the Indian oil and gas regulations passed pursuant to section 57 of the act. At first blush, many of us wonder why it is essential, if these regulations have in fact the force of law, having legally been passed and lying squarely within the competence of the governor in council, to come to this House asking parliament to ratify and confirm regulations which to all intents and purposes have the effect of law. I hope the minister will respond to this question, if not when he sums up, then certainly at the committee when he makes his opening statement.
Most of us have been around here long enough to know very well the extent to which this government in particular, and most governments, provincial as well as federal, have steadily eroded the right of parliament to legislate. We know the extent to which governments have taken unto themselves, by almost every bill which is passed, more powers to legislate by order in council, thereby encroaching steadily upon the rights of the representatives of the people. I do not see any great rush by this government or this department to come to parliament and say that, because it passed regulations six months or a year ago, it now thinks it is essential to come back to this high court of parliament for ratification and confirmation. This is the first question the minister will have to answer.
We will want to examine precisely what the government has done, what operations it has carried out and what contractual arrangements it has entered into pursuant to these regulations, to ensure that they are in fact proper, legal and beneficial to the people for whose purposes they are alleged to have been passed. That is primarily a duty and a responsibility of the committee which will be dealing with this subject.
Clause 4 of the bill establishes the point I am making. It provides that the governor in council may make regulations. This is the regulatory granting of power which this House is being asked to approve, and it is enormous in extent. At this point in time in our relations with the Indian people, I am wondering if we can reflect to some extent our desire to limit some of these powers, rather than giving them to the governor in council without inhibition. Can we not reflect our desire to bring in the Indian people and their band councils who, I trust, will be the beneficiaries of the regulations to be passed?
I will not be a member of the committee and will not have the opportunity or the privilege of participating in the discussion, so I throw out these suggestions in the hope that some of my colleagues who will be members will give them thought. For example, the bill provides that the governor in council may make regulations respecting the granting of leases, permits and licences for the exploitation of oil and gas, as well as the terms and conditions
October 21, 1974

thereof. I should like to see inserted in that clause-and of course we cannot do it here-wording to the effect that the governor in council may, after consultation with the Indians and their band councils, make certain regulations.
In respect of the granting of leases, permits and licences, is there any reason why this right cannot be vested in the band councils themselves? Perhaps there is a reason. If there is, I hope the minister will point it out to the committee. The reason may relate to the intention of the government in respect of the proceeds of these royalties, and in this regard I think there is an onus and a responsibility on the government to spell it out. These people have been wards of the government for a hundred years. Surely they should now be allowed to assume responsibility for and to deal with their own affairs, making their own mistakes even as we have done. Why should we not allow the Indian people or band councils to make or grant leases, permits and licences for the exploitation of oil and ga^ on Indian lands? As I understand it, these band councils, through a proper democratic process, have been duly elected to carry out the responsibilities of the Indian people, subject to pressures, even as we are in this House, from the people who elected them. The same argument would apply to the clause dealing with the disposition of any interest in Indian lands necessarily incidental to the exploitation of oil and gas. Why should not the native people and the band councils be the ones, rather than the governor in council, to make these dispositions?
I will not go into the subsequent clause in detail because I think the wording speaks for itself. It refers to regulations providing for the seizure and forfeiture of any oil or gas taken in contravention of any regulations. I think this is an area in which the governor in council should operate. However, I think the wording should make it clear that the governor in council shall seek the consent of the band councils and Indian people affected. That is the case I am trying to make, and I again suggest that the minister and the government respond by pointing out the reason this step should not be taken at this point in the history of the relations of the Canadian government with our Indian people.
In clause 5 there is a principle which I do not like. It may be explained by the minister in the committee. However, it provides that the oil and gas obtained from Indian lands after the coming into force of this legislation is subject to the payment to Her Majesty in right of Canada of the royalties prescribed from time to time by the regulations. This raises the entire question. The minister attempted to go some distance along the road by giving an indication of what these royalties should be. My party, and I am sure many of the Indian people, would be interested in knowing, through the form of a complete and detailed statement, what royalties have been secured and what payments have been made to the government, which I hope the government has held exclusively in trust for the affected Indian bands and band councils.
We would also like to know the extent to which these payments have been diminished with regard to royalties paid to the provincial governments because of changes in the price of petroleum products over the last few months. I do not blame the minister for this. However, I have in
Indian Affairs
mind the situation which prevailed in this country, starting almost a year ago, when we came up against the so-called petroleum problems, the shortages and the doubts which existed in the minds of so many people in other countries as to whether there would be enough petroleum, oil and gas for the western countries. I also have in mind the escalation of price which followed. I would have thought, therefore, the minister would have told us how much money has been lost, if any, to the Indian people because the amounts paid in respect of royalties were substantially less than the amounts paid the provincial government.
Having in mind the increased prices, have the Indian people suffered a substantial loss and, if so, do they have an action for damages against the federal government? It is not necessary for one to be a lawyer to know that if one has a trustee to whom he gives certain rights, through power of attorney, to do things on his behalf, and the trustee acts negligently or foolishly resulting in a substantial loss of money, there may well be a perfectly valid action for damages against the trustee. I know it is not easy to sue the federal government or to tackle city hall. I am not in any sense accusing the minister of misleading the House, but I wonder whether this may be one reason for the clause I referred to earlier. Could there be a potential action against the federal government, and could the effect of this legislation be to vindicate the federal government in what it proposes to do under the regulations? That may have been the intention.
I practised law long enough, before I was induced to enter politics, to know that what governments do is not always right. I have had some measure of success even in suing the federal government, because the federal government sometimes legislates in haste, without due regard for the law and therefore sometimes leaves itself open to legal action. This might very well be the effect of the passage of some of the regulations the government is now asking parliament to ratify.
The minister should realize he is being given notice that the committee will press him closely on this issue as well as on the other issues I have mentioned. That is all I intend to say now, Mr. Speaker. I hope the minister understands that our party will let this bill go to committee. Some of my colleagues may want to make a contribution to this debate. They have knowledge of the issues and may wish to make some comments. However, it is our hope that the bill will in fact receive second reading and go to the committee. I believe I am entitled to express a final caveat to the effect that the minister may expect the closest scrutiny and questioning in the committee. In fact, it will be a great start to his ministerial career.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, unlike the last speaker, I do not come from a constituency in which there are very many native people, but I do not think that is a reason for not participating in this debate. I believe the welfare of our native people should be the concern of every Canadian.
I should like to commend the minister for his approach to this whole task. I express once again my earnest hope that during this parliament a substantial advance may be made toward giving the native people the measure of justice of which they have been deprived in the past. I do

October 21, 1974
Indian Affairs
not for a moment doubt the good intentions of the minister in bringing forward this particular legislation. He explained it is for the benefit of the native people in that they may receive a greater share of the royalties. No one could carp or quibble about that good intention. Unfortunately, however, we need more than merely good intentions.
I find this bill to be very sweeping in its provisions. I agree with much that has been said by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). There are few subjects more sensitive and important than the whole question of Indian lands, including mineral rights and gas and oil royalties. It is not only a sensitive, but also a highly complex subject. Before parliament takes the responsibility of passing this legislation, in my judgment there should be the most searching scrutiny.
In this bill I think I see traces of what I regard as paternalism on the part of the department, through the power of regulation, in respect of the control of these matters. I want to see a greater indication that the Indians themselves will be given a measure of management and control over their resources. We want there to be full consultation. I had a short conversation with the minister. I understand that before the government drafted this bill a study team, including the solicitor for the producing bands and the solicitor for the Alberta Indian Association, made some recommendations. I wonder whether such consultation is wide enough. Having been a solicitor myself, I know how busy solicitors are and how apt they are to keep these things to themselves. It seems to me full consultation means a little more than merely telling a few lawyers what this is all about and asking for their comments or recommendations. I wonder whether full consultation has taken place, because this matter affects not only the Indians in Alberta but a whole complex situation which stretches across Canada.
The hon. member for Peace River pointed out that clause 3 of the bill provides that certain regulations which are not specified or described-the minister did not tell us what was in them-are to continue as though they had been passed by parliament. But parliament has not passed them, Mr. Speaker. Parliament has not even seen them. I do not think we should agree to the proposition that something has been done by an act of parliament when such is not the case. Of course, in committee we can find out what the regulations are. I understand that most are designed for the protection of the native people and some are designed to give a measure of control to Indian bands. I do not want to go into the long unhappy history of our dealings with the native people, but I do want to know exactly what the regulations are. Should they not be subject to full consultation and the undertakings which I understand were given by the minister or his predecessors, namely, that no change would be made to the Indian Act without such consultation?
I understand that various groups of Indians across Canada are studying these matters with the assistance of scholars and researchers. One might wonder how we have reached this stage without consultation. Although the regulations are to provide protection for the Indians, they are only part of the legislation, so far as I can make out,

until revoked by the governor in council. If we have something that is protection for our native people, why should it be subject to change overnight? That is a question I should like answered if I were an Indian. I am not suggesting the minister would reduce that protection; I am just giving my opinion that the wording of the bill gives rise to reasonable suspicion.
I agree with the hon. member for Peace River also, that clause 4 gives the widest possible scope to the making of regulations. This, again, hands the whole subject over- without a hint that anybody is to be consulted-to control by the regulations. Everybody knows that the regulations are prepared in the department, and this bill continues that sort of control. It is interesting that only one clause refers to the band council. Clause 5(2) reads;
The minister may, with the approval of the council of the band concerned, enter into a special agreement with any person for a reduction of royalties payable under subsection (1).
I thought the main purpose of the legislation was to increase the amount of royalties payable, not to reduce it. This is the only clause which contains specific reference to the approval of the band council. As the hon. member for Peace River asked, why is approval of the band council not incorporated into the other clauses dealing with what is basically the property of the Indians themselves? Clause 5(1) ends with these words:
-payment to Her Majesty in right of Canada of the royalties prescribed from time to time by the regulations.
There is not a hint there of anything to be held by the Crown in trust for the Indian people. If that is the intention, why not say so and give an assurance to the Indian people that they will benefit? As beneficiaries, they can then assert certain rights which in my judgment they justly claim. The whole bill seems to ignore the sensitivities of the Indians, Mr. Speaker, and I think it must be changed in committee to make certain matters explicit. Let us make it clear that the royalties are there to be used. I can understand that in certain circumstances they should not be paid directly to the Indian bands concerned, but to the federal authorities. However, that principle should be made clear.
The bill is vague in other respects, Mr. Speaker. It has been asked how it fits in with the federal-provincial transfer act of 1930 which I understand applies in the prairie provinces and, in the eyes of the Indians, confers upon them certain explicit rights in respect of gas and oil. When they see this bill, containing power to do almost anything, will they not consider some of those rights lost to them? Such questions can be answered in committee to some extent, but I think they should also be made clear to parliament.
I would urge the government to seek a wide cross-section of Indian opinion before a bill so vital to their interests is made law. This party will be glad to co-operate in any way we can. It is important that, even with the best intentions, we do not add to the suspicion and feeling of paternalism created by such legislation. Sometimes the Indians feel they are kept out of the process of making basic decisions. I believe it is the minister's intention-it certainly is ours-to get away from the era of paternalism and dependence so that our native people can decide questions for themselves.

We have a new minister, and perhaps now is time for him to point out to his officers just what he wants. He should ask that the act be redrawn to ensure that Indians and their band councils are consulted and their right to the royalties held in trust for them is stated in the legislation. He should ensure, with regard to the section which purports to provide that these regulations-which parliament has not even seen-are to have the total force of legislation passed by parliament, that parliament is fully informed of the intent of the regulations and that the Indian people know exactly the effect upon them of the legislation.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about Bill C-15, an act respecting oil and gas in Indian lands.
This bill concerns me somewhat since there is an Indian reservation in my constituency following the troubles in the province of Quebec concerning James Bay, I think that the presentation of this bill is giving rise to some apprehension. I have always urged that the Indians be treated with equality and justice in Canada. Since my election to Parliament, when I look at some of the bills brought forward and at the role of the administration in some fields, I become even more apprehensive, Mr. Speaker. We keep saying that we should give back to the Indians their power of administration since we feel they are mature enough to administer themselves. This is what I believe, Mr. Speaker, but this is not what happens actually. I see a striking example of this situation every day in my constituency when I see the manager who is a white man administer the reservation as if it were his own. When he thinks that an Indian can injure or become as educated as he is, because some Indians are educated, he quickly drives him out of the reservation. I say "drive" because he is given a job 200 or 300 miles from the reservation at double or triple the salary he would get on the reservation to prevent him from influencing his people.
As for the others, the government hires them so that they cannot say anything about the administration of the reservation. In this way, the white men take advantage of the Indians on our reservations, and we accept this and think that it is a good thing. Nobody says anything, but the Indians keep protesting to no avail.
That is why I am warning the minister. I know he is still full of good intentions. Today, he brings forth a small bill, but I believe that small bill of a few pages will stir up a big discussion. With regard to the discussion that will and must follow, I am sure the minister will consult the chiefs of the Indian bands because legislation is being passed which concerns their lands.
Indeed, clause 4 says this:
The Governor in Council may make regulations
(a) respecting the granting of leases, permits and licences for the
exploitation of oil and gas in Indian lands and the terms and
conditions thereof;
The governor general "may". Therefore, he has the right to do so. I will not go as far as the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and say that the band chiefs should give out those permits and licenses, because the govern-
Indian Affairs
ment must retain authority in Canada, but he must exercise it democratically. It is not enough to merely say that the advice of the Indians authorities will perhaps be sought, that they will be consulted. Indeed, let us have worthwhile discussion with them, let us be sincere with those people as we should be with all Canadians.
I heard it said a while ago that the Indians were somewhat apprehensive whenever the provincial or federal governments were introducing bills such as this one. If I were an Indian myself, I would be justified in being apprehensive. Knowing how many times they have been taken in, I believe I would be concerned myself. That is why I am asking the Minister to be very cautious, to be extremely careful and to try for once, with his bill, to do justice to all Canadians including our native people, with the respect to our neatural resources, with respect to the expropriation of sections of their lands so that we will not have to use public funds, as was done concerning the James Bay project, to give those groups a chance to be heard in our courts.
Mr. Speaker, even if this bill does not amount to very much, I hope that when it is considered on third reading the minister will supply more information on it, which will enable us to vote in a more intelligent way, because the object of today's vote is to refer this bill to the committee for examination.
Actually, we do not accept the principle of this bill. We must provide for an agreement which is absolutely necessary if we want to undertake the development of natural gas deposits and the exploration of new oil reserves, because it will be absolutely necessary then to go through Canadian territory. But this should be done in all fairness and the owners considered as equals and given whatever they are entitled to.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, may I take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) upon his appointment. I am sure he recognizes, as do other members of the House, that he has accepted an important challenge on behalf of the people of Canada. What will happen with regard to Indian affairs in the next couple of decades will be most important to our country, as I am sure he is well aware. We hope that the minister's work will prove fruitful and will enable our Indian people to be integrated into the mainstream of Canadian life.
I shall preface my remarks by saying that the government has introduced this bill with good intentions. I commend them for that and for other good pieces of legislation of this kind. Our concerns regarding this bill have been referred to by previous speakers. I shall mention only one or two major issues. I am concerned about how extensively the Indian people will become involved in Canadian life as a result of this legislation.
It seems to me that for too long the government has played the role of foster parent to the Indian people, a role in which the Indian people have been subservient to government. I believe this bill intends to give them a better deal for their oil and gas royalties. Nevertheless, from my reading of the bill it is apparent that the government will decide the rate of royalty, when and where development

October 21, 1974
Indian Affairs
will take place, and so on. Consequently, the Indian people will still be left out of an important process, that of decision-making. If they are to fit fully into the mainstream of Canadian life, we must recognize that these people must participate more fully in decisions affecting their own lives. We can say this for sure: if there is one thing that must become an increasing part of government, it is to begin to think less and less about the rights of specific groups of people and to think more and more about the broader context of human rights. We see this bill brought forward again within the framework of some kind of "Indian" context. If we viewed it simply from a "people's" context, we would see that the need for putting these people into a greater decision-making role would then be necessary and brought forward.
We are about to enter into a period of increasing ferment among the Indian people. I believe we are going to enter into that period of time because those people in any society who are the most suppressed are simply not in the position to agitate or create ferment. It is only when you come close to breaking into the mainstream of life that real agitation and "boiling-over" of a society begins to take place. I am very suspicious that at this time in history we are about to enter into a period when the Indian people, because they have developed significant leadership within their own groups, are going to want more and more of the action. The problem is that we in this country have a very long tradition of government making the decisions for them.
I see the bill and this legislation as another example of the Indian people being promised greater benefits. That sounds good. However, they are not really being told that we are granting to them the privilege of making those decisions. That is what will resist a real upheaval; the granting of greater and greater degrees of responsibility to the Indian people. This bill looks as though we are saying to them, "This is the way we are going to do it today because it is the way we did it yesterday." This seems all right in the close context. However, if we extend it long enough, it in effect says, "We are going to do it this way because it is the way we did it 100 years ago". That is where the danger lies.
Indian people all across Canada have shown a great deal of leadership in the last decade. This should move the government to respond by extending to them a far greater degree of responsibility than is displayed in this bill. I would say essentially what is at hand is the question of self-concept. That is not a quality that anyone gives to someone else. It is something that people develop from doing. It is something that grows out of oneself when one feels he is worth something.
This is another bill in which the government says, "Let us make the decisions because we are going to make good ones." I feel very good about the intent of what they want to do. However, I am rather concerned that the real issue here in the development of the whole Indian society requires that they become a people who have pride in themselves. This means they have to accept a full degree of responsibility in the development of their resources and have more to say about the extent of the royalties and when the resources will be developed. When this bill goes

to committee, and before it comes back for third reading, what ought to be considered is a much more extensive degree of involvement on behalf of the Indian people, in terms of the development of these resources. These comments are essentially singular to that point. While I agree with other speakers who preceeded me, my singular point is that this legislation, in its intent, is good.
When it goes to committee, it needs to be broadened in respect of guaranteeing to the Indian people that they will not only receive greater financial benefits from the government, but they will be guaranteed by government a much higher degree of participation. They must be guaranteed that government will be even more subsidiary to the native people's decisions, than the reverse. Even though it might grant them more financial gain, it will not give them the kind of psychological gain that is, at this period in history, the most important of all considerations.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to delay the sending of this bill to committee. However, a number of comments have been made, and I want to make more, that ought to be made here and borne in mind in committee when the bill is sent there for consideration.
I find all amending legislation confusing. You get a bit of a thing which refers back to the main bill and then to orders in council. You have to assemble all the bits and pieces in order to create a whole piece on which to base any comment. I did that this morning. I scurried around. Thank goodness there is such a thing as a photocopying machine, because I was able to gather together all the various orders in council referred to here. I was then chased back to earlier orders in council, which I managed to find. That referred me back to the Indian Act. I managed to get the relevant sections of that act. I have them in front of me. It has turned out to be a very confusing assemblage of documents.
Even the Indian Act is seated on more complicated documents than just an act of parliament. It goes back to the incorporation of the provinces in confederation. In each of the incorporation acts of the provinces there is a provision covering Indian lands. They are not all the same. We have a great collection of documents that somehow or another we are expected to digest and deal with in six clauses in this brief bill and come to a resolution. I do not believe it is fair to the Indian people, who will be the main beneficiaries under this bill, that we do things in this way. If it is confusing to me, when I have all the facilities of this House at my disposal, to gather together these documents. How much more confusing is it to the Indians who are not here but are watching and will be following the debate to see what we are doing about what is theirs?
Some of those who spoke before me asked whether the Indians were consulted. That is one of the questions I wanted to ask. I hope the minister will answer that question. I am not sure whether the Indians were consulted in the preparation of this brief and confusing bill, because it seems to display- this has been mentioned by others, also, notably by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) - a form of paternalism which has marked the attitude of governments toward the native people. I submit, for the consideration of the House and the minister in particular,
October 21, 1974

that this paternalism underlaid the events on the opening day of this parliament.
The new minister had evidence at the opening of this session that there was unrest. There is, obviously, unrest. Those manifestations were not made apparent simply for the joy of it. The minister has evidence that there is something seriously wrong. I hope we are embarking upon a new era of relations with the Indian people, approaching them in a different way, consulting them and having them take part in the administration of their own affairs. There are several bands in my riding. They are managed by able, competent administrators, people who enjoy the confidence of the membership of the bands. These are the people who must be consulted.
I should like to comment on one or two of the clauses of the bill. I notice that in clause 2 mention is made of Indian lands. Indian lands, we read, include lands which have been surrendered in accordance with the Indian Act". This led me right back to the Indian Act to find out just how it is that land can be surrendered, and under what terms. What is this about Indians surrendering their land? It is part of the paternalism we should, surely, be getting away from. Surrender is obviously only exercisable under the terms in which the Indian land originally came into the hands of the provinces, so we are left with the acts of accession of the provinces to confederation. Surrender could be in absolute or in qualified terms and involves some or all the rights attached to these lands-surface rights, subsoil rights, water rights, the right of passage, and so on. Are we sure these are the same in all the acts of accession of the provinces? I am not sure. These are questions which ought to be raised in committee.
The hon. member for Greenwood pointed out that the only reference to bands has to do with the case in which there is to be a reduction in royalties. I find this most peculiar. I wonder why there was no provision in the original regulations for determination of what the royalties should be-an increase or a reduction, whatever might be determined. We should look into this question a good deal more carefully. There must, of course, be provision for consultation with the bands. As to the word "surrender", once again let me suggest this is a word we must try to avoid.
I wish the new minister well. He is faced with a new movement among the Indian people, one which is likely to be extremely difficult to deal with. I want to assure him he can count on the co-operation of the party to which I belong, provided he takes the Indians into his confidence.
My hon. friend from Peace River has mentioned the uncertainty surrounding the validity of the original regulations, those of 1966. Clause 3 begins with the words "For greater certainty," and so on, and immediately refers to a number of subsections and section 45 of the Indian oil and gas regulations "expressed to have been made pursuant to paragraph 57(c) of the Indian Act." Well, 57(c) provides that certain regulations can be made. Why must this be repeated in the bill before us? Are these not valid regulations? I certainly hope they are, and I gather from the look on the minister's face that he hopes so, too. Because if they are not, we may be in serious trouble.
Indian Affairs
Later on in clause 3 we read that these subsections, and so on-
-shall for all purposes have and continue to have, until revoked by the governor in council, the same force and effect as if they had been made on that day-
In other words, on March 28, 1974, Mr. Speaker, I found that this order in council is simply an amendment to the original one. It says that subject to these regulations, the royalty on oil and gas shall be collected in such manner as may be prescribed by the minister. Here, again, we find the great patron of the Indian people. He is acting on their behalf, with or without consultation. I find this wording to be most unfortunate.
Just for fun, I compared the new regulations with the old regulations. I found that the provisions of clause 4 of the bill before us repeat some, but only some, of the articles of the original order in council. Why only some? Why does the bill not repeat the whole of those provisions so that parliament may know what they are, so that we, together with those who, hopefully, will benefit from the royalties may know exactly what needs to be done in order that the royalties may be collected. If hon. members read through paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) they will find a repetition of much of the original order in council which is published in volume 100 of part II of the Canada Gazette of July 27, 1966. I might just as well put that on record in Hansard because I believe it is relevant to the proper consideration of the bill before us.
In short, it seems to me this is an untidy piece of legislation. I do not doubt the minister's good intentions; I have confidence that he intends to go about dealing with the problems of our Indian people in the proper way. Nevertheless, I think he should have tidied up this legislation before presenting it to the House. In any case, the proposals certainly deserve to be given close examination in committee. I can assure the minister of the constructive comments and co-operation of members on this side of the House in consideration of this particular measure.
One comment which the minister made seems worth mentioning in my closing remarks. If I heard him correctly, he said something about Indian bands which had got to the situation where they could not make the rapid adjustments required over the last year in terms of the energy resources of this country. Why cannot they adjust rapidly, Madam Speaker? The rest of the world has had to adjust quickly. I suggest it is because of the paternalism of government. I think the government has inherited that paternalism; I do not blame the minister for it. I suggest they should be able to respond quickly, and through the consultative process they can be made to respond quickly to changing circumstances.
Like others who have spoken before me, I regret that this legislation, though in a better form and not in this untidy way, was not brought forward when the regulations were amended earlier this year. Then we would have been able to examine the complete bag of tricks. For example, I find clause 7 a little disturbing because of what I said about clause 5. We are expected to confer upon the government, which in all honesty has not shown the greatest devotion to the cause of letting the Indians help them-
October 21, 1974

Indian Affairs
selves-or for that matter, other people in this country, too-authority to fix by proclamation the coming into effect of a very important clause in this bill.
Therefore, the bill should go quickly to committee, where we undertake to give it honest and constructive criticism. But we want the Indian people to have a voice in this matter, and this may mean amending the Indian Act. If that is the case, let us do it.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Madam Speaker, it is much easier to speak to the House when you are in the chair: your presence motivates and encourages one, I can assure you.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am happy to have the opportunity of saying a few words on this bill to permit the drafting of new rules and regulations relating to the oil and gas industry and the native people. For too long the government has caused uncertainty because it has failed to set out in a positive and concrete manner a policy respecting oil and gas and the interests not only of our first Canadians, the Indian people, but indeed all Canadians.
It gives me some pride to speak today about our first Canadians. When I entered the House I was the member for the constituency of Bow River, which at that time comprised part city and part country. In the area around Calgary were situated two reservations, namely, Morley to the west of Calgary, and the Blackfoot reservation to the southeast of Calgary. Both those areas were within the boundary of the Bow River constituency. Today, the Blackfoot reservation is in the constituency of Crowfoot, which is named after one of the famous chiefs of the Blackfoot reservation. Morley is, I believe, in the constituency of Rocky Mountain. This change resulted from redistribution. Palliser still remains pretty well in the former Bow River area, with the exception of the two reservations and the surrounding farming community.
Since I have been in the House of Commons, as well as all my life as a citizen of western Canada, I have had much to do with the early Canadians. I feel there is no more important task today than studying this legislation, which will give the cabinet power to make rules and regulations governing some of the resources on Indian lands which are not only within the jurisdiction of the provinces but, far more extensively, within the jurisdiction of the federal government. This legislation is extremely important to the economic and social welfare of our early Canadians. I do know what kind of language to use in describing their treatment, but they have been treated so shabbily in the past that we as Canadians should never boast about what we have done for our native people. If ever we have discriminated against a class of people, particularly since confederation, it is our early Canadians, and in many ways this discrimination is continuing.
Rules and regulations of this kind, which the government sometimes change overnight and change the name of the game, are important economically to these people, as I say. One has only to visit the two reservations I have mentioned to realize this fact. I hope I am not thought to be egotistical, but I am an honorary chief of both the

Morley and the Blackfoot reservations. I was made an honorary chief of the Morley reservation just before I entered the House of Commons because I fought a trial on their behalf which was successful for their betterment. After I became a member of parliament I was named Big Beaver, a chief of the Blackfoot reservation. I know that this honour is also shared by another English-speaking Canadian who reached the height of being prime minister of this country, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). In both those bands he is an honorary chief. The Hon. Ellen Fairclough, who was minister of Indian affairs in the Diefenbaker government, was not only made a princess of the Blackfoot reservation but was also-you will appreciate this, Madam Speaker-made a chief of the Blackfoot tribe. I was at that very colourful ceremony. So it is with deep interest and feeling that I speak on this matter today.
Pages of rules and regulations are all very well, but the most important thing we should consider today is the creation of a national oil policy for this country so as to encourage development and exploration of petroleum and natural gas reserves to guarantee that Canada will always be self-sufficient in their supply. Unfortunately, under the present administration which was re-elected again in July, the policies we have had have done everything to discourage the development of petroleum and natural gas resources. Since these policies have discouraged exploration and development of these resources in parts of the country under provincial jurisdiction, then they will discourage them on Indian reservations and in the Arctic, on lands under the federal jurisdiction and control of our native people. That is why the first thing to consider is the development of a policy to encourage exploration.
There seems to be a feeling right across the country that it is a great sin to receive a reasonable return from development and exploration. I ask hon. members to remember that the oil industry is not like the competition that exists between little storekeepers. It is a very tough and competitive international industry thoughout the world. Unless tax and other incentives are provided for the industry, the industry will take its capital and drilling equipment and move elsewhere.
When I was at home last Friday I read in the Calgary Herald a headline and an article in relation to this whole situation. Calgary is a flourishing city which has contributed greatly to the economic welfare of this nation. It has done much to provide incentives and motivation in respect of exploration for oil and gas throughout Alberta. As a result of these incentives and encouragements Alberta has become the producer of 86 per cent of crude petroleum and natural gas in western Canada. The headline to which I referred is not surprising, as a similar article appeared in the Financial Post last year. The article reads that drilling rigs are now leaving Alberta in drowes and going to the United States. I suggest that in fact they are going to the United States, to Mexico and to areas in the North Sea because the economic climate is much better for the industry.
Let me emphasize that rules, regulations and legislation will not solve the basic problem in respect of incentives. In an article which appeared in the Financial Post over a year
October 21, 1974

ago, dealing with development in this industry as a result of the gouging of the oil and gas industries by the federal government without consultation with the provinces, we find reference to the implementation of a system of taxation totally inequitable and unfair to the industry. We suggested the same thing during the election campaign. I will not read the whole article, because of its length; but on June 15, 1974, during the election campaign my leader made a speech in which he made it clear that it is not equitable to have the royalties charged by the province or the federal government not treated as an expense subtracted from the taxable income upon which the federal tax is based.
When we analyse the tax structures of this nation, we read the economic reports. They indicate that no nation today takes a bigger slice of the taxation pie, particularly in respect of resource industries. Can you imagine the reaction of the manufacturing industry in Ontario or Quebec to a tax on the textile industry and a super tax charge on the first tax? It is tax charges on tax dollars. I suggest that everyone would scream, just as the people of Alberta are screaming about this tax which is totally inequitable and unfair. The minister knows about this situation, as he was raised in Edmonton. I knew his father. He comes from a very distinguished family. He knows as well as I do that to put a tax on the price and whatever profit is left, plus royalties, represents a federal tax on a tax. This practice is totally unjust and inequitable.
We have heard a great deal about foreign capital. About 96 per cent of the drilling industry in Canada is owned by Canadians, not Americans, Japanese or the British. Yet Canadian equipment, administration and know-how are moving elsewhere. I have never believed the stuff peddled by my hon. friends in the NDP to the effect that no more oil will be found in Canada. I suppose that in 1941 they did not think oil would found in Alberta. Let me suggest that only by developing and exploring do you find these resources. They still exist only if found. We still have the tar sands and we have found other oil fields on the prairies. We are still finding fields in the Arctic. These fields cannot be found if the companies pick up their tools and go elsewhere-and that is what they are doing because of unfair taxation.
The Financial Post warned the Liberal government a year ago about its being more interested in getting votes than in seeing development take place. Let me read one paragraph from this article, as follows:
Klimchuk's company has just raised $3 million-$4 million in equity money in Canada and now is in the process of adding another $5 million in drilling-fund money raised in the U S.
"Under existing conditions we are planning to invest more than 90 per cent of that money ... in the U.S."
The United States provides depletion allowances and incentives. That administration would never think of placing taxes upon taxes and royalties. The article continues:
Almost all western oilmen prefer Washington's proposed method of taxing the industry ... to the current Canadian system.
The same article reads:
Hudson's Bay Oil & Gas Co., one of western Canada's most active oil and gas exploration firms, has just established a foreign exploration headquarters in Houston. The company's entire international exploration program, including a stepped-up U.S. operation, will be operated out of that centre.
Indian Affairs
We have heard a lot about the Home Oil Company in the last few years. Let me read this reference in the article:
Home Oil Co., one of the largest Canadian independents, is presently looking for an exploration headquarters in Houston.
"Recent events have certainly improved the relative attractiveness of U.S. exploration," Home president R. F. Phillips told FP.
"There is no doubt that Canadian activity is going to increase there very considerably during the next few years."
I suggest that is because we have this present tax structure. The minister should get together with the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and examine this whole matter of royalties in order that they may be written off as an expense against taxable income. Surely that is only equitable and just; and this is required if we are to save the day. The headline in the Calgary Herald points out that drilling companies are leaving Alberta and going elsewhere. There are still many areas in Canada which can be termed have-not areas. It is not so long ago that Alberta could not pay the interest on its bonds. Time passes quickly, and as a result of development in the petroleum and natural gas industries, and by increasing agricultural know-how, Alberta has become one of the three or four "have" provinces. This was not done by gouging the industry; it was done by providing incentive and motivation.


An hon. Member:: Speak about the bill.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am speaking about the bill. Obviously, the hon. member does not know what this is all about. He would like to have a pretty book of regulations. But what is the point of regulations in respect of petroleum and gas if the drilling companies quit their activities? If the hon. member can learn that, it might be helpful. That hon. member has always spoken with the same degree of mentality he has exercised today.
When talking about the subject matter of this bill, we are talking about jobs. If we encourage exploration and development on Indian reservations or in areas under the jurisdiction of our native people, we will be providing jobs. I ask hon. members what this would do for the housing and social problems of these people. They would find themselves with royalties that would swell their band funds.
We must examine the conditions under which our Indians now live. The problem was referred to at the opening of this parliament. Everything else we might do will be child's play if we do not do something for the Indian people of Canada. To begin with, let us give them the right to decide that people with know-how can drill on their lands. In this way they will obtain royalties with which they can get into housing and other areas and increase their standard of living. That is the important point I am trying to make.
The minister is travelling across this country talking with various premiers. Unless he can reach some agreement in respect of rules and regulations, what we are doing here is merely window-dressing. Parliament can legislate and look busy, but if it legislates in respect of something that is superfluous, then it means nothing and we are wasting our time. Let us consider what has gone on. In 1969, the federal government enacted tax legislation to increase the effective tax rates of the petroleum indus-

October 21, 1974
Indian Affairs
try. This legislation terminates, in 1976, automatic depletion allowances on production revenue.
In 1970, the federal government suspended portions of its land regulations, thus creating serious uncertainty for industry in these important exploration theatres. In 1973, the federal government imposed a crude oil price freeze and an export tax on crude oil exports. Let us consider that for a few moments. During the election campaign we heard a good deal about price controls. Most of our opponents forgot about that and wanted to talk about wage control. The whole incomes policy of the Conservative Party was criticized. Of course, that is what the election was about. The situation is that it seems to be wrong to establish prices on any commodity, although in western Canada it seems to be the practice of the Liberal government to set prices on wheat, oil and, at one time, on cattle. On April 23, 1974, long before the "funeral" took place, the minister dealt with this matter in the committee. He said that certainly they would have to take into consideration lumber and potash and, I suppose, other resources. They might have taken a look at them, but the only people who have had their prices set are those in the resource industries.
I know what industry means to the industrial might of this nation. It had to come to grips with a very difficult problem. Let us consider lumber. Lumber was priced high because of exports to Japan. There has been a falling off now in lumber prices, but nothing has been done about that, or about potash. It has been done just in respect of the industries on the prairies. This is what is called discrimination.
During the election campaign I moved around a good deal and had an opportunity to talk to people. I never found anyone in any part of Canada who would not agree that what is equitable for one part of this country should be equitable for all parts of the country. Surely, on the question of taxation alone, the government should give ground. The federal government on May 6, 1974, proposed in its budget new tax provisions for the oil industry. These contained the new feature of including in taxable income, royalties, surcharges, mineral taxes, and so on, payable to the provincial governments.
This feature alone would seriously impair the petroleum industry's future investment capability. Not only would it drive Canadian capital out of the country, but it would discourage any other capital to come in, because this is a very highly competitive industry. For every well which has proved successful in Alberta, I am told by top geologists that nine are found to be dry holes. Today, with inflation, the cost of drilling a well has increased five or six times. It is a very expensive operation.
If we can encourage development on Indian lands where Indians can enjoy the benefits, let us do so; but let us have some tax incentives in this country so that development can take place and so we wrill not kill the industry. It will not be long before we will have no crude petroleum or natural gas because of the policies of this government. If the Indians are to receive anything from the petroleum or natural gas, there must be pipelines. We have had the yo-yo program of the Liberal government for ten years. I

have heard this and other Liberal prime ministers say they intended to build the pipeline to Montreal. It is not built. If there is encouragement, we have the potential to build the pipeline in Canada. It should be built so that there will be the necessary transportation facility for these products, to encourage production and so there will be a market in Canada for Canadian production of oil and gas.
The great railway development brought the country together. Surely we have here another vision. The development of the pipeline would guarantee Quebec and the maritimes that they would always have sufficient supply of natural gas and crude petroleum and by-products, such as gasoline for automobiles, at a price which is equitable and similar to the price people pay for these products where they are found and brought out of the ground. We must give the Canadian people a chance. We must give the Indian people, who are the first Canadians, a chance so that their social and economic life and, indeed, their moral spirit is lifted; so that a new day will dawn in Canada for people who have been discriminated against for more than 100 years.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I would be quite prepared to call it five o'clock and take the floor at eight o'clock, if it is the wish of the House to proceed to private members' hour.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order. Before recognizing the hon. member, 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 Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Social security-Suggested payment of pensions to persons between 60 and 65 who are no longer employed; the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall)-Social security-Suggested amendment to certain pension programs-Government position; the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-Public Service-Request for elimination of regional wage disparities.

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, notices of motions, public bills.
October 21, 1974



PRIVATE MEMBERS MOTIONS


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take the lead in establishing a World Commission on Food and Resources, under the auspices of the United Nations, to compile a comprehensive and regular inventory of the existing world foodstuffs and resources essential for substenance; each nation shall be required to report annually (with quarterly amendments) on the state of its own self-sufficiency and on its ability to transfer key foodstuffs and resources to more needy nations; the Commission shall have the authority to transfer designated food and resources from member nations equal in amount to their expenditures on defence.
He said: Madam Speaker, this opportunity for hon. members during private members' hours is one of the most important rights and privileges extended to all members of parliament with regard to subjects which members feel are important in the conduct of public business. In the years during which I have had an opportunity to speak in parliament on a variety of subjects, I do not think any subject has presented itself as being of such major importance as the one chosen for my motion this afternoon.
At the outset may I say that I do not wish members opposite, or people anywhere, to think the motion I have presented is in itself the be-all and end-all of the problem to which it is addressed. I refer, of course, to the impending world food crisis which increasingly has become a matter of public concern, not only in those countries which are directly experiencing famine but also in countries of overwhelming affluence such as our own. We are increasingly realizing that this is one world. While some may live in affluence, many more may live in the degradation of poverty. It is no longer possible for us to ignore this fact. Eventually it will have an overwhelming impact upon us.
I am delighted that this motion was placed high on the list for debate, because all members will have a chance to discuss it now in the context of the world food conference which is to take place in Rome on November 5. While the motion is not directed solely to that particular conference, it is certainly the essence of the conference itself. This is the first time that the nations of the world, at the ministerial level, have agreed to meet and discuss the dimensions of the growing food crisis in this decade and to try to see what medium and long term solutions can be discovered. In the first instance, the proposal for the conference grew out of a meeting of non-aligned nations a little over a year ago and was encouraged by a speech delivered to the United Nations on September 24, 1973, by Dr. Henry Kissinger, who said:
The growing threat to the world's food supply deserves the urgent attention of this assembly. Since 1969 global consumption of cereals has risen more rapidly than production-
He could have said "since 1972". The growing discrepancy between the ability to produce food on a global scale, crop failures and recurring drought conditions have created an alarming condition. He went on to say:
Food and Resources
Stocks are at the lowest levels in years.
That is even more true in the fall of 1974. To continue:
We now face the prospect that-even with bumper crops-the world may not rebuild its seriously depleted reserves in this decade.
No one country can cope with this problem. The United States therefore proposes:
That a world food conference be organized under United Nations auspices in 1974 to discuss ways to maintain adequate food supplies and to harness the efforts of all nations to meet the hunger and malnutrition resulting from natural disasters.
That nations in a position to do so offer technical assistance in the conservation of food.
What we are faced with, Madam Speaker, is not just the continual question of occasional famines or shortages of food in one place or the other. We are faced with the most basic problem of all, which is not-as some people suggested recently-that there are too many people in the world, although population growth is a factor. It is not that there is any fundamental reason why the world cannot produce more food, although production increases will require unusual, innovative and bold schemes in order to be successful; and we cannot even say that there is an insufficiency of food aid, because aid alone will never be enough and food is wasted daily on a large scale, even in our own country. We can say there is maldistribution of much of the world's food supply at the present time. We must admit this is the case when we learn that the protein consumption of the average North American is five times that of the average citizen of India. We know, because figures have been quoted from time to time, that in North America we feed more to our cattle than the total cereal consumption of the populations of both India and China. We know, too, that we feed more to our pets than is fed to the populations of many countries.
In an article in yesterday's New York Times, headed "32 Nations Close to Starvation," Boyce Rensberger wrote:
In the judgment of United Nations experts, 32 countries in the world are so poor and so short of food that crop failures and the high prices of grain, fertilizer and petroleum threaten them with bankruptcy and their people with starvation.
Madam Speaker, I have not time to list the various countries and the average daily caloric intake which would indicate the low level of sustenance of hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens on this planet. I would urge hon. members who can find the time, however, to read the article. The sources that I could quote to support the accusation of maldistribution of food resources are almost unlimited. Mr. Maurice Strong, a Canadian who is director-general of the United Nations Environmental Organization, spoke to the Ottawa Canadian Club in February of this year and said:
In one decade, 1959-68, the United Nations alone used more resources than all of the world's peoples in all of previous history.
I am concerned not only because the situation is bad, but because it is growing worse. It is growing worse because there are suggestions that the advantage that Canada now has, as a major food producer and exporter, can be turned to some kind of political advantage. Some hon. members may have seen an article in the Globe and Mail on September 23 written by the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) regarding President Ford's recent speech to the United Nations. The hon. member wrote:

October 21, 1974
Food and Resources
The president's implied threat to withhold food from the Arab world as a lever in getting a reasonable Arab policy toward Israel and reasonable world oil prices could mean a totally new and powerful status for Canada in international affairs.
Later in the article he wrote:
It seems clear that Canada must agree with the goals defined by President Ford at the United Nations.
An hon. member suggests that agri-power is indeed the temptation that was laid before Canada and was clearly stated by the President of the United States. It is this kind of disturbing opinion that must alert us to the realization that if we are to deal reasonably, intelligently, humanely and with justice with this major problem, it will not be because we take a narrow view of the good fortune that Canada has known to date. I am concerned that we not enter into some kind of food politics game with the lives of men, women and children. It would seem to me that, in the first instance, we must be aware that some of the objectives we have been pursuing as a nation and as individuals will no longer be acceptable. Some of the ideals and hopes we have for the future of life on this planet will have to be tempered by the realities which are becoming increasingly clear to us.
I was extremely pleased and surprised, following the tabling of this motion, to read a report of a speech by Bishop Power of Antigonish to the fourth synod of bishops presently meeting at the Vatican. Speaking of the need for Canadians to take a new look at their own situation and responsibility in the world community, and urging Canadians to respond to that situation, Bishop Power said:
-we asked our fellow Canadians to question the goals of our wasteful economic system, to modify their affluent eating habits, to substitute other foods for meat, to give more generously to neighbours in need, to develop new educational programs leading to changed lifestyles.
Then he said:
But sharing by the private sector is not enough. We are asking our country, through its policy makers, to contribute to a world food bank.
I have not discussed this with Bishop Power. While the world food bank the bishop proposes may be different from a world commission on food and resources which I propose in this motion, its aims are the same. We both realize that we cannot depend on the capricious whims of nations and individuals if we are to resolve the growing food crisis. Interestingly enough, the bishop dealt not only with what is in the first part of my motion, but also with the relationship between defence spending and what we must spend on other areas if society is to survive. He said: Disarmament should be accompanied by substantial transformation of the economic and political structures which generate these profound injustices. We should insist that the money wasted to keep peoples in chains be used to procure freedom and daily bread for all men.
At one time we heard the slogan, much in vogue, "Choose either guns or butter." I suspect that the peoples of the world must now choose between bread and bombs. If we are not prepared to make that decision, it will be made for us. Norman E. Borlaug, 1970 winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, said recently:
International granaries of food reserves, financed by all nations, should be established for use in case of need ... Man can and must prevent the tragedy of famine in the future instead of trying, with pious regret, to salvage the human wreckage of the famine, as he has so

often done in the past. Plans for international grain reserves have been put forward eight times since 1946, and each time they have floundered on questions of national sovereignty.
A plan on this subject is to be put forward at the world food conference. Its effectiveness will depend on what the government of the United States thinks, as the United States is the key to an agreement on world grain reserves. Dr. Marei, secretary-general of the Rome conference in November, has already proposed as an agenda item the creation of a world food authority with supranational powers. Only if we pay attention to the vision of such men can we avoid the prospect of a holocaust in the history of this planet. That is why, at a meeting in which the Canadian Council for International Co-operation participated in Ottawa, following a meeting of mor e than 70 non-governmental agencies concerned with the world food crisis and the world food conference, it was said:
Canada should support the creation of a world food authority, and that the voting power of the world food authority be on the basis of equal voting representation between donor and recipient nations in line with the UN declaration on the establishment of a new economic order.
We must remember this. Frankly, I am disappointed that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) and senior government officials have said so little about Canada's position at the conference which is to take place in just over two weeks. It is, therefore, important for members on all sides of the House to express themselves forcibly on the aims of the conference which, I submit, is bound up with the substance of the motion I have put forward.
What will be the most effective way to help? What will be the most acceptable instrument? Obviously, the government will not be influenced by members of the House alone; it will be influenced by public opinion. Frankly, I think the government will face difficulty in moving forward in this area owing to lack of informed and public discussion in this country on the topic with which we are concerned.
We can no longer follow our suicidal priorities which put armaments ahead of food. In this connection I wish to quote the words of Robert McNamara, former secretary of defence of the United States, who said:
Surely one of the most foolish follies of man all through history is his almost incurable insistence on spending more energy and wealth in waging war than in preventing it.
Mr. McNamara is now president of the World Bank and a leading figure in seeking solutions to the world food crisis. Members on all sides of the House who are concerned about the problem will realize that we need imaginative solutions. By itself, the problem will not go away but will become incalculably worse. When I was preparing my speech this afternoon I looked at some figures and learned that approximately 14,000 people are starving to death each day-two-thirds of them children. Further research has revealed the figure to be in the order of 40,000 a day. Actually, we do not know how many are starving to death, how many succumb to the most unacceptable disease brought on by lack of the staff of life.
I invite all hon. members to support this motion, and I urge the government in the strongest terms to allow full discussion of this question in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
October 21, 1974


Mr. Leopold Corriveau (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) dealt with a most relevant issue in presenting a motion on the problem of food in the world.
The motion contains many points such as a request that the countries report on their level of autonomy. Experience teaches that some countries, mainly developing ones, cannot or do not want to make such reports. The transfer of food and resources is already regulated by international arrangements like those existing now such as the World Food Program. Canada has a tradition of opposing the creation of new international institutions, particularly when such institutions exist and seem to be able to do the work. The FAO is now studying a project on world food security. One important aspect of this document concerns the establishment of an information system on food, the main goals of which are to collect, analyse and disseminate information on the grain overall situation and forecasts. At the present time, Canada is providing the FAO with information concerning our production and stocks. We have indicated our intention to continue to provide this information through the world food information system.
A World Conference on Food will be held this coming November in Rome. A number of suggestions made by the hon. member will be examined on this occasion. Canada is one of the main producers taking part in the World Food Program. The Canadian contribution to this program since 1963 amounts to $131 million. Canada is the biggest supplier taking part in the World Food Program. For many years, Canada has held enormous stocks of grains.
One cannot ignore the impact of this motion on prices and trade. Farmers alone cannot be expected to help poor countries; our society as a whole must participate in this endeavour.
Perhaps it might be more useful to support measures aiming at increasing production within developing countries, thereby reducing their dependency on food aid.
Mr. Speaker, one needs but note the number of times the matter was brought up in this House, the attention it was given by the media, and the preparations launched into by international organizations, governments and private concerns for the coming World Food Conference, to become aware of its importance. The hustle and bustle reflects the increasing concern of the international community in this regard. Many are those who wonder how the rapidly increasing world population will manage to feed itself.
Reflecting on the matter of world food reserves, the hon. member for Egmont draws our attention to one of the main aspects of the current discussion on food problems. Like my colleague, Mr. Speaker, I feel it would be desirable to improve the world food situation information system. I would like to add to this, however: that system is a fundamental element of a much greater problem, that of "world food security" which consists mainly in keeping world food reserves at an adequate level. Improving the information system is closely related to the need for an efficient cereal reserves system, as well as to those in the
Food and Resources
fields of production, consumption, price setting and international trade in basic agricultural products.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) spoke of this complex network of problems, of the difficulties in finding easy solutions, in his address to the FAO conference almost a year ago. He said, and I quote:
"The world Food Security Proposal made by the Director-General is the result of the short world food supply. It is designed to lead to relative stability in the cumulative production, pricing and stocks of food around the world. These levels are intended to vary with need as estimated by consultation among nations. The proposal suggests food stocks could be much better dispersed in all countries rather than be held by a few major producers. The Director-General also stresses the voluntary nature of participation and the need for better information.
Canada has already gone on record urging every nation, not just those who are traditional surplus food producers, to support and cooperate with FAO in this task. Importers as well as exporters have both a concern and a responsibility. The question of adequate grain inventories is of major concern to Canada. We have, for a number of years, carried at our expense approximately 40 per cent of the total world wheat reserve. We are prepared to move in the direction of a food security scheme, but we have found from past experience that some nations are reluctant to share costs for maintaining reserves, let alone the costs of having too large reserves looked upon as surpluses overhanging international markets and pricing farmers out of needed regular increased production.
A storage program is desirable, indeed it is a necessary feature of trying to maintain a world food supply."
The proposal-that is the proposed world food security action plan-made by FAO Secretary General Boerma, to which my colleague referred, deals with all the aspects of the problem of world food security. In substance, it proposes that the governments of member states pledge cooperation to ensure at all times an adequate supply of basic foods, particularly grain, to avoid serious food shortages in case of bad generalized crops or natural catastrophes, to allow a continued increase in production and reduced variations in both production and prices.
Furthermore, member states recognizing that food security should be ensured in many ways, especially by reinforcing the farming capacity of developing countries, by appropriate national stocking policies, food help programs and other action, including long term trade agreements. They promise to take national and international action to encourage fast growth of food production as required, and to give special help to developing countries, which are very exposed to crop variations and face increasing consumer demand.
On the other hand, as concerns the stocking policy, it is recommended that all governments, in accordance with their institutional and constitutional requirements first, implement a grain stocking policy which takes into account those of other countries and ensures minimal reserves of major grains at the world level, second, review or establish stocking objectives, or take action in this area, to maintain their grain reserves or those of groups of

October 21, 1974
Food and Resources
countries, at least at the levels judged necessary, so that an uninterrupted supply will be ensured, including in emergency situations brought about by bad crops or natural disasters, third, take the necessary action for the stocks to be replenished as soon as possible following shortages, when they have fallen below established minimums.
Finally, the suggestion specifies that in the case of serious food shortages, the member states that have larger reserves than they need to meet national needs and emergency supplies will make a commitment to authorize exports at reasonable conditions.
These various approaches to the problem of world food security are striking in that they recognize the complexity of this problem, Mr. Speaker. There are no simple answers to this problem. On this point, I do not agree with the hon. member for Egmont. He suggests that a new organization could resolve at all the problems together by maintaining a satisfactory level of food supplies and by ensuring the transfer of these supplies to the most needy areas.
But how would these transfers be made? What effect would they have on international trade agreements or on present methods of food assistance distribution? How could we assure the Canadian farmer that he will continue to receive an appropriate price for his products? And who would pay for these products?
The Minister of Agriculture knew about these complications when he said, and I quote:
-farmers must be enticed and encouraged to steadily greater production by the assurance that they make a reasonable living. Canada has the most efficient farmers in the world. Their efficiency has increased far more rapidly than that of our industrial sector. Yet even they need a paying reward and security of income if they are expected to increase production for world-wide use.
And Mr. Whelan, concerning the effect that surpluses might have on world markets, added:
Canada can also support the need for assistance to developing countries to facilitate the desired adjustments. But Canada also supports the need for action and policies to deal with world surplus conditions that ruin the structure and investment, the very basis of a guaranteed growing supply of food around the world. Nowhere in the world can producers be expected to risk either investment or a lifetime's labor to have it cut from under them by short time surpluses. The result is a stagnation of production potential.
The report of the third session of the preparatory committee of the World Food Conference suggested something along the the sames line:
Most delegates have agreed that if trade is to fill its role it must maintain free and ordered movements at stable prices and ensure, at reasonable prices, a market for exporters and a supply for importers.
The committee also remarked:
-that it is essential that the main producing and consuming countries adhere to the suggested plan of action so to fully attain the objectives of world food security.
The committee also acknowledged the need to solve certain practical and technical problems so that the action planned might be efficient and it expressed the hope that those solutions might be elaborated by the appropriate intergovernmental agencies of the FAO.
It was agreed that, given the present shortage, food reserves must be made up gradually so as not to disturb the market. The creation of food reserves will be insured only if a suitable balance between supply and demand has

already been achieved. The necessity of providing financial and technical assistance to developing countries to help them create and maintain food reserves was also pointed out.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a last remark before concluding. Suitable trade agreements, distribution of food assistance, a system of reserves, stocks, all that is not enough to ensure world food security. We must also give much greater attention to the agricultural development of the countries that are in the greatest need of food stocks to feed their huge population. Besides, it was mentioned in the Boerma proposal that the essential interest shown in this endeavour by the developing countries, in order to achieve the objectives of a world food security, requires guarantees as to sufficient grain stocks and accordingly an accelerated growth rate of their agricultural production. Such an increase requires on the part of developing countries a continual review of their agricultural program and of the various alternatives available to them, and implies as well the active support of the international community to the development programs of those countries within the national development program of each.
The international organizations concerned, working in financial and technical sectors, the developed countries and other possible donor countries should most urgently take the necessary steps to enable developing countries to get financial, technical and material aid, particularly fertilizers and other elements that are essential to the increase of their agricultural production. The proposal goes on in these terms: The international community must make an important contribution, through low rate food and financial assistance, or through subsidies, in order to maintain grain supplies in developing countries, particularly emergency supplies, at their proper level, to determine what supply facilities are best according to local situations, and to provide advice on storage problems and related policies within national development programs. Developed countries and other possible donors, as well as the international and regional development organizations concerned, should contribute complementary help to the identification and pooling of resources required to meet those objectives.
Mr. Speaker, I think we should consider several solutions. There has been to date considerable studies indeed in preparation for the FAO conference to be held in Rome. Should grain producing countries store sufficient amounts of grain for future needs, or should every country be required to provide for its own needs and store at least enough food for a year's consumption?
Mr. Speaker, it was my honour and pleasure to attend FAO meetings in Rome last October, and I was amazed by the amount of technological help developed countries could contribute. I heard speeches by representatives of some countries on the question of food. They even said the stage of "harnessed" agriculture had not yet been reached. We can therefore imagine how underdeveloped countries, which have not yet reached that stage of "harnessed" agriculture, may grow their own food.
Mr. Speaker, we should put the emphasis on the possibility of helping the developing countries in technical terms to improve their situation in that area and become eventually self-sufficient in respect of food.
October 21, 1974

Mr. Speaker, after all those thoughts, I find that a lot more aspects must be taken into consideration before we could be prepared to set up a concrete world food program.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend very warmly the initiative of the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) in introducing this subject. It is one of profound importance. The crisis is a very real one and Canada's opportunity to make an important contribution lies before us, particularly in connection with the World Conference on Food in Rome which the hon. member mentioned.
I agree with him there is a sort of insanity attached to our choice of priorities. When I was at the conference in the Chateau Laurier the other day we were told by a knowledgeable gentleman, I think it was Mr. Jackson of the FAO, that a substantial program for increasing food supplies in the developing countries could be put under way for roughly $5 billion. Although $5 billion sounds like quite a lot of money, the world today is spending over $200 billion a year on armaments. I suggest that a world that cannot look after its basic food needs but devotes enormous sums to armaments is a world in which priorities have gone very far astray.
In bringing this matter forward I think the hon. member has done us a great service. I do not propose to discuss the details of his motion. I am not sure that the word commission pleases me very much, because it seems to imply more inquiries. I suspect that what is needed is not so much a commission of inquiry; FAO, for one organization, is extremely well informed of the facts. What we will need will be more action.
The other day Dr. Waldheim, Secretary General of the United Nations, in answer to a declaration by a number of scientists that was brought to his attention, said that basic food was the one essential, undebatable core of a life of dignity and decency. He also added that all aspirations for peace, growth, creativity and social justice, of individuals as well as of nations, would have a hollow ring unless we grappled with the problem of meeting basic food needs.
This is not really a new problem. There has been malnutrition in the world for some years. One can throw around figures like 460 million people suffering chronic hunger and malnutrition. But, apart from this, the recent drop in food reserves brings into the realm of likelihood, if not probability, vast loss of life through outright famine in different parts of the world unless adequate steps are taken to prevent it.
I will not go into all the things that should be done; this may be the job of the conference. The hon. member for Egmont mentioned setting up a world food bank, and it seems to me that this is an essential part of the machinery. The hon. member referred to a world food authority. I do not think it matters whether you call it a bank or an authority, but it should be internationally managed and given the means to do the job. I think that is one of the first prerequisites.
Another is to recognize that the greatest contribution to alleviating the food crisis throughout the world is to
Food and Resources
enable developing countries to expand their food production. In the developed countries like Canada perhaps there are some things that can be done and should be done, and whatever we do should take into account the interests and rights of the farmers who are the producers of food. But it is in the developing countries that there is the greatest opportunity to increase food production through technological changes, changes that we have already made and which could be made available to these other countries. Of course, what is useful under Canadian conditions may not be very useful in India or Bangladesh, and research will have to be adapted to different countries in which it is sought to increase food production.
Research should be vastly expanded. We need a crash program to increase the supply of pesticides and fertilizers. One of the reasons for the present food crisis is that the price of energy has put fertilizers and pesticides beyond the reach of many farmers and producers in developing countries.
Food aid is not enough. It is helpful and may be absolutely necessary, but in itself it is not enough. If food aid is to be viable it must complement our trade policies and enable developing countries independently to achieve economic growth within their own borders.
In an extremely eloquent address to the Canadian Jewish Congress on June 25 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said something that I think is very appropriate to this debate. He said that he hoped that Canada's presence in the world would be judged by its humanism and pursuit of social justice. He said Canada's foreign policy would be meaningless if this were not carried out, as it would not reflect the character of Canadians. He then referred to the Elizabethan poet John Donne, who said that "every man's death diminishes me". The Prime Minister added that this quotation should guide our foreign policy as it guides our domestic policy. Compassion, the Prime Minister stated, must have no geographic focus, nor must our geographic efforts have geographic limitations. With these words I believe all members of the House can agree.
We must put this into practice and use what influence we have, not, as the hon. member for Egmont said, with the desire to gain political advantage for ourselves, but to help out, in a spirit of brotherhood, the cause of humanity.
I think I have indicated as clearly as I can our deep concern about the subject raised by the hon. member. I hope that the government of Canada will take the matter extremely seriously. We are pleased to hear that the minister was thinking of going to Rome as our head delegate. I hope he will take some members of parliament with him, perhaps from different parties, as well as some non-governmental representatives. I say so because I do not think this is a matter just for the experts and bureaucrats; this is a matter in which the generosity and goodwill of the Canadian people should be challenged, and I believe they will be challenged. I know many Canadians who already are deeply concerned and who will be watching what we do at the conference with the greatest of attention, trusting we will live up to the opportunity afforded to us.
I suppose it is optimistic to think that this motion is going to pass. It does not seem to be the usual habit in this House to pass motions between five and six o'clock. But I
574

October 21, 1974
Food and Resources
wish it would pass, because then the government would receive the message from parliament that we give the highest priority to the subject under discussion.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) has put before the House this afternoon a very important motion, one that concerns all of us, namely, the critical issue of world food supplies. There can be no doubt that the spectre of starvation and hunger on a massive scale now seems closer than it has been for many years or, perhaps, than it has ever been. Not only are we in Canada deeply concerned at the possible plight of millions in many parts of the globe; attention all over the world has become focussed on the world food crisis to an ever increasing degree.
No fewer than three international organizations have held, or will soon be holding meetings to review the urgent world food situation. From October 20 to 26, the intergovernmental committee of the World Food Program is holding its twenty-sixth session. From November 18 to November 29 the FAO Council will convene its 64th session in Rome. A few weeks ago the preparatory committee for the World Food Conference held its third session. And, of course, the most important event of all, the World Food Conference, will be held in Rome from November 5 to November 16. Canadians are involved in all these discussions and, indeed, there will be a high ranking Canadian delegation attending the World Food Conference. The minister indicated in the House a few weeks ago that he was considering attending the conference himself.
The hon. member for Egmont has mentioned some specific measures on this subject. He has suggested that all the countries of the world should report annually on their food resources and food needs, and he has put forward a formula for the transfer of these resources from the "have" to the "have not" countries.
Moreover, he has suggested that this House express itself as being in favour of establishing a new international organization to oversee these tasks, which he would call a "World Commission on Food and Resources". The hon. member has not been the only one to suggest an inventory of world food resources. Indeed, he is in the best of company. The draft International Undertaking on World Food Security endorsed by the FAO Council in July 1974- commonly known as the "Boerma Proposal"-has this to say:
The effective functioning of the world food security system will depend greatly on the availability of timely and adequate information.


Mr. Roche:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, seeking the indulgence of the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) whom I have just interrupted. In view of the fact that I was late coming to this debate because of an aircraft delay I should like to ask whether it is his intention to talk out this motion, or would he be prepared to yield the floor to an hon. member on this side who would like to speak very strongly in support of it?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, you recognized me and I intend to put as many of my remarks on the record as possible. I

think the procedure is to move back and forth across the House, and that is exactly what we have done.
Let me return to the quotation as follows:
The effective functioning of the world food security system will depend greatly on the availability of timely and adequate information. Government members of FAO should furnish to the Director-General on a regular basis all the available information on national stock levels, government stockholding programs and policies, current and prospective export availabilities and import requirements for cereals, and relevant aspects of the supply and demand situation, as well as on assistance provided to the food production programs in developing countries. Other governments should be invited to provide similar information. In order to avoid unfavourable market repercussions in particular, the Director-General of FAO should ensure, where so requested by a government, that the data supplied by that government to the information system are made available on a restricted basis only to the governments adhering to the undertaking.
This report went on to say:
To keep all governments directly informed of current developments in the international cereals position during periods when world supplies are scarce the Director-General of FAO should prepare, on a quarterly basis or more frequently, concise factual appraisals of the situation and outlook which should be circulated promptly to governments.
It continued:
In the assembly and analysis of information and statistics, the Director-General of FAO should seek the assistance of the International Wheat Council and other intergovernmental organizations concerned.
At the same time the Japanese proposed that there be a global information system on the world food situation. Had there been such a system, according to this proposal it would have been possible to avoid, or at least to attenuate the grave situation which the world has recently experienced. In view of the uncertain prospects as regards food supplies, there is an urgent need for a more comprehensive and global information system.
The Japanese proposal continued as follows:
It is noted that one important function of FAO, IWC and other international organizations is the collection and analysis of worldwide information on food and agriculture. These existing information functions should be further improved and strengthened for the reasons set out above. The proposed information system is designed to enhance the usefulness of the information collected by the various existing institutions (FAO, IWC, WHO, etc.) through coordinating their information activities and thus making information available to this system and enabling it to compile such information in a comprehensive and integrated manner.
Acting on this proposal the preparatory committee for the World Food Conference agreed that there was an urgent need for establishing a worldwide food information system to strengthen the implementation of world food security and to promote marked stability in a constantly changing food and agricultural situation. It felt that the main features and objectives of the tow proposals were essentially similar and complementary, and that it was desirable to combine them. It was noted that the nucleus of a food information system already existed in FAO, and that other international organizations, such as the International Wheat Council, also collected useful information on food and agriculture.
There was support for building on these existing information arrangements. The global food information system should aim at identifying countries or regions where acute food shortages were likely to arise, at monitoring the
October 21, 1974

world food supply-demand situation in order to help governments to take prompt measures, and at contributing to the efficient working of the proposed international undertaking on world food security.
The committee felt that the food information system should also assemble, analyse and disseminate comprehensive and timely information on the situation and prospects of main crops and livestocks products, export availabilities and import requirements, supplies of agricultural requisites, particularly fertilizers and weather conditions, including, as far as possible, forecasts. Many delegates stressed that full and active participation in the information system by all countries, particularly those which were major producers, consumers and or traders, was essential for the effective functioning of the system. The committee recognized that technical assistance would be required to build up national food information services in developing countries. Several delegates stressed that some of the information provided by governments might be sensitive and would need to be used with care and discretion so as to avoid speculative activities which would disturb the markets.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but the hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this day.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Buchanan that Bill C-15 respecting oil and gas in Indian lands, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Madam Speaker, I know the minister wishes the bill to receive second reading and to move on to the next stage so I shall bring my remarks directly to the point.
Before I begin my few observations I wish the minister would remember what the honourable member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) was saying because he was enunciating a very simple economic truth, namely, that we all hope the Indian bands will be fortunate in finding oil or gas underneath their reservation lands, but that possibility would not exist unless there is a viable drilling industry available to do the work. This is all part of the wider oil and gas play. I shall not say more about this because the economic truth of it is self-evident.
The two points about which I wish to speak are covered by phrases which may be strange to the minister but I hope will not remain strange too long. I refer first to
Indian Affairs
front-end loading, and secondly to the technique of sharing with the Indians. Front-end loading is a device that has cost the Canadian people very dearly in connection with their resource industries, particularly oil and gas.
Front-end loading is simply the natural desire of a provincial or federal government to obtain as much in tax revenue as possible out of industry at the very beginning, even though it can be shown quantitatively that if the provincial and/or the federal government were to lay off that industry in the years of its capital pay-out there would be more money for the people on whose land the oil or gas well is situated, and also more money for the provincial and federal governments.
To put it very simply, if one examines the history of the oil and gas pools of western Canada one will find, say, a typical oil pool with X number of barrels in it whose capital cost of development would run between $600 million and $900 million. Of that amount of $600 million to $900 million, an amount of $400 million to $700 million would have been in the form of front-end loading charges imposed on that industry by greedy governments trying to pluck the goose before it was ready to lay the egg.
Another way of putting it is that the resource industries, including oil and gas, are capital intensive, and the larger amount of the dollars required to handle the development of those industries is the capital cost. So, if governments could hold off in respect of the front-end loading charges, and made certain a company received no money out of it either until the capital costs were repaid, there would be more money for all those wishing to participate in the revenue or rent from the resource being developed.
The principle of front-end loading has been traditional on the United States oil and gas scene for many years. In Canada we have copied the United States system. We have front-end loaded our industry. The only winners when companies have to borrow all this capital are the money lenders because the individual company has the longer period of pay-out. It is being milked when it should be devoting all its revenue toward paying back the capital cost.
Front-end loading takes the form of lease fees, permit fees and those wonderful "bonus payments." Every time the government thinks it is doing a wonderful job, it actually is destroying the capability of oil fields to pay an extra dividend to the owners. I shall not say much more than that, except that in the federal oil and gas regulations as applied to federal lands, when first published in 1961, there was a government in Canada which did without this front-end loading and said to the oil gas companies that it would not charge them anything.
Then the government said that in return for not charging them anything at the permit or exploration stage, when the lease stage-which is the ownership stage-was reached, the government wanted two things. The first was Canadian ownership of the developing company. This can be found in the federal regulations dealing with all lands except Indian lands. I ask the minister to consider that as an option which he should have in the regulations he promulgates for the handling of oil, gas and minerals on the reservations. He will find those provisions are very fair.
28305-37l/a

October 21, 1974
Indian Affairs
Secondly the government of 1961 said to the oil and gas companies that when they explored in territories and offshore, since all the front-end loading had been taken off, instead of getting 12 per cent, 13 per cent or 17 per cent royalty the government wanted something in the order of 60 per cent. The government said that, and got it. If you take the heavy load of paying for the big capital input off the shoulders of companies in the early stage then, when the capital input is paid off, they are well able to pay these higher royalties. It can be proven quantitatively that they get more money out of their investment, and the owners of the oil resource, the people of Canada, and in this case the Indians, will get more.
I am not giving the minister a great Sunday school lecture on something we did that is good. I am simply saying our history shows that in the provinces we did something that was bad and we are paying heavily for it today. The federal government in 1961 tried to do something more moderate and good, but we have not had the big finds that would quantitively demonstrate how, if it had followed those regulations through, the people of Canada would have got much more out of them percentagewise than out of the front end loading technique.
I hope the minister will forgive me for having gone over this bit of history, but he is looking at a person who stayed out in the wilderness for many years and watched this debauchery and robbery of our resources. This was not done so much by the companies as by the moneylenders who got control and, over the long period that the loans were being paid back, got the greater bulk of the value of the oil and gas into their own hands instead it going into the hands of the entrepreneurs, and particularly of those people who owned the oil and gas reserves.
This is the crime committed in the last 25 years against the people of Canada, mostly in the lands that belong to the provinces. Now we have a chance in our northern lands, our offshore areas, and on Indian lands that are under federal control within the provinces, to avoid that mistake. I would ask the minister to read the original regulations and he will find the philosophy and principles are sound. I could of course suggest several modifications today that would allow for new developments. To my knowledge there is only one person in the public service of Canada today who understands that philosophy. He helped me draft the regulations, and I think it would be worth the minister's while to search for him. He is now at a high level in a different department.
This second point is probably the most difficult moral problem of all. The lands we gave the Indians were theirs to enjoy all the fruits of those lands, whether rabbits, grouse, oil, gas or minerals. That was a moral commitment by those who took the lands from our first Canadians, in effect, by force. They were guaranteed that as long as the moon shone and rivers flowed, the land was theirs. The oil, gas and minerals mentioned in the legislation do not belong to the people of Canada-they belong to the Indians-period. The minister is the only person who can protect the Indian ownership of wealth inside the reservations.

The problem will be more difficult in the territories because of the lack of treaties and reservations. I would hope, however, that any government response to the moral obligation that our grandfathers made in giving the land and the reservations to the treaty Indians would realize that the same principle, in some modified measure, has to be applied to the non-treaty Indians. If the minister is to act as trustee he would be wise to hold down the front end loading so that in the end there will be more money to go to the Indians themselves.
These are non-renewable capital resources that will last only another 15 or 30 years, depending on whether they be oil or gas, depending on all the physical conditions that make a reservoir or mining deposit. According to the experience of our predecessors, when you are selling your capital, that capital should not be considered as income but as capital wealth to be invested. The only money that should go to the Indians in trust is income from the capital fund. It will probably be 15 or 20 years before the resource is depleted completely, and the revenue collected in that time should make a rather large fund. The income from that fund in perpetuity would be very important to future generations on the reservations.
There are many precedents for this, Madam Speaker. In the provinces governments sold off land for school purposes. In the prairies, two sections out of 36 were set aside for education. The money was put into trust funds and the educational system-certainly in the thirties-was financed almost entirely by revenue from those capital funds. Government after government in the three prairie provinces followed this practice, and none has betrayed what was done there over 70 years ago. These school land trust funds are still providing money for the educational system.
I think it is fair to say, that over the years all political parties in this House have acknowledged that we are guilty of great crimes against our first citizens. We must begin to correct those crimes committed in the name of expansion and advance. All political parties would, I am sure, support this.
All past ministers in charge of Indian Affairs in this House received support from all parts of the House because they all wanted to do the right thing for the Indians. This is still the case, and I am sure in this debate the minister has sensed a willingness to support this measure. We all know his difficulties which are almost beyond human solution. Although his predecessors tried to the limit of their strength and ability to resolve the problems, they are still there. Hopefully we can come closer to bringing justice to our first citizens, without being sentimental about it, but being realistically and morally proper. I hope these ideas strike the minister as worth while, and that he will take them under consideration.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Madam Speaker, I should like to contribute a few remarks this evening on the bill before the House. I represent a constituency that has a variety of Indian reservations in it, but as yet neither oil nor gas has been discovered there to my knowledge. But one never knows what might happen, with continued searches and continued fuel shortages.
October 21, 1974

As I read the bill I was reminded of an experience I had when first elected to this House. A very elderly mining engineer who was interested in developing a mining property spoke to me in highest terms of its possibilities. It sounded like something to gladden the heart but there was just one drawback; it was sited within an Indian reservation on Indian land. After listening to his glowing description I wondered why it had not been developed up to that point. I investigated, and came across the agreement that had been signed by the province of British Columbia and the federal government regarding mining development on Indian lands in British Columbia. It was easy then to see why no reservation in British Columbia would be wildly excited about having anyone develop a mining property. At that time Indians seemed to lose effective control of anything below the surface of the land the moment development started.
As I read the bill some questions came to my mind. On page 2, clause 4(b) reads:
The Governor in Council may make regulations
(b) respecting the disposition of any interest in Indian lands necessarily incidental to the exploitation of oil and gas in such lands and the terms and conditions thereof;
That sounds heavy handed. I sometimes wonder why those who draft government bills use such language. It seems to me that this bill is lacking in specific reference to the Indian peoples. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has already pointed out that clause 5(2) contains the only reference to band council. I wonder why clause 4 did not provide for some specific role for band councils. Why is it worded in language which suggests the federal government alone can make dispositions which it feels desirable with regard to oil and gas on Indian reservations?
I know that those preparing a bill always say, "Of course, this is the legal way of preparing it, but it will be interpreted differently". We find over and over again that, once a bill becomes law, it is interpreted sometimes in a startlingly legal and narrow way, and not as it was suggested it would be interpreted. I hope that will not happen here.
If I were a member of an Indian band who suspected there might be oil or gas on my reservation, I would be concerned about the wording of this bill. I also wonder about the complexities in distinguishing private ownership and band ownership of land on Indian reservations. This bill does not deal with this sensitive area. It does not sort out who has control and jurisdiction on reservations in this matter.
I hope that during committee study of this bill we will hear from a large variety of people, and from those representing the Indian bands themselves. I hope we will not see a repetition of what happened in the committee studying grain handling problems, when we heard only the minister. It is essential that the parliamentary committee studying this bill hear from a wide variety of interested people.
Indian Affairs
Nor does the bill spell out the disposition of royalties which, if this bill becomes law, we anticipate will accrue to the Indian peoples.
I am concerned about the timing of the bill. Actually, it involves two sensitive issues, royalties from natural resource production-and this in British Columbia and other provinces has been a sensitive area-and federal interference with regard to Indian lands, even though they have been set aside as reservations under treaty. So, here are two sensitive issues. There is little in the bill to suggest that the government, in preparing it, has been as sensitive, cautious and thoughtful on these two issues as it might have been, and as our treatment of the native peoples of Canada warrants.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I see the minister rising to speak. If he speaks, he will close the debate.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief. I shall comment about points raised by some hon. members opposite.
The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) referred to the question of the Indian people assuming greater economic control, and gaining the economic advantage which would flow to them from the type of development referred to in the bill. His was an interesting thought.
In this connection may I refer to the recent announcement in the newspapers concerning the very large development of the Enoch band in the west end of Edmonton. They are in favour of the large developments referred to, the precise reason being that the 30 oil wells and three gas wells will probably run dry around 1980. They intend to use these resources in order to create an alternate economic base, as they will gradually lose the benefit of their present resource in the next 10 or 15 years. More activity like this is going on among the Indian people. Such activity ties in with what was said by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) who spoke about the use of funds to develop a significant base for the Indian people.
Other members, the hon. member for Peace River, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone), the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) and, lastly, the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston), referred to the broad nature of the bill. They were concerned because it is not precisely worded. I emphasize that the bill was drafted this way so that we shall not lock ourselves into the tight process envisaged under earlier arrangements which did not provide for flexibility in changing or altering royalty arrangements. That, really, is why the bill has been drafted this way. We want to respond to situations quickly, as they arise, rather than find ourselves locked into a relatively inflexible situation.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich did not like the word surrender. I share his feeling and am concerned about the word every time I see it in connection with Indian lands. I, also, would prefer a word alternative to surrender, if we become involved in leasing situations.

October 21, 1974
Indian Affairs
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) expressed concern which was shared by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain about the deductibility of royalites. We have discussed this with representatives of the oil industry and solicitors for the Indian people of reserves on which there is oil production, and have indicated we are willing to take another look at the situation after the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) introduces the budget next month.


Gerald William Baldwin: When next month?


J. Judd Buchanan: Time will tell. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain made interesting comments concerning the front end load and about how we would be wiser to forgo revenue in the earlier stages and consider it later. I should like to look at that matter and see what can be done.
I could respond to two or three other matters. However, since they will again be discussed at the committee stage I shall conclude my remarks at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Daniel Joseph MacDonald: that Bill C-4, to amend the War Veterans Allowance Act and Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is again my privilege to be speaking on a bill which will further improve the quality of life of that particular group of citizens whose service earned them the benefits of the War Veterans Allowance Act or Part XI of the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act.
The bill before you, like Bill C-148 introduced last year, is especially important because it is also breaking new ground in the field of veterans legislation. You will remember that Bill C-148 abolished, for the first time in the history of the War Veterans Allowance Act, the ceiling on personal property. This Bill, C-4, is equally or possibly more important because it will provide, for the first time in the 44 year life of this valuable legislation, for the

payment of additional moneys for recipients with dependent children.
Up until now the only benefit that has existed for children, other than orphans, has been the provision whereby a widow or widower with a child would receive the allowance at the married rate. Unfortunately, however, the money paid was the same if the widow or widower had one child or six.
The legislation also failed to face that fact that a married veteran with a child needed more money than a married veteran with no children. Bill C-4 recognizes this fact by providing an additional $50, less the amount of family allowances in pay, for each child. I am especially pleased with this improvement, because it has troubled me for some time that we did not provide more adequately for children under these acts. This situation will be corrected by the passage of this bill.
The bill, I am glad to state, also makes more generous provision for our orphan. In place of the old descending scale of $91.95 for one, $161.27 for two, $217.24 for three or more, with no more dollars being paid for five orphans than for three, we now propose a flat rate of $125 per month, less the amount of family allowance in pay, with a monthly income ceiling of $135.95 for each orphan regardless of the number. These new rates and ceilings for orphans will be escalated annually. We also propose that the allowance to an orphan, or on behalf of a child, be continued to age 25 as long as the child continues his education. The present act requires payments normally to stop at age 21.
In addition to the new benefits for children and the improved payments for orphans, this bill also provides for the WVA/CWA income ceiling to be escalated by 5.3 per cent effective October 1, 1973, and the rates by similar dollar amounts. It provides for the quarterly escalation of ceilings in accordance with the increase in the cost of living, except for orphans whose income ceilings and rates will continue to be escalated annually. This method of escalating on the ceiling instead of on the rate will give the WVA/CWA recipient the advantage of an escalation on a larger base.
The escalation I have just referred to, effective October 1, 1973, will require the adjustment of over 80,000 accounts, and I am confident that all members of this House will agree and understand that if these amendments are passed by parliament there will be a period of time required before these can be reflected in the cheques of our recipients. I assure, you, however, that everything will be done to adjust the accounts with the least possible delay so that our recipients will benefit as soon as possible from any increase parliament approves.
If this bill is passed, the end result will be that effective October, 1 1974, a single recipient will have an average monthly income ceiling of $223.66 and may, depending on other income, receive an allowance of up to $183.66 per month. In the case of a married recipient the average monthly income ceiling will be $382.90 and the allowance payable, depending on other income, will be raised to a maximum, of $312.90 per month. The ceilings will be escalated quarterly in accordance with the cost of living increase and the rates increased by similar amounts.
October 21, 1974

Effective April 1, 1974, the allowance will continue on behalf of an eligible child or orphan up to age 25 years as long as he continues with his studies. Also effective April 1, 1974, the rates for orphans will be increased to $125 per month, less the amount of family allowance in pay, with an income ceiling of $135.95, the ceiling to be escalated annually in accordance with the cost of living, and the rates to be increased by a like dollar amount.
Effective October 1, 1974, we will provide an additional $50 a month for each child, less family allowance, with the result that a man, wife and one child will have an income ceiling of $432.90, and a possible monthly allowance of $362.90. This ceiling will be increased quarterly in accordance with the cost of living index, and the rate will be increased by a similar dollar amount. In cases of proven need the assistance fund can be used to bring the income level up to the ceiling, $432.90.
The situation will be slightly different in the case of the widow or widower with one child in that the additional $50 will not be paid because they will continue to receive the more beneficial married rate and to have the advantage of the married income ceiling as at present. In this instance, because the additional $50 is not being paid, family allowances will not be taken into consideration. As of October 1, 1974 this group will have an average monthly income ceiling of $382.90 and a monthly rate, depending on other income, of up to $312.90.
In addition to the points I have referred to, I am also pleased that this bill contains several proposals in line with the government's policy to provide equality of status for men and women.
I am proud of the record of this government, and indeed of this House, for the way in which they have treated our veterans and their dependents. I am confident that members of all parties will see Bill C-4 as I do, as another step forward in the field of veterans legislation, a field in which Canada is a proud leader.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Madam Speaker, it is significant that as a result of the amendments in this bill, Canada and parliament are taking a first step in equality for males and females with regard to veterans legislation, when Madam Speaker is in the Chair for the first time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: I have studied the bill. I can only say that the amendments are commendable. My party has no quarrel with the contents of the bill except for one or two reservations which I hope to deal with a little later. I must say that we in this party are pleased that most of the amendments seem to be related very closely to the program for veterans affairs that was produced by my party as a policy prior to the July 8 election.
I am glad our party was of some help to the minister and to the Department of Veterans Affairs in producing a bill which will overcome many of the inequities which have existed over the years, subject to the reservations I mentioned earlier. As is customary, the amendments were brought about in consultation with the veterans organiza-
Veterans Affairs
tions of Canada. We owe a tribute to the National Council of Veterans Organizations which, over the years, has made representations on behalf of its membership. It is through the Council's efforts that many of these amendments are being put into effect. I feel a tribute is owed as well to the Woods committee which, four or five years ago, carried out a comprehensive study concerning the status of veterans. I am sure the efforts made by that committee, and the advice it gave, were instrumental in bringing about some of the excellent amendments contained in this bill.
As I have said many times in the past, a good deal of the progress in veterans legislation results from the fact that many of the people who serve in the various agencies in the Department of Veterans Affairs are themselves veterans. Not only do they perform their duties with capability but they do so with dedication. They, too, served their country in time of need, side by side with their comrades to whom they now administer.
Since we are dealing tonight with war veterans allowances I should like to mention the War Veterances Allowance Board, particularly the chairman, Mr. Don Thompson, his staff, and the district authorities across the country who have served the veterans so well. Mr. Thompson served most of the post war years as dominion secretary of the Dominion Command of the Royal Canadian Legion. In the past few years he has been chairman of the War Veterans Allowances Board and, although he is not in the gallery tonight-


An hon. Member:: He is.


Jack Marshall: -I feel he deserves a special tribute. If he is here I hope I am not embarrassing him. We owe a tribute to Don Thompson and his staff for helping to bring about many of the amendments we see in Bill C-4.
The Department of Veterans Affairs is a little different from other departments of government in that the majority of the staff are veterans and know the problems of veterans. I am sure they are dedicated to the progress of the legislation which comes before us, and I feel this shows a good hope for Canada. I might say of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs that it, too, is a little different from the other committees of the House of Commons. We try to deal with our business on a non partisan basis.
Unfortunately, perhaps, there is no sex appeal in veterans affairs to attract the attention of the press. It is rarely that controversial matters come up for consideration. Nevertheless, I respectfully request the people in the Press Gallery tonight to make known the contents of this bill to all veterans, so that they may take advantage of these benefits and learn what we are trying to do for them.
I can only add that there may be a change in the non-partisan nature of the Veterans Affairs Committee if the minister does not agree with the representations we have made from this side of the House with regard to the Veterans Land Act. However, there is still a ray of hope. In reply to a question I put to him-if I may refer to our proceedings last week-the minister indicated that a departmental committee is now working on some type of housing program for veterans. I hope this will come about and that we can continue to serve veterans as they deserve.

October 21, 1974
Veterans Affairs
In any case, through an amendment put down by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to the Veterans Land Act measure, extending the expiry date, we shall soon have an opportunity to debate this situation. I hope the government will recognize that we cannot in any circumstances phase out the Veterans Land Act which provides a housing program and accommodation for many veterans who deserve this program because they served Canada in time of need.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: We should improve it.


Jack Marshall: My hon. friend says we should improve it. I must say that the policy paper adopted by my party sets out five or six points which would improve the legislation. I hope the minister will do more than simply tell me in the House that he will consider these proposals. I hope he will take the necessary action. I know he wishes to do so; now he has to convince his colleagues in the cabinet some of whom have lost consideration for our veterans, something it is so easy to do between world wars.
As I have said, the bill is a good one. It will overcome many of the inequities which presently exist and, to a large extent, it will allow veterans to meet the increased cost of living. Moreover, it is one of the first steps toward giving equality of status between males and females, one of the most important portions of the program which our party produced prior to the July election.
The bill embodies at least 12 important amendments. It provides entitlement for widowers who have reached the age of 60, special awards to a surviving spouse with respect to dependent children; for changes in the determination of allowances payable to veterans married to each other; for allowances to a widow who is maintaining a veteran or a person in receipt of civilian war allowance, and revises from 21 to 25 years the age until which a child may receive an allowance while following an approved course of instruction. This is very important because, as we all know, under the present act the dependent child of a veteran could attend university until the age of 21. Naturally, this does not suit the purpose because students continue at university until at least the age of 25. This measure will provide them with the assistance that they need.
Another important point which was in our policy paper is that the bill will provide for quarterly adjustments of the income factor, another step in the right direction. The only legislation that provided for this was the old Age Security Act. As this session progresses I hope this criterion will be used to provide quarterly indexing of disability pensions. I know the minister is considering this, and I hope he will be able to persuade the cabinet to provide quarterly indexing for disabled pensioners who suffer from increase in the cost of living.
The bill also provides for new allowances for dependent children. I mention these improvements generally at this time since we wish to co-operate in getting through the second stage of the bill. However, we will deal with the bill clause by clause at committee stage.
One of the important features of the bill, unless I am mistaken, is that no longer will the value of the home of a

recipient and the determination of his amount of income restrict him or her from receiving the war veterans allowance.
However, in spite of the dozen or so amendments that will overcome many of the inequities that exist in the act, I feel that we, as parliamentarians, should not feel too proud of the fact that it has taken so long, some 44 years since the War Veterans Allowance Act and the Civilian War Pensions and Allowances Act were passed, to reach this stage. Having reached this stage, there still remain some inequities that must be eliminated. We should give the veterans of Canada legislation that does not have to be amended every year at the political whim of the government so that we can finally care for our burnt out veterans.
It should forever remain on the consciences of past and present parliamentarians that too many veterans over the years have passed on, having been disappointed and discouraged that Canada failed to live up to its commitment to those who served and to whom we should have shown a little more compassion and consideration. Regardless of which side of the House we sit on, we in this parliament should demand a veterans charter that will provide, to our remaining veterans and their dependents, a reasonable pension that will give them adequate shelter.
One of the things I am sorry not to see in the bill is the elimination of the requirement for pension of 365 days' service in the United Kingdom before November 12, 1918, for first world war veterans. This would be a very simple amendment, one that has been introduced in this House of Commons over the years. I have before me a copy of a bill introduced by a colleague of mine, the former member for Swift Current-Maple Creek, Mr. McIntosh. This bill provided for a pension to veterans who did not serve for 365 days, payable on a pro rata basis. I should like to read the explanatory notes to this bill which was introducted in 1963:
The purpose of this Bill is to grant eligibility for an allowance under the War Veterans Allowance Act, 1952 to those veterans of World War I who would qualify for an allowance except that they served in the United Kingdom less than 365 days prior to November 12th, 1918. The allowance, however, would be less than a standard allowance as it would be calculated on the fraction of the number of days served in fact (e.g., 200) divided by 365.
Since there are not too many veterans who fall into this category, there is no reason for not introducing such an amendment now. I might mention that the average age of first world war veterans is very close to 80, so how many years have they left? Some served in the United Kingdom for 360, even 361 days, so why cannot we fulfil our obligation to those who have only a few remaining years left to live and who could receive a little extra comfort?
A single recipient of old age security and the GIS today receives $199.10. According to the minister's statement which he distributed on October 2, as of September 30, 1973, a single recipient had a monthly income ceiling of $191.14. The new monthly income ceiling effective October 1, 1974, will be $223.66, reflecting a 17 per cent increase, or some $32.52. If we take into consideration the exemption for the war veteran over 65, all we are doing is providing him with $40 to $50 to give him a little extra comfort and allow him to cope with the increase in the cost of living that is so serious today.
October 21, 1974

Another inequity that should be overcome concerns those veterans of Canada who remained overseas and thus do not qualify for war veterans allowance owing to the provision that they must reside in Canada for 365 days. The minister is aware of this situation and has met these veterans over in England, as have his predecessors. The legislation of 1960 was amended to permit continuing payment of the allowance outside Canada primarily for the benefit of recipients who were desirous of leaving Canada for reasons of health or family ties. Apparently, 683 recipients have benefitted by this 1960 amendment, and I give credit to whoever was in power at that time.
Again it is surely not too much to ask that an amendment be passed to eliminate the 12 months' residence requirement in the case of the few Canadian veterans who are unable to draw the allowance because of their inability to return to Canada to qualify. If the reason for the amendment in 1960 permitting continuing payment of the allowance outside Canada was primarily for the benefit of recipients desirous of leaving Canada for reasons of health or family ties, then surely it is only fair that the converse should be applied, namely, that those veterans who are unable to return to reside in Canada for 12 months, for reasons of health or family ties, should be allowed the privilege of drawing the allowance without the necessity of having to return to Canada?
Many of these veterans are invalids and they cannot return to Canada. We are an affluent nation, and although I realize we must restrict government spending, there are many areas where we could save a lot of money by cutting out government waste. This would enable us to provide these Canadians with the extra comforts that they deserve, and we would be able to say that Canada has fulfilled its obligations to them for the service that they have given to their country.
We could also improve the act under regulation so as to increase the amount of casual earnings that a war veterans allowance recipient can receive. At present it is $1,000 for a single recipient and $1,500 for a married couple. In many cases the children of second world war veterans have grown up and gone their own way, and the wife is in a position to work and provide a little of the extras for herself and her husband. But she cannot do so because of the restrictions. I am sure this is a matter the minister will consider should be the subject of consultation between himself and his department in order that the amount of casual earnings allowed can be increased. Certainly that is something to be considered for the future.
I should like to make another point regarding the recipients of war veterans allowance who happen to have large families and, perhaps regrettably, qualify for social assistance in addition to the war veterans allowance. Whenever there is an increase in the war veterans allowance, that is, each January, in relation to the cost of living index, the social assistance is decreased. I am sorry the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is not in the House to hear this. Consultations should take place with the provinces regarding a change which will allow these veterans to receive the increased war veterans allowance without a decrease in social assistance.
Veterans Affairs
As the situation now stands, any increase in war veterans allowance is offset by a reduction in provincial social assistance. The same is true in respect of disability pensions. When a recipient of a war veterans allowance receives a partial increase in his disability pension there is corresponding decrease in his other allowance. With the various changes in disability pensions and war veterans allowances I hope this situation will be corrected.
Speaking on behalf of my colleagues, and particularly the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I think I can safely say we all want this bill to go the the committee as soon as possible in order that it can be returned to this House and be passed here. A lot of administration is involved in getting payments out. A great deal of administration is involved in quarterly indexing, as well as in respect of other factors in the bill. I can only say that we commend the minister wholeheartedly for his introduction of this amendment. I hope he will consider the amendments to which I have referred. If he does not, it is my intention to suggest such changes at the committee stage. I am sure that with a little effort we could bring in amendments to make the war veterans allowance bill a complete legislative item to serve the war veteran and burnt out veterans for years, without the necessity of having to come back each year to agree to ad hoc amendments.
I again commend the minister and the government on this bill. I look forward to its speedy passage in committee and its return to this House so that it can be passed for the benefit of those veterans of Canada who have served so well over the years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps I should say "Madam Speaker" fast before the Chair becomes Mr. Speaker. In any case, as a first word I want to say on behalf of my party that we warmly welcome Bill C-4. Like the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), we want to expedite the passing of this bill so it will be in effect just as soon as possible.
It is quite true that before I conclude my remarks I shall play the role of an opposition member, indicating a few things that are wrong, or pointing out a few shortcomings. But my main feeling about this bill is that it is good. It has more things in it I can praise than if often the case. One has difficulty in finding the jokers that are so frequently in bills the government brings forward.
I want also to join with my friend and colleagues, the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, in paying certain tributes. I was aware of the fact that while he was doing so he, as a member from Newfoundland, was telling the minister, who is a representative from Prince Edward Island, what a good war veterans allowance board chairman he has, who happens to come from New Brunswick. I suppose I could fall back on my Nova Scotia background and make this an Atlantic provinces night.
In any event I want to join in the tribute to Mr. Donald Thompson and his staff for the good work they do in administering the War Veterans Allowance Act. As the hon. member says, we pay the same tribute to other officials in the Department of Veterans Affairs, but tonight what we have before us is the War Veterans Allowance Act.
582

October 21, 1974
Veterans Affairs
As I said, there are a number of things about the amendments presented tonight that are good. Let me take a few minutes to emphasize them, even though they have already been noted.
This bill is good in that it establishes equality between the sexes so far as veterans under his legislation are concerned. I suppose this equality of sexes is demonstrated by the fact that when I started my remarks it was Madam Speaker but there has been a change and now it is Mr. Speaker in the Chair. There is, of course, still a slight difference. I suppose "vive la difference" will always be the motto, and there will always be some differences between the sexes.
I notice under the provisions of this bill that, although a male veteran can make it possible for his widow to draw the war veterans allowance at age 55, the female veteran can make it possible for her widower to draw it only when he reaches 60. I suppose the difference is that not many women admit to getting past 55, but at any rate that slight difference still seems to exist.
In any case the provisions of the bill as I read it seem to establish equality between male and female veterans, and the bill also makes special provisions where a male and female veteran are married to each other. We welcome these changes. They are indeed in line with other changes being made in a number of our federal statutes.
The second thing about this bill I feel to be particularly good is the one the minister referred to in the opening portion of his remarks, namely, the provision which is made for an extra payment in the case of children. As he pointed out, the only way a child received anything before was in the case of a parent of single status getting the married rate if that parent was maintaining a child or children. Now, under the provisions of this bill, the children of war veterans allowance recipients up to a certain age are to be provided in their own right, with the amounts set out in the legislation.
Before I leave this I must say I am not happy about the provision that subtracts from the amount being paid in respect of a child the amount received as a family allowance. It seems to me this is a case of the old means test concept taking a long time to die out.
I remind the minister that the War Veterans Allowance Board has already found it possible in other areas to exempt certain forms of income. For example, even though the war veterans allowance is tied into the guaranteed income supplement that goes with old age security, the War Veterans Allowance Board by Order in Council exempts the escalation of old age security and the guaranteed income supplement. I believe there have been also arrangements between the War Veterans Allowance Board and my province of Manitoba, where a mincome program is being established, to make it clear that money received under that program will not count as income for purposes of the war veterans allowance.
There are other examples of this. The point I am making, however, is that it has been found possible to exempt certain other forms of income from the means or income test that attaches to the war veterans allowance. I contend that this could be done in respect of the family

allowance. I just do not think it stands up for us to embark on this new idea of providing, under the War Veterans Allowance Act, something for the children of war veterans allowance recipients and then to turn right around and take away with one hand what is given with the other. I realize the defence which can be put up in this regard and no doubt we will face that in committee, but it seems we are back to square one on this business, and that it is time to mix in the means test on these payments to which these children are entitled.
I come to the third item in the bill which I regard as good. I shall do my best to avoid any criticism of it because it is something for which I have been asking for a long time. We have it now and I want to say that it is most welcome. I refer to the decision to escalate the ceiling rather than the allowance. That is saying it in shorthand, despite the fact that it is rather complicated.
Up until the present time the way the government has worked has been to increase the maximum allowance payable by the percentage increase in the cost of living, and then raise the ceiling on permissible income only by the same number of dollars that the allowance was raised. That meant that the ceiling on the permissible income applied to the war veterans allowance did not go up by the percentage increase in the cost of living.
I argued all along that the escalation should apply to the ceiling rather than to the allowance. That is now being done in this bill and I think it is one of the most important changes being made. From now on the escalation is on the total income allowed to a war veterans allowance recipient. That ceiling will be escalated by the actual rise in the cost of living, and the allowance will be increased by the number of dollars necessary to keep the allowance the same number of dollars below the ceiling. As I say this is something some of us have been pressing for, for a long time. Now it is here and we welcome it very warmly.
I wish also to express approval of the fact that the escalation under the War Veterans Allowance Act, once this bill comes into effect, will be on a quarterly rather than on an annual basis. Ever since the old age security and the guaranteed income supplement were placed on a quarterly basis that has been a bone of contention with war veterans allowance recipients and others. They could not understand why they were not put on the same basis. This is being done and we welcome it.
I go further and say, if I understand the bill-and I have tried to read it with a view to grasping it-that there will be retroactive payments. The minister's statement tonight about 80,000 accounts having to be adjusted seems to confirm that. It is also confirmed by the fact that the various schedules in the bill indicate the rates of ceiling and rates of allowance for each of the quarters in the current year.
Therefore, it looks as though there will be a case of retroactivity in respect of a war veterans allowance recipient over these past number of months. In other words, we are adopting the idea that the escalation should have applied to the ceiling since last October, and the adjustments will be made on that basis. That is good.
I hope the computers in the department are in good working order and that it will not take too long for these
October 21, 1974

80,000	accounts to be adjusted. Everyone recognizes that it will take some time, but we hear of computers which, if they are fed the necessary information, can pass out so many hundreds of results per second. I hope these adjustments can be made soon and that all those in receipt of war veterans allowance will obtain the benefit of the new formula without delay.
That is not an inconsiderable list of things to find in a bill which one has to say are good. They are all very good and they are welcome. That leads me to draw attention to some shortcomings and some things which are not here at all. In respect of the point I have been discussing about quarterly escalation I still regret-and we will run into this as time goes on-that the plan of escalation is one that is always behind.
The plan being adopted for war veterans allowance escalation is exactly the same plan as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) brought in with respect to old age security and the quaranteed income supplement. So, I cannot ask one minister to do something without asking the other minister to do the same thing. Since both are present this evening I put this to both of them.
The plan that is in this bill, like the plan applying to OAS and GIS, works this way. At the beginning of a quarter you go back two months. Then you take the three months prior to those two months, and you compare the cost of living in those three months with the three months prior thereto. So when you have an escalation in the allowance or an escalation in old age security and the guaranteed income supplement you are really eight months behind. To tell me this is because it is too complicated to compute is something I cannot swallow.
Then in respect of the orphans, the orphans' benefits will not escalate quarterly but rather annually. Again the minister has been handed the program that is in the legislation of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When you get an escalation in January you go back three months, take the 12 months before that and compare the cost of living in that 12 months with the 12 months before that. The time when people need the escalation most is when the cost of living has gone up, and not eight months later as in the quarterly case, or a couple of years later as is almost the case in the instance of annual escalation.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare receives many letters complaining about the escalation of old age pensions being behind. The Minister of Veterans Affairs will soon get the same treatment. He is hoping that all he is going to get will be many letters thanking him for this escalation on a quarterly basis. He will get those, but it will not be long until letters come saying that it is very nice to get the escalation but it is not enough, that it does not match the rise in the cost of living and that it is five or six months out of date.
I therefore urge the minister to get interested in this subject and have a conference with the Minister of National Health and Welfare so that they may soon come up with an idea on escalation that is more up to date than this scheme which is patterned after the one in the Old Age Security Act, with all of its shortcomings.
Veterans Affairs
Speaking of escalation, I want to support the proposal made by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe that it ought also now to apply to disability pensions. It seems to me there are going to be all sorts of complications with old age security, the guaranteed income supplement and the war veterans allowance being escalated quarterly, and the war disability pension being escalated annually.
The minister shakes his head, Mr. Speaker. I do not know whether he was worrying about those complications or saying, in effect, "No matter what we do those fellows over there want something more". It is this government that boasts about quarterly escalation and that it brought it in for old age pensions and for the guaranteed income supplement, after the Minister of National Health and Welfare said he did not want to do that but would rather bring in substantial increases in the basic amount. Well, the government cannot have it both ways, Mr. Speaker; if it is proud of having brought in quarterly escalation for a number of programs, the onus is on the government to bring it in for all pension programs.
To return to the War Veterans Allowances Act, I listened with interest when my friend from Newfoundland said he could not read his notes. I thought he was looking down here and reading mine because I have only one point noted that he did not have. He was perfectly right in his plea about the 365 day requirement. I understood this requirement when it was put in the War Veterans Allowance Act over 40 years ago. This applies to veterans of World War I.
Surely we do not need any longer to deny veterans aged 75, 80 or 85 the benefit of the war veterans allowance because their service in England in world war I was only 364, 360 or even only 180 days? It seems to me that at this point we could say to a veteran who saw any service at all overseas in World War I that he can qualify for the war veterans allowance.
I liked the way the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe was putting it, Mr. Speaker. He did not use the words "guaranteed annual income for veterans" but that is what he was advocating. I suggest the time has come when we ought to say to any veteran of World War I that he does not any longer have to go through the rigmarole necessary under the Canadian Pension Commission, or to meet the tests of the war veterans allowance board, but rather that a guaranteed annual income will be his by right.
Someone will immediately suggest that there are veterans of World War II who are just as old. All right, we could establish the age at 75, 70 or 65 and say to every veteran in the country that at that age he is to be guaranteed an annual income. As the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe has proposed, it should be reasonably better than the income provided under our civilian social security legislation. It is a good place to begin this concept of a guaranteed annual income and I strongly urge it upon the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
I said that I had one point that the hon. member for Humber-St-George's-St. Barbe did not see when he looked over here, Mr. Speaker. It relates to the war disability pensions paid under the Pension Act but it has a tie-in with the War Veterans Allowance Act. I have in mind the
28305-381/!

October 21, 1974
Veterans Affairs
provision which denies the widow of any veteran a war widow's pension unless her husband was on a disability pension of 48 per cent or more before he died. The Woods commission recommended that this should be scrapped in favour of a pro rata arrangement, and that any widow of a veteran who had had a disability pension should get a pension as of right, whatever the scale might be. I think we should start to apply that to widows, especially widows of veterans of World War I. I welcome the sympathetic hearing that has been given this matter by the minister and various officials in the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. I just hope that this year we get somewhere with this idea.
As the last speaker said, there will be an opportunity some time soon to discuss the War Veterans Land Act so we need not go into that tonight. The notice under the amendment to the statute of last spring was filed last Thursday, October 17, so that means that within 15 days we get to that debate-that is, Mr. Speaker, unless the minister beats us to it one of these days by announcing a new veterans housing program. I would be quite happy if he were to do so.
What we have before us tonight is the War Veterans Allowance Act and I say again that we welcome the improvements being made. I hope the minister will become part of an effort to get escalation more up to date. I hope he will take another look at the matter of applying a family allowance test to the moneys to be made available to the children of war veterans allowance recipients. I hope he will get rid of that 365 day clause for veterans of World War I and I hope he will take a new look at the position of all widows, especially those whose husbands were on pensions of less than 48 per cent before they died.
I have no quarrel at all with the minister's pride in presenting this legislation. As a package it is one of the best sets of improvements in the War Veterans Allowance Act for a long time. But maybe when we come out of committee with the bill it will be better still. We shall do our best to see that it is, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I am indeed fortunate to follow such eminent speakers as the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I always feel that these two gentlemen are good spokesmen for veterans, and it is an honour to follow them.
The minister should certainly be congratulated on this legislation. Both previous speakers mentioned that, and I am in full agreement. This bill updates the existing act and brings it into modern times.
It is a long time since a lot of our veterans fought in the wars. It is 56 years since world war I, over 28 years since world war II, and 22 years since Korea. It is interesting that people in Canada and members of this House still want to be fair and, shall I say, generous to their veterans.
Some of our young people tend to make fun of those who were in the army or fought for their country in the last war. That is too bad, because they confuse the causes of war and the lack of vision of those who allowed war to

happen with the people who were compelled to fight for their country, either because of patriotism or because they were called up. Why they fought makes no difference. They went through two wars in some cases, and they fought for freedom. We must not forget that.
Last week, when I could not get a flight at the right hour, I came up by train and began reading the "Gulag Archipelago." I could not finish the book on the train and am still reading it. The big thing is that apparently after the First World War in mother Russia they sent those who had spoken in disparaging terms of the state into exile, after interrogation and torture, for perhaps one or two years, even though those exiled had not the slightest intention to incite revolution. In Canada that would never be allowed to happen.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) spoke about the good news and the bad news. He mentioned quarterly escalation of pensions. I agree with what he said. I do not see why it takes so long to escalate pensions. I really think we should try to make the computer work better. I know it has not worked too well for the UIC this past year, but it is working better. I hope it will turn out the cheques right on the date when the escalation in pensions should occur. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) is to be congratulated for beginning this process. It applies to practically all pensions, and I do not see why we should not use it with veterans' pensions. They should be escalated every quarter, in line with the rise in the consumer price index, or whatever basis you use.
In the past, war veterans' legislation made little provision for children of veterans. That was very strange. The government increased family allowances for children up to $20 per child, and even this amount provides just a small amount of help. The point is this: the widow of a veteran with one child gets the same amount as the widow with two children. That is strange. The department and the board- and I congratulate Mr. Thompson-have decided that a flat rate of $50 is to be paid. The family allowance is deducted, so that if you get $20 in family allowance the flat rate under the veterans' legislation will be $30. I think this idea is sound.
My second point is that the bill will extend allowances for children up to age 25. This will allow the sons or daughters of veterans to continue their education without interruption. They will not need to leave school and work. That sort of thing delays graduation. I am glad that this provision has been introduced.
Another point which was covered by other members is that there is a flat rate or floor of $125 per month for the orphans of veterans. Previously, orphans were not well treated under the act. There is provision for up to three orphans of one family. Yet in some families there are five or six orphans. This, I think, should be examined.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said there is to be an increase in the ceiling of allowances paid to veterans and dependants. That ceiling will be escalated. I think this is very good.
Since we agree that we must treat our veterans generously, it is clear that, if we do not do these things provided
October 21, 1974

for in the bill, we shall treat our veterans shabbily. Mr. Speaker, the word to remember is shabby.
As other speakers said, the Veterans Land Act may be phased our next year. May I put in my oar in that respect. I ask the minister to consider helping veterans with housing. If this is in the works, I do not know. I think the veteran without money should be treated differently from the average citizen with little or no money. The advantage should always go to the veteran; he should get any differential.
I wish to make just one more point. The improvement in the escalation provided for in the bill is good. I feel that all veterans' pensions should be escalated, those paid to orphans as well as other pensions. Increasing the ceiling instead of paying the flat rate will be of great advantage. Only this way can we be generous to all veterans. Otherwise we shall treat them poorly.
I repeat, Canada owes a special debt to the men and women who served in times of crisis. I think this is a good bill, and support it fully. I hope the minister will consider the points I have mentioned. I commend him and the department for continued efforts to improve the lot of our veterans and their dependants.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the War Veterans Allowance Act became law in 1930 and was essentially designed as an old age pension for veterans who, because of the rigours of their service in the war theatres of World War I, were considered to have been pre-aged by about 10 years. Since then the act has been broadened to include veterans of the Nort-West Field Force, South African War, World II and Korean conflict, and their widows and orphans.
Bill C-4 contains a number of measures that the Progressive Conservative party has been seeking for some time now. We stated in our policy paper that we would introduce amendments to the War Veterans and Civilians Allowance Acts to ensure automatic increases bases on a three month cost of living index rather than on an annual basis. This would ensure more money for veterans more frequently.
The measure is most welcome, but we request an explanation of the reason quarterly increases were refused to orphans. This seems unjust. One can only hope it was merely an oversight.
The Progressive Conservative party advocates consultation with our provinces with a view to ensuring that increases in War Veterans Allowances do not lead to decreases in provincial social assistance payments. Has the government undertaken such consultations?
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall), and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), made mention of World War I veterans residing in the British Isles. I would also like to add my comments. At present there exists a restriction of 365 days' overseas service for veterans of World War I who enlisted prior to November 11, 1918. We suggest that this requirement be removed.
In order to receive an allowance outside Canada, a person must be a recipient at the time of his departure and
Veterans Affairs
must have resided in Canada for the 12 months immediately preceding the day he leaves Canada.
There are an estimated 10,000 Canadian veterans in the British Isles who have lived there since World War I or World War II. Many of these should be entitled to War Veterans Allowance, but have been unable to meet Canadian government regulations that demand that those who served in the forces spend at least one year in Canada before they can receive veterans allowance abroad.
There are many reasons why these veterans are not easily able to comply with these regulations. Some veterans are bed-ridden and paralyzed, eking out a precarious existence, and physically unable to come to Canada. Many are simply financially unable to make the long trip, with or without their families. Consequently there are some 600 or 700 Canadian veterans in great financial need in Britain alone.
There is no need for this situation to exist. Canada rightly looks after members of allied forces who are now in Canada; yet Canada ignores many of her own veterans who happen to be living abroad. I hope the minister will take note of my observations and take the necessary measures to bring in corrective legislation.


Mr. William Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand):: Mr. Speaker, as I was preparing notes to take part in this debate the chair was occupied by Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Louis-Hebert (Mrs. Morin). I had a few words I wanted to address to her. As she is still in the chamber, I will say this about her. Those people who grace the Speaker's chair bring with them some knowledge of the rules of debate in the House, wisdom, and good humour. When you add to that beauty, grace and charm, this House is doubly honoured.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William David Knowles: Who in this chamber is in a better position to make these comments than those who sit to the immediate left of the Speaker's chair?
I join my colleagues in supporting the passage of Bill C-4. It is especially fitting that we should be debating this bill and expediting its passage close to the eve of Remembrance Day, November 11. What better wreath could we place on the cenotaph to remember the dead of two world wars than this bill which gives benefit to the living veterans of those wars?
I congratulate the minister and his departmental officials on this bill. The remarks of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) indicated that we on this side of the House support these changes. We have advocated them, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
The hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe has made a real contribution to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs. He has made many positive suggestions to the department. He is respected by members of the committee, members on all sides of the House, and veterans from all across this land.
It is worth noting that members of the Standing Committee on Ve-.erans Affairs take a continuing non-partisan view of the problems of veterans. No other committee of

October 21, 1974
Veterans Affairs
this parliament has more good will or a more genuine desire to work for the benefit of those whom it is desirous of serving.
There is general agreement among all members of the House that this bill should be passed almost immediately. I have only two comments I wish to make. The first has to do with the increase in the income ceiling. According to this bill it is to be increased by a formula base which includes the consumer price index and other factors which have been detailed by previous speakers. However, due to the inflation which is rampant in today's economy, even with these increases the poor veteran will only find enough absolute dollars to pay his grocery bill. He will not be helped very much when it comes to the other costs such as shelter, heat, clothing and so on. While these increases are of some value to him, I do not feel they are overly generous.
Legislation introduced by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) will make some changes to the Canada Pension Plan. The ceiling on income of people receiving the Canada Pension Plan will be completely removed for those over age 65. The Department of Veterans Affairs should take note of that precedent and introduce it as a regulation or, if necessary, as an amendment to the act. There is certainly a precedent. It would approach nearer to the guaranteed income spoken of by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I sincerely suggest this to the minister and his officials. I trust they will take due note of it.
Correspondence received by members of parliament concerns a number of problems affecting veterans. One problem that recurs quite often is the matter of over-payment of War Veterans Allowance, often that paid to the widow of a deceased veteran. This is through no fault of hers. She is ignorant because she does not understand the regulations. She takes the cheques which come to her in good faith. The War Veterans Allowance Board suddenly notices she is being overpaid. They ask for repayment, which is their right.
It is agreed the terms are most generous, but in cases brought to my attention even the most generous terms can be a great hardship. Is there not some way in which the department could write off such overpayments? These could be judged on the merits of each case. I believe there are cases where the demands for repayment are amply justified. However, there are other cases which, with a real sense of humanity and generosity on the part of the department, could and should be written off.
In conclusion, I should like to pay a tribute to Mr. Don Thompson of the War Veterans Allowance Board whose kindness and courtesy to myself and, I am sure, to all other hon. members who inquire about particular problems relating to our constituents, is deeply appreciated.
I am told that speeches to be immortal need not be eternal, Mr. Speaker. With this maxim in mind I shall conclude my remarks forthwith.


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join those who have spoken before me in welcoming this bill. My remarks will be brief and I am

sure we can pass the bill on second reading by ten o'clock. We would in no way delay the passage of this measure. The provisions it contains have been a long time coming and they have been requested, I am sure, by members in all parties in the House.
From my conversations with veterans and representatives of veterans organizations I find that many veterans are finding it increasingly difficult to live on their pensions and allowances. Each year it becomes a little harder for them to cope with the cost of living or, shall I say, the cost of staying alive-perhaps if we used the latter phrase we should find it would not roll off, our tongues as easily as does "the cost of living".
The Veterans Affairs Standing Committee is one of the truly non-partisan committees. I was very pleased to play my part in the work of that committee. Each of its members is anxious to get a better deal for the veteran. We all feel the bill should go farther than it does. We all feel that veterans should not be obliged to beg to anyone. We all feel that they should live their lives with honour and dignity. If there is any group which deserves a special place in our society it is the veterans.
Most veterans' organizations continue to serve their communities year after year. Along with other service clubs they sponsor a variety of projects. Indeed it has been the hallmark of their generation to give to their country and to their community. In many cases they get very little in return.
The bill before us will go a long way toward removing many of the inequities facing veterans in Canada. I should like to see the 365 days' overseas service requirement affecting world war I veterans removed. Surely, the few hundred thousand world war I veterans left in Canada should get all we can give them. I am confident those among the world war I veterans who presently qualify, that is, those who served more than a year overseas, would not deny these benefits to their fellow veterans.
I should also like to see consideration given to the position of veterans who served Canada well during times of war but who did not return to Canada. Surely we can consider their situation. There are only a few thousand left and, if we find ourselves able to consider programs of aid to the less fortunate in other nations, surely we can look after those Canadians who served their country in time of war either as members of the Canadian forces or as civilians on war duty for Canada. Let us first look after our own.
We know that many of them are living in Europe, especially in Britain where they are experiencing economic problems. I believe we should amend this legislation to include persons who, for one reason or another, chose not to return to Canada after their war services.
I do not suppose one could find anywhere in our society a group of people more fiercely proud of their service to their country than the veterans.-1 am one of them and I am proud to stand with them whenever I can. It is a source of inspiration to me to see how resourceful most veterans are, and how well they cope with the problems of the day. The members of the Veterans Affairs Committee look forward to receiving this bill and will, no doubt, return it to the House with all dispatch so that the benefits con-
October 21, 1974

tained therein can be put into effect with all possible speed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order. I would remind the House that if the minister speaks at this point it will conclude the debate at this stage.


Jack Marshall: If we happen to go past ten o'clock I wonder whether there would be unanimous consent to give the bill second reading so that it might go to the committee. Could we allow the minister sufficient time to conclude his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, in rising to conclude this debate I simply wish to thank hon. members for their participation. We have listened with interest to the many comments which have been made, and we look forward to the bill being passed on to committee for an in-depth study of the matters which have been brought up.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

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

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday October 17, as recorded in Hansard at page 471, I sought under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to present a motion having to do with the proposed legislation for the payment of old age pensions to persons between the ages of 60 and 65 who are spouses of persons over 65. To my surprise there was not unanimous approval-somebody said no. Accordingly, I had no option but to put the same matter to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) in the form of a question which is to be found on page 479 of Hansard for the same date. My question read as follows:
In view of the justifiable complaints of many persons between the ages of 60 and 65 against the unfairness of their not being included in the proposed legislation regarding pensions, and despite there not being unanimous consent to the motion I moved earlier, will the minister give consideration to reviewing the proposed legislation and make pensions available across the board to those who are out of the labour market?
That latter phrase might have been expanded, of course, to read:
-to persons across the board who are between 60 and 65 and who are out of the labour market?
In all of this, Your Honour, we are dealing with a promise made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)
Adjournment Debate
during the last election campaign, a promise which was repeated in the Speech from the Throne and indicated in the list of bills to come before this session of parliament. The bill in question is one which will make available to persons between 60 and 65 years of age who are spouses a pension under the Old Age Security Act provided, of course, that the other spouse is over 65 and drawing a pension, and provided that between the two of them they meet a certain means or income test. The Minister of National Health and Welfare in his reply the other day admitted that when this proposal was made it was brought forward as an interim measure.
I well remember that when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made the promise during the election campaign he referred to the very types of individuals that I have mentioned-spinsters, widows, bachelors and widowers- as not being covered. I certainly got the impression from what I heard the Prime Minister say that he knew that in due course the payment of pensions at age 60 would have to be made more general, and that it would have to cover all persons in the age bracket of 60 to 65 who are in need.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare now says that the measure is an interim one in the sense that it is a forerunner of a guaranteed annual income for persons of all ages who may be in need. He talked the other day as well about the plan as being one that would solve the problem of two persons trying to live on one pension. That is fine, Mr. Speaker, but what about the one person trying to live on no pension?
It is all very fine to say to a married person, woman or man, who is between the age of 60 and 65, "Because your spouse is getting a pension we are going to give you one too". What about the single person, whether spinster, bachelor, widow or widower, who is in that same bracket, who is also in need, has no pension and is not to qualify under this legislation?
To my mind, no matter how much the minister tries to say that this is an interim measure in the way that he described it the other day, the fact is that in the eyes of the people and the country generally it is a pension payable at age 60; and there is going to be a very great feeling of unfairness when one 63 year old woman gets it because her husband is 66 and on a pension, and another 63 year old woman does not get it because she is a widow or a spinster. I could reverse the situation and speak of a 63 year old man under the same conditions.
I suggest that because of this unfairness that people are going to feel, the minister is starting off on the wrong foot by bringing in these pensions at 60 only in the case of the spouse between the ages of 60 and 65, rather than in the case of all those in that area who need it. I am quite prepared, as I have indicated in all of the speeches I have made on this matter over many years, to accept an employment test, to say that pensions are to be paid only to those persons between 60 and 65 who are out of the labour market. That will cover all the spouses who would meet the conditions of the minister's proposal, but it would be fairer, more general, and would not have the shortcomings that are in the minister's plan.

October 21, 1974
Adjournment Debate
When I tried the other day to move my motion under Standing Order 43, the Chair had something to say about there not being urgency to the question. There was no opportunity to argue it then and I am not now arguing with Mr. Speaker's ruling. But in my view the urgency of the matter is that once the minister's bill comes in it is pretty hard to get it changed.


Marc Lalonde: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says "Hear, hear!" I never thought that this minister would get that arrogant so fast, just because he sits over there with a majority. That was not the way the minister talked during the last parliament. At any rate, that is one of the facts of life in a majorty parliament.


Marc Lalonde: Even with a minority, and you know that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In a minority parliament all sorts of things get changed, and the minister knows that. I am trying to get at the minister before he brings in the bill because once the bill comes in it is pretty hard to change. I am trying to get him to act with the common sense I believe he has, and to redraft this bill before he brings it in so it will provide pensions for all persons between age 60 and age 65 who are out of the labour market.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have a lot of respect for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and for all the points he mentioned. I pay a lot of attention to all his comments. He is experienced and has been concerned about problems in respect of pensions for a long time.
I am surprised at a lot of the talk that has been going on on this whole subject, and at the reactionary thinking he has adopted. Perhaps I should not be surprised in the light of the support he has just received from some of his colleagues on the Conservative side. When he talks about those out of the labour market I suppose he includes housewives. Does he also refer to the professional millionaire who decides to retire at age 60 because he has made enough money? He is out of the labour market too. The hon. member does not say whether those pensions should be universal or via an income test.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The retired millionaire gets a pension at age 65 and pays a heavy tax on it.


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member has a lot of explanations to give. In regard to his suggestion that the proposal put forward will bring unhappiness to the country, let me say I think it will bring unhappiness only if he goes around confusing the issue and trying to mislead the people as to the intention of this particular proposal. I am convinced that the hon. member is not a man who would intentionally mislead the people.
The purpose of this bill, which I repeat is an interim measure, is to make provision for a couple when one is forced to retire at age 65 and they find themselves living on the pension of one. The hon. member asks about the other situation where a single person is living at age 60

without a pension. I can only ask about such an individual who is 58 or 59.
I appeal to the hon. member to understand the general principle of a guaranteed income. I hope we will soon be in a position to come to the aid of people who are in need, whatever their ages. The idea that there will be some great solution to our social security problems in dishing out hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars to people between the ages of 60 and 65 including those who might not need it, is not realistic. That is not the way to come to the aid of needy people in our society.
I urge the hon. member that he really look at this proposal and see the purpose of it in the broader context of a general guaranteed income for all those in need, whatever the age or condition.


SOCIAL SECURITY-SUGGESTED AMENDMENT TO CERTAIN PENSION PROGRAMS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, sometimes I get a shock here. This is the second time I have been on my feet in one day. I sometimes wonder why I am not recognized during the question period, so thank God there is a late show once in a while.
The subject of my question is closely related to the matter dealt with by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). On October 15 I asked whether any consideration was being given, in consultation with the provinces, to increasing the national minimum of $75 a month in allowances for the blind and disabled. I appreciate the minister's answer as I know he is aware of the problem. He indicated his government was trying to do away with special categories by introducing a guaranteed annual income. I agree to some extent that this is a step in a desirable direction, but there are two categories of people, the blind and the disabled, who deserve immediate attention, perhaps even on an emergency basis, particularly as the increases in the cost of living have a greater effect on them than on the ordinary welfare recipient.
Surely it must be realized that those suffering exceptional incapacity deserve extra help because they suffer from adverse conditions? Surely the blind, the crippled, who under no circumstances can help themselves, in a great number of cases require some form of attendance, assistance, special nutritional foods, and so forth? Surely the bedridden and the permanent cripple who was born with defects cannot manage to exist under the strain of rampant inflation?
I believe these people are deserving of consideration. Surely the mentally retarded, the person suffering from cancer, or the person with a tumor are deserving of exceptional incapacity allowances even perhaps in cases where the husband or spouse is earning an income over the maximum allowable?
The Blind Persons Act an the Disabled Persons Act are under provincial aegis and it is their responsibility. Yet when I approach the provincial government I am told I should take up the matter with the Department of National Health and Welfare.
October 21, 1974

All of us would like to see a guaranteed annual income. I realize the difficulty the minister has in compiling all the various fixed income programs. It does not look as if we will have a guaranteed annual income in the very near future. If we are to await the result of the pilot project that is taking place in some areas under federal-provincial co-operation, these incapacitated people will continue to suffer. In the meantime what do the blind people do in order to cope with the increases in the cost of living? All I can say to the minister is that while I appreciate he is confronted with various problems, in the meantime an emergency situation exists in Canada in respect of these people who have been born with defects with which they cannot cope.
The bill that has been passed tonight in respect of the allowances for veterans will mean additional income. All I can do is appeal to the minister again to take the initiative. I realize the provinces are at fault. I even blame my own province where we have a government whose policies coincide with those of the official opposition. However, I hope that something can be done to help these people cope with the serious situation facing them.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall) on this particular issue. The points he has indicated are quite correct particularly with regard to the province of Newfoundland which has elected to retain the Blind Persons Act. However, between the guaranteed annual income of the near future and the Blind and Disabled Persons Acts of the present there is another option available to the province. But it is up to the provincial government to take advantage of the Canada Assistance Plan. I should like to take a few minutes to clarify the situation.
As the hon. member knows, under the Canada Assistance Plan the granting of assistance is based on the need of an individual or family as determined by the province, rather than on the categorization which in the past limited assistance to those who were blind, disabled, aged or unemployed. This philosophy was formally embodied in the Canada Assistance Plan which was introduced in 1966. Through agreements with the provinces under this act, the federal government shares in the cost of providing financial assistance and welfare services to all persons who are in need for whatever reason.
Because of the limitations of the categorical programs which preceded the Canada Assistance Plan, it was decided that, effective 1981, the federal government would cease to participate in these programs, namely the Blind Persons and Disabled Persons Acts. Most provinces have in fact ceased to accept applications under these programs and have transferred recipients to their more comprehensive assistance program.
However, some blind and disabled persons could not qualify for the greater benefits available under the comprehensive program, primarily because their assets exceeded the allowable limits. Therefore, as of March 31, 1974, Manitoba and New Brunswick were still accepting applications under both the Blind and Disabled Persons Act, while Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland were only accepting them under the Blind Persons Act. At the end of the last fiscal year there were 1,814
Adjournment Debate
recipients of blind persons allowances and 4,369 of disabled persons allowances.
While it is true that allowances have not been increased recently under these programs, the mechanism by which applicants are assessed is less stringent than that under the Canada Assistance Plan. Therefore, recipients are usually allowed more assets, and federal payments such as family allowances and OAS/GIS are not counted as heavily in determining eligibility. I would also like to make clear that in those provinces where applications are still being accepted under the categorical programs, supplementary benefits under their assistance programs are available.
With the completion of the federal-provincial review of Canada's social security programs I am confident that problems such as those created by the categorization of assistance recipients can be resolved, as I indicated to the hon. member in the previous answer.


PUBLIC SERVICE-REQUEST FOR ELIMINATION OF REGIONAL WAGE DISPARITIES
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, on October 11 I asked a question of the newly appointed President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) regarding his intention to work toward the phasing out of regional wage inequalities. I pointed out that this was a commitment made during the recent election campaign by some Liberal candidates in the Atlantic area.
I do not raise this matter in a spirit of sarcasm but merely to put on the record that, for example, Mr. Patterson, the candidate who ran against the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), was very emphatic about this. He is reported in the Halifax Herald in June as saying that he was winning support within the ranks of his party for his policy of wage parity for several workers in the area. He said that a motion to this effect was endorsed at a meeting of Atlantic Liberal candidates in Halifax, and he claimed that he had won the support of three cabinet ministers for equity and was putting the question to every cabinet minister who visited the area. Another candidate who ran unsuccessfully against a former deputy speaker of this House expressed similar sentiments in the press.
The cabinet of this administration, Mr. Speaker, has on some occasions expressed sympathy for the concept of working out ways to stop the practice of one department undoing what the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is trying to do.
In response to what I asked concerning his attitude toward the perpetuation of regional wage inequities, on October 15 in committee the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) said:
My own basic philosophy-and I do not like to evade the question- is that there has to be some consistency in government policy. When we apply minimum wages we apply them across the country. If you are going to reduce regional disparity, you are not going to reduce it by perpetuating-
The minister went on to say that he never believed the cost of living in Halifax, for example, was substantially lower than in central Canada.

October 21, 1974
Adjournment Debate
I would like to urge the President of the Treasury Board to make a policy commitment to work actively toward phasing out this practice of paying people under his employ less money in one part of the country for the same kind of work their brethren are doing in a different part of the country.
At the present time PSA negotiators are dealing with the Treasury Board on wage issues in the general category of labour and trades in the Atlantic region. In this context, it is necessary to quote from a letter written by the former president of the treasury board on July 16 this year in answer to an inquiry from my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East, relating to the statements of Liberal candidates that I referred to earlier.
The then president of the treasury board in his letter of July 16, 1974, which I shall quote in part, said:
It is not desirable to create a general disparity between Public Service rates in lower-income areas and those paid by private industry and other levels of government. The provincial governments, on their part, are sensitive to federal Public Service rates of pay which are in excess of their rates.
From my knowledge, the trend is not that federal civil servants are paid more than their counterparts in provincial or private sector employment. In many cases it is the direct opposite. I refer to a situation which arose not many months ago involving nurses under federal jurisdiction, who were paid less than their sisters in the private sector and, in some cases, those working for the provinces.
In the Halifax area there is substantial differential in the pay of certain trades. Boilermakers employed federally made approximately $2.63 an hour less than their counterparts in provincial or private employment. Electricians make approximately $2.44 an hour less and labourers $2.12 less, even when one takes into account fringe benefits which have been made available to those employed in the federal public service and not available to those employed in the private or provincial sector.
I suggest that not one premier of Canada actively supports the type of wage policy espoused by Treasure Board at this time. I know that it is impractical to end regional pay differences in one fell swoop. As an interim measure it should be possible to achieve parity with the best paid people in a region. I believe the PSA is adopting a policy of designating areas within so-called depressed regions. For example, in Nova Scotia it would be Halifax, and in Quebec, Montreal and so on.
In those areas the standard of wages could be determined and Treasury Board could make sure that a wage equivalent to that paid in other sectors is paid to those in federal employ, even if one takes into account fringe
benefits. The PSA, as an interim measure, wants wage equality in the different regions of the country.
I hope the President of the Treasury Board adopts the philosophical attitude which was shown recently by the Postmaster General in committee. Let him assure us that in future he will end the practice which runs counter, as the Postmaster General among others said, to the aims in the various regions, of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, without doubt there are clearly identifiable regional labour and pay markets in Canada for certain occupations. The hon. member alluded, I think, to the possibility of setting up pilot projects in places like Halifax and Montreal, under which rates of pay could be set.
Rates of pay, pay systems, and administrative rules governing pay in that part of the federal public service for which the Treasury Board is the employer, are items that are subject to negotiation under the Public Service Staff Relations Act. That we must bear in mind. Consequently, changes in pay systems cannot be made unilaterally by the government as employer. Any modifications of present regional rate systems and the extension of regional pay systems to other occupational groups can only flow from agreements between the government as employer and the bargaining agent, or from awards rendered by the arbitration tribunal.
It is the policy of the government as employer to try to bargain regional rates with certified bargaining agents where it is feasible and appropriate to do so; that is, for those groups where public servants are located in two or more regions of Canada, where the pay data for similar occupational groups in the private sector indicate significant regional variations from the Canadian average, and where the area of recruitment and the mobility of employees within the public service are limited.
These circumstances are typically found in groups in the operational category and the administrative support category, but they exist in groups in other categories as well. Paying national rates of pay in such circumstances can only result in some public servants receiving less than their counterparts in their region and others receiving rates in excess of those prevailing in their particular region.
To adopt a simplistic approach, paying one rate for right across Canada, in essence begs the question, begs the reality.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn this House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:27 p.m.

Tuesday, October 22, 1974