1974-10-25

MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-7, to authorize federal trust companies and loan companies to increase the monetary limit of their borrowing power and to issue subordinated notes, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table copies in both official languages of the report on the February 27, 1974 accident to Saberlin-er CF-BRL.


COMMUNICATIONS
Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I wish to table correspondence exchanged with a number of provincial communications ministers.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in the House order under which we are considering supply during these three days it was provided that there should be no ministerial statements on motions. I have had some discussions with representatives of the other parties, and because of the particular circumstances affecting the health of the Canadian people it was agreed unanimously that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) should be given the opportunity of making a statement, followed by the usual responses from the other parties. I would ask whether this is agreeable in order that the minister might make his statement now?


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week in answer to questions put by the opposition in respect of this very serious matter the minister saw fit to give some fairly flippant replies. Now, after he has given us a cooking lesson and got his fingers burned in the process, he has decided to become serious.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[DOT] (mo)


An hon. Member:: Yes, or no!


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of the special order under which we are considering supply, the operation of Standing Order 52 is suspended. Accordingly, if a statement on motions is to be made it would have to be on the basis of unanimous consent. Either there is, or there is not such consent; the matter cannot be debated.


Walter David Baker: The statement the minister proposed to make was delivered to the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) at 10.50 this morning and, quite frankly, we have had no opportunity to study this matter, one which we believe to be serious and which the minister is finally treating as serious. However, we are prepared to give consent to this statement being made at two o'clock this afternoon, which would give us an opportunity to study the matter.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Because of the importance of this issue we in this party were prepared to hear the statement now and to make a response from this side right away. But of course, if the official opposition is not willing that this be done now but is disposed to give unanimous consent to the statement being made at two o'clock we will agree.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: If this motion has received the unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, it is because we feel that this issue, which concerns the public health area, is of tremendous importance. We are willing to let the hon. minister make his statement.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the House shall revert to motions at two o'clock in order to allow the minister to make a statement on motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Lalonde:: On a question of privilege. I should like to point out to the hon. member who is speaking for the

October 25, 1974
Petroleum. Administration Act
opposition that after the discussion took place between the representatives of the parties I sought to get in touch with the hon. member immediately by telephone to read over the text of the statement. I instructed my office to do this and they did so but the hon. member was not in his office. We did everything we could to reach him and read the statement over to his secretary. That was at 10.30.


Some hon. Members:: Big deal!


Walter David Baker: On the question of privilege, if the minister really regards this matter as being a serious one he ought not to have any untoward objection to the opposition taking time for the study which the minister himself seems to feel the subject deserves. I think the House and the country owes a vote of thanks to Mrs. Plumptre who finally brought the minister to his senses.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: That's a real switch!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has now agreed that this matter be proceeded with at two o'clock. We really should refrain from commenting on the subject matter.


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. There seems to be some discrepancy between the minister's version and the one on this side. A call was received by my office at twenty minutes to eleven. I was not present when the call came in. The statement arrived in my office at ten minutes to eleven. It is customary in this House for ministers to give at least an hour's notice of statements. All I can say is that we wanted an opportunity to examine the statements made during the question period since last Monday and to examine the minister's statement in the context of his replies, some of which were flippant and irresponsible.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, may I draw the attention of Your Honour and this House to a distinguished Canadian in our gallery, the mayor of Oak Bay. He is sitting in the gallery opposite.


An hon. Member:: On the wrong side of the House.


PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT
Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: the first reading of Bill C-32, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade.
Motion agreed to bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.


MOTOR VEHICLE TIRE SAFETY ACT
Jean Marchand: the first reading of Bill S-8 (from the Senate) respecting the use of national safety marks in relation to motor vehicle tires and to provide for safety standards for certain motor vehicle tires imported into or exported from Canada or sent or conveyed from one province to another.


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


Mr.   Sean@: My question, Mr. Speaker, is directed to the Solicitor General and arises out of the reply given in this chamber yesterday by the minister when I asked him about the escape of five extremely dangerous inmates from Laval security institution. The minister said at that time:
I might say that we had put out special orders in respect of these men some time ago ... For some reason or other these orders I had given, and which had been given by the Commissioner of Penitentiaries, were not followed.
Can the Solicitor General advise us whether these special instructions concerning these extremely dangerous inmates were given by him, because as far back as three weeks ago the minister and his officials had been warned by the Quebec provincial police that these inmates, three of whom had already previously escaped, would make another attempt to do so?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I was never advised by the Quebec provincial police, nor was the Commissioner of Penitentiaries. When I heard yesterday that the Quebec provincial police had advised somebody in the service, I immediately checked to find out who in the Quebec provincial police advised the penitentiary service, and I want to know whom they advised. I only found that out yesterday afternoon. I am waiting for a report on that particular point. If in fact the Quebec provincial police did advise our officials, and it seems they did, this means that there is even more negligence on the part of someone in the system, but I was not advised, and the people in Ottawa were not advised.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the minister who speaks about negligence in the system. The minister has now admitted that the Quebec provincial police some three weeks ago warned that this escape would be attempted. The minister now admits he was not advised by his officials.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 25, 1974


Sean Patrick O'Sullivan: Yesterday he admitted in the House that officials did not carry out his instructions to watch these men with extra caution. Now that the minister is not being advised by officials of the department about what is going on in his ministry and it is now clear that his instructions to his officials are not being carried out, is the minister going to do the honourable thing and submit his resignation?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is distorting what I said and also what he has been reading in the press. I said that I have been advised that the Quebec provincial police advised people in my department that there would be an escape. I checked into that. I want to know who gave the advice and who received the advice. I did not get that advice and the Commissioner of Penitentiaries did not get it. On the other point, Mr. Speaker, as with many things that happen I am waiting for a report on the whole issue before I accuse any particular individual of negligence. It seems to me there is negligence somewhere. There has to be when you have such flagrant violations of the ordinary regulations. We will get a report, Mr. Speaker, and then action will be taken.


ST. VINCENT DE PAUL-INQUIRY AS TO SECURITY CHECKS
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General. Is there a security check of visitors to the St. Vincent de Paul Penitentiary and, in particular, was there a security check with regard to the woman who is alleged to have smuggled guns into the prison to escapees from the penitentiary?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, in general there are security checks of all visitors into the penitentiary. When I enter a penitentiary there is a check on me and people with me. For some reason, and this is the subject of the investigation, there was not a proper check or no check at all on the visitors who went into St. Vincent de Paul Laval maximum security institution the other day. I want to find out why that check was not made and why instructions were not properly given.


SUGGESTED INCREASE IN NUMBER OF MEAT INSPECTORS- POSSIBILITY OF MORE SEVERE PENALTIES FOR OFFENCES AGAINST REGULATIONS CONCERNING MEAT
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and is prompted by the growing body of evidence that individuals may very well be eating ground beef contaminated from coli or staphyloccocci.
My question is further prompted by the very startling revelation that of the 100 inspectors of the Food and Drug Division available to enforce 184 pages of regulations under the Food and Drug Act, less than ten man years of those inspectors are used in the meat inspection branch to
Oral Questions
examine the thousands of meat departments of supermarkets for infection in meat. May I ask the minister what he is doing to assure Canadians that he will either change the regulations, change the law or immediately increase the inspection capability?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. As I told him yesterday, I have given instructions to increase the inspection and improve the standards. I expect regulations to be promulgated to improve standards in the very near future. This will be the result of consultations that have already taken place with private industry and the various departments of the government. At the present time, over 245 people are assigned to food programs in the Field Operation Directorate of my department. I have given instructions to immediately assign 30 of these people in the field to work exclusively on meat samples across the country. This would be in addition to the 1,255 meat inspectors of the Department of Agriculture and the 195 inspectors in the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs involved in various aspects of food inspection. It should also be noted that provincial and municipal governments also have inspectors who are involved in food inspection. This has all to be kept in perspective. Canada has a food inspection program that compares favourably with any other country and I intend to keep it that way.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, we were just given a sneak preview of the statement which the minister is going to give by consent at two o'clock. Even at that, he has further startled the country by telling us that we now have only 30 inspectors. That is not even enough for the city of Toronto. Notwithstanding the revelations contained in the minister's reply, will he now consult his colleague, the Minister of Justice, to bring in more severe penalties and wider publication of those penalties as a further means of ensuring that Canadians will not eat contaminated beef.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I remind hon. members that the total number of inspectors is not 30 but 1,255, plus 95, plus all those in the provinces and municipalities who are also doing inspection. As to the hon. member's question, I suggest he wait for the new regulations concerning standards, which I expect will soon be promulgated, and see what they contain. As far as publicity, court cases are not conducted in Star Chambers. They are conducted in open courts in this country. I am afraid we do not control the media. That coverage is provided by the media generally and is not something we do. We do not hold these court cases in Star Chambers.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is not deliberately trying to mislead the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: -just as I am sure the minister did not deliberately mislead the House when he gave those misleading replies to questions earlier this week. The minister suggested that there are 1,255 inspectors in the Department of Agriculture, when he knows full well that they do not carry out inspection at the retail level but at the

October 25, 1974
Oral Questions
packing house level. The fact is, the minister has not assured the House-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suggest that we should revert to motions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The New Democratic Party, like the Conservative party got the statement at about 10.30. We were prepared to respond responsibly and seriously to what we regard as misadministration by the government. We had the information. We did not try to have it both ways, by calling for a delay in House proceedings until two o'clock and then proceeding with questions. I suggest that the Conservative party ought to agree to our reverting to motions so that the minister can finish making the statement he has half made already. Then, let the hon. member for St. John's East make his comments, if he is prepared. I think he could do that. Let us do that, instead of using up one hour this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is trying to extricate himself from an embarrassing position. He did not think this matter was sufficiently urgent to be raised in the House until yesterday. The opposition still suggests that we need adequate time to examine the minister's statement. Considering the replies he gave earlier this week, we feel that our original contention that the statement should be made at two o'clock should stand.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I feel the House should forget about carcasses and proceed to live cattle.
I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. The minister is certainly aware of the extremely disastrous situation resulting from the fact that cattle producers are being offered for their production prices which amount to 25 per cent of their costs. Does the minister consider this matter as urgent and does he intend to introduce measures shortly to help these producers cope with their difficulties?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I said earlier this week we are considering doing something. The hon. member must be patient for a little longer. There are five provinces which now have programs. These are based on the federal stabilization program to assist the beef raisers in those provinces which have made the announcements. The programs are based on

our stabilization program under which we guarantee 90 per cent of production costs over a five-year period. We are still being asked by the provinces to share in the programs they have initiated. Some of these programs are very different. It is very difficult to work out a cost sharing arrangement for some of the programs they have said they are going to use and, in fact, have put into force for the people in their provinces. We are trying to work out something for Canadian beef producers that will coincide with what the provinces are doing.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: As Quebec cattle raisers seem to be completely dissatisfied with the proposals of the provincial Minister of Agriculture, does the minister consider these satisfactory or will he bring in alternative proposals so as to maintain this production and meet the country's requirements?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, one of the main concerns is that we must keep the production. If we lose that, it will cost the consumers much more in the months and years ahead. It takes four years to get back into beef production once you get out of it. We are all concerned about that. Some of the provincial programs are very good. The program which the province of Quebec has put in to supplement the beef stabilization program compares with that of any other province. If the hon. member will study the situation, he will see that it is one of the best initiated by any province. That does not mean we are not going to do anything. We will be making a proposal next week.


BEEF CATTLE-REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF STABILIZATION PROGRAM
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: As this situation is serious, is the minister willing to revise the federal government compensation standards because of the high rise in production costs due to the increase not only in the cost of feed grain but also of various other similar products?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we are reviewing the stabilization program mainly because, as the hon. member has said, of the extra costs of feeding beef cattle and other livestock in this country.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. I wish to bring to the minister's attention that most of the isolated communities in northern Manitoba are located on the shores of rivers and lakes. Most of these communities depend on the water in these lakes and rivers for their water supply,


October 25, 1974

drawn mostly by pail from the shore. As there is no garbage disposal in any of these places garbage is dumped on the river and lake shore. What measures are being taken to correct this situation in most of our northern communities?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, that is a very general question. Possibly the hon. member can spell out the specific problems to which he is referring. There are plans whereby the Department of the Environment, in co-operation with the provinces, can undertake baseline studies of some of the environmental problems of certain regions. I would indeed be happy to look into anything about which the hon. member may want more information.


Cecil Morris Smith: Mr. Speaker, I will be more specific. The majority of the isolated communities in northern Manitoba have their fuel oil delivered in the winter which is stored in large tanks, in some cases up to
50,000	and 60,000 gallons. Many of these facilities are not handled in the proper way. There have been several large oil spills in many of the communities which have contaminated the water supply. Is any action being taken to protect these tanks with dykes which, I believe, is the law of this country?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the transportation of oil and the security safeguards come under the Department of Transport. The environmental aspects are under general regulations which we have published in order to ensure that these activities are carried on in such a way that the environment is protected. We do, of course, have contingency plans for any kind of accident which might occur. If there is any new danger which the hon. member knows of, we will be glad to look into it in order to ascertain whether further regulations need to be considered.



COMBINES


Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact this House has been and is again about to consider legislation and policy in respect of commercial matters in this country as well as such matters as competition policy and combines legislation, will the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether the committee sitting in the other place to review combines legislation in Canada is doing so at the request of the government? If so, for what purpose?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have very little influence upon the other place. I think they have done this on their own initiative as being a matter of importance to the country. It certainly was not done at the behest of the government.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: In the minister's role as Acting Prime Minister, can he indicate why it is preferable, if it is preferable, to have a committee of the other place review
Oral Questions
combines legislation and related subjects and not have such a deep seated subject matter, when we are dealing with such legislation, to have it referred to a committee of this House?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if the House will co-operate with the government, the combines investigation bill which is now before the House could be referred to the standing committee on Monday.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Was the decision to build a high speed rail link between Ottawa and Montreal for the 1976 Olympic Games delayed because the matter was under review by his ministry? If so, does the minister not feel it is probably too late at this point to have this project completed on time?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I read something about that in this morning's Gazette. However, I must say that a formal proposal was never submitted to me for an LRC train between Montreal and Ottawa in relation to the Olympics. We have the turbo train, the ordinary train, STOL, other aircraft travelling between Ottawa and Montreal as well as highways. Therefore, I do not feel we are in a bad position as far as the Olympics are concerned.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. However, will he not agree that the existing rail link between Ottawa and Montreal is hardly efficient or fast enough for this modern day and age and there will be a lot of delay as well as a needless loss of revenue for the city of Ottawa because there is not a proper rail link between this city and Montreal?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I discussed the problem with CPR because they are interested in this new LRC; light, rapid and comfortable train. It was not at all in relationship to the Olympics. They are interested and I think we are going to support the project.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the great importance of, and the wide public interest in, the world food conference which begins, I think, on November 3 in Rome, would the minister undertake to make a statement to the House before he leaves for the conference setting out what initiatives the government

October 25, 1974
Oral Questions
proposes to put before the conference, and in particular what Canada's attitude is toward a world food bank?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly give consideration to the suggestion of the hon. member. I am torn between the dilemma of giving the greatest possible information to members of the House before going to the conference, and at the same time respecting the conference itself in regard to outlining our policies, keeping in mind also the possible impact they might have at the conference itself. However, I will certainly consider the suggestion of the hon. member and do my very best.


Francis Andrew Brewin: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. When the minister is giving consideration to this matter, would he take into account that it is highly important that the whole public of Canada be aware of the importance of this conference, and that a statement by the minister in the House on the general principles that he will be advancing-we are not asking him for the details-should be put before the House prior to the conference taking place?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for that suggestion and I will try and abide by it if at all possible.




Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question but before doing so may I personally thank him for interviewing Mr. Fieger of Calgary regarding the situation in Mexico. May I preface my question by saying that in asking the question I am not endorsing what led to the alleged charges, but I am concerned to know whether Les Fieger has been charged with an offence, and if he has, whether if he was found guilty sentence has been passed. He has been held in custody since November 25, 1973.
The minister knows the facts. It was alleged that Mr. Fieger was held in Mexico without charge, without trial and without sentence. If he is found guilty of the charge it is a serious matter. I also wish the minister would give us some information about conditions because of alleged brutality which occurred while he was in custody.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to check out my memory on the state of the judicial proceedings and I will advise the hon. member later. With regard to the alleged maltreatment of Mr. Fieger in a Mexican jail, we brought this allegation to the attention of the Mexican authorities and at our request an investigation was held. It was reported that there was no evidence of maltreatment.
I did meet Mr. Fieger in September, I believe, and at that time I read a letter that his son had sent to his father whom I met. At that time, as I recollect, the letter stated

that there was no evidence of maltreatment as attested to by the inmate himself. As for the other points, I will get the information and provide it to the hon. member.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I put a further question to the minister. I have a copy of the letter he refers to, but the alleged brutality took place before the report was made to the former minister of external affairs. The minister says there was an investigation, but the investigation was conducted by Mexican authorities, not Canadian authorities. The right hon. member for Prince Albert also asked the minister about this matter, and in view of the conflict between the Mexican authorities, and in view of the fact that mail has to be smuggled out of the jail-the inmates pay for their own keep or they do not eat-would the minister agree that an independent group of Canadians should be allowed to investigate the whole matter? According to the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, whatever the facts are, if a Canadian is incarcerated in the jail of another country he should be treated with the same kind of dignity we would treat other citizens who found themselves in the same situation in Canada.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the standard that has to be applied, presumably in all institutions, is that inmates, regardless of origin, should be treated alike. It would not be possible for us to implant into another country practices that we have in this country. The suggestion that we have an independent inquiry into conditions in Mexican jails in order to satisfy ourselves would probably be resisted by any independent sovereign nation, including Canada if another country suggested the same thing. I hesitate to propose a policy or practice that would, by its very nature, be bound to fail.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member may put a final supplementary.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; this matter is of importance. In some respects I agree with the minister that we should not interfere with a sovereign state, but Mexico belongs to the United Nations and should adhere to the Declaration of Human Rights. Since there is strong evidence of maltreatment in this case, with money being taken from the father to pay for lawyers and food, I would ask the minister whether he would take up the matter with the United Nations or with the appropriate department of external affairs in Mexico, so as to ensure that conditions are reasonable, dignified and humane.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there have been
exchanges between my department and the ambassador of Mexico in Canada. I am sure that my hon. friend's representations will also be noted by the ambassador.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your recent appointment.
October 25, 1974

I now wish to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The most recent federal statistics published by the Department of National Revenue reveal that the main cities in central Quebec, located on the Montreal, Quebec, Trois-Rivieres and Sherbrooke axis, have the lowest income in Canada; more specifically, Drummondville, in the riding I have the honour of representing, ranks third, Granby fourth, Saint-Hyacinthe sixth and Victoriaville seventh. To enable those important cities to lose that dubious honour and to allow their citizens to fight inflation more successfully, does the department intend to take special measures in the near future to increase its help to that important area whose good industrial potential is great, and see that industries, as diversified as possible, and capable of paying better salaries, move in as soon as possible?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I think I got the question out of all that. The answer, of course, is that-


An hon. Member:: Is the answer yes or no?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that something of the order of $4.5 million or so has been spent in that area already in addition to other support services. Of course, we will continue to recognize the facts the hon. member has stated with regard to the necessity of improving employment and increasing wages.



MANPOWER


Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. On October 22 the Minister of Manpower and Immigration admitted that the government forecast the possibility of having to attend to increasing unemployment this winter. Could the Acting Prime Minister advise whether the government is presently acting on a basis of urgency to determine how the $80 million LIP fund can be increased to help meet the expected widespread high unemployment?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, could the Acting Prime Minister then explain why a confidential memo has been circulated to Canadian manpower regional headquarters asking for a most urgent response to an analysis of how many more local initiative programs are needed to counteract high unemployment?
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a useful undertaking. I can assure the hon. member, however, that an increase in that amount is not now being considered by the government. It may be considered in the future but it is not being considered now.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask whether the Acting Prime Minister's answer was meant to convey to this House that until reports come back from the manpower centres the government is not going to make a decision as to what extent, if at all, LIP will be increased, or is he telling this House now that there is not going to be any increase in the LIP allotment in the foreseeable future? I want the hon. gentleman to be completely clear with the House on this point.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I cannot anticipate what policy changes may be made by the government. If they are made they will be announced. I would never say that we will never increase the appropriation for any program. The government is taking every measure it can to deal with present unemployment and the unemployment of the future. Whether LIP is going to be increased is a matter for decision. It may or may not be.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement by the Minister of the Environment on October 18 in which she said that "Any matter which arises between Canada and the United States concerning trans-boundary waters is dealt with through the International Joint Commission", could the minister advise the House when the Garrison dispute will be referred to the International Joint Commission?


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member probably knows that in the case of the Garrison diversion project Mr. Peterson of the United States has asked for a moratorium. The hon. member will realize, of course, that a moratorium does not mean the project will not take place, but Mr. Peterson's statement is of enormous moral value, and in light of this we are continuing to let the United States know that we are opposed to this project. We are asking a lot of technical questions concerning it.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, October 1, I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs about an incident that occurred south of Estevan, Saskatchewan, in which a Canadian citizen, a resident of Saskatchewan, was apprehended on Canadian

October 25, 1974
Oral Questions
soil by a U.S. border patrol officer. Can the minister now give us a report on that incident?
Hon. Allan <J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, my department has investigated this matter and has concluded that it may be that Mr. Gross may well have been improperly fined by the United States border patrol on September 29. It is our understanding that Mr. Gross landed his aircraft entirely on the Canadian side of a grass landing strip which was along the 49th parallel near Noonan, North Dakota. We understand that he was subsequently instructed to approach the United States border patrol vehicle, and in doing so he crossed into United States territory. He was then fined for having failed to follow United States landing regulations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In our view the issue in this case is that, presuming Mr. Gross landed on the Canadian side of the strip which straddles the border, the United States authorities would not have the right to fine him for failure to comply with United States regulations. The only regulations that would be appropriate to apply to a Canadian aircraft piloted by a Canadian that had not entered United States territory and, in particular, which had landed on Canadian territory would be Canadian regulations. In these circumstances, I have instructed my department to deliver a formal note to the United States Embassy in Ottawa requesting that the United States authorities further investigate this matter.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, in light of the report by the minister and information available to both of us and many others, will the minister in addition to asking the United States to make further investigation request the United States authorities to refund the fine levied against Mr. Gross and reimburse him for expenses incurred as a result of the incident, and request that an apology be given Mr. Gross by the border patrol officer concerned and the government of the United States? I would submit also that Canada is entitled to an apology from the government of the United States.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, assuming that the circumstances I have described are confirmed by further investigation I would expect that United States authorities would make appropriate redress to Mr. Gross.



HOUSING


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
The minister admitted plainly yesterday during the debate on his estimates that the government cannot cope with the existing problems, which is no news, because it has been a long time since the Canadian people have known traditional parties cannot solve their economic

problems. He went on to add that he would welcome all suggestions.
I have two questions. Is he prepared to abolish the 12 per cent tax on building materials and to reduce to 3 per cent the mortgage interest which is now around 13 or 14 per cent? If he heeds my suggestions, they might well be a great incentive in housing.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I note the hon. member's representations.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs aware of current pricing practices in the retail petroleum field which are making it increasingly difficult for many discount or non-brand firms to continue in business and, if so, is it government policy to aid and abet major oil companies in what may be a clean-up of the industry, to use terminology that is often used, is it in short, government policy to have fewer discount or non-brand firms active in the retail gasoline field?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: The answer is no, Mr. Speaker. I would inform the hon. member that if he feels the Combines Investigation Act has been violated, I would appreciate his informing the director so that the latter may act according to law.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: With sales of discount or non-brand gasoline in Ontario having already been cut by half so that now they constitute 15 per cent of the retail market compared to 30 per cent a few months ago, would the minister tell us whether he has discussed this situation with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with a view to ensuring a continuing supply of fuel to the independent distributors at competitive wholesale prices?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Combines Investigation Act provides that the director shall hold an inquiry every time he has reason to believe there has been a violation. I am convinced the hon. member's remarks will be brought to his attention, and he will act accordingly.


October 25, 1974



POST OFFICE


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. It arises from the opening of the new automated plant at Calgary last Tuesday. I thank the hon. gentleman for making it possible for me to be present on that occasion. In view of the obviously low level of morale in this plant and the minister's expressed concern for upgrading the role of manpower as opposed to the machine in these new postal units, would he use his authority both in this facility and in other automated offices as they go on stream to establish a permanent manpower consultative committee so that matters which give rise to irritation can be dealt with as they occur?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Yes,Mr. Speaker. I might say I enjoyed the company of the hon. gentleman. I am aware of the problems to which he referred. There was a maximum degree of consultation before the opening of the automated process in Calgary. There is some evidence that the results of that consultation were subsequently reduced. Instructions have already gone out to the post office to re-introduce the process of consultation to the same degree as it existed previously.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: One of the obvious causes of complaint was the refusal to open the cafeteria during the "graveyard shift" that is, from 12 p.m. to 8 a.m. and since the Treasury Board is involved in this decision would the hon. gentleman speak to his deskmate to see whether he can persuade him to join the Postmaster General's crusade to upgrade the quality of life and service in these new automated plants?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, having known the President of the Treasury Board for ten years I can say that one of his characteristics is that he is always hungry. He would be very receptive, I think, to the concept of continuing to keep the cafeteria open during the "graveyard shift", provided, of course, there are not good reasons for not having done so. I might say the most pressing problem we have in Calgary is that of increasing the staff. We have, in consultation with my hon. friend, arrived at a streamlined procedure in order to meet this difficulty.



NATURAL GAS DISCOVERY OFF COAST OF LABRADOR-INQUIRY AS TO COMMERCIAL POSSIBILITIES

Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: A question through you, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Very recently there was a second discovery of natural gas off the coast of Labrador reported by Eastcan. I should like the minister to inform the House how important this discovery is and whether it is of commercial significance?
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I confirm that there has indeed been a find between 40 and 60 miles from the Labrador coast off the Hamilton Inlet. It would be too early at this stage to describe either this or the earlier find as being commercial in themselves, but they do indicate extensive shows of hydrocarbon and a great possibility of a gas field there. We are anticipating a further announcement of good news from the east coast in the near future.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion with regard to another form of energy. What progress is being made in consultation with the provinces with regard to the development of the Lower Churchill and particularly the funding with regard to the possible excavation of a tunnel to bring the cable from Labrador to Newfoundland.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I talked with the the new minister of intergovernmental affairs in Newfoundland two weeks ago. I expect that he and some of his colleagues will be in Ottawa next week for meetings between myself and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The whole question of the feasibility study involving the Lower Churchill should be completed by the federal-provincial committee within a couple of weeks. This will also include an assessment both of the feasibility of the tunnel and the type of tunnel which ought to be constructed.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: My question was intended for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs but I think he has left the chamber. I will direct it, instead, to his parliamentary secretary. In the light of reports that the profits of some United States sugar companies have increased in excess of 1200 per cent over the past year, and that world supplies of sugar are low, is the minister prepared to order an immediate study into the pricing policies of Canadian sugar companies to ascertain whether there is evidence of excessive profits, gouging or price fixing in Canada?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Perhaps I might take notice of that question and inform the hon. member that there are cases already before the courts.
I rose specifically because the hon. member asked me a question yesterday and I wanted, further to my answer then, to inform him that while my investigation is con-

October 25, 1974
Oral Questions
tinuing I am not yet able to give him any names or addresses.



COMBINES


Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: A question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. gentleman tell us when he proposes to introduce the bill giving effect to stage II of his competition legislation and will he advise us what consultations he intends to arrange with the provinces, consumers, businessmen, trade unions and other sections of the economy before he proceeds, especially in the light of the information that a committee of the other place is also studying competition policy.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, may I stress once more that before proceeding with Stage II of this bill, there will be consultations with provincial ministers and officials, with business and any other interested parties. I do not believe Stage II will be dealt with in this House before next year.



CONSUMERS AFFAIRS


William James Kempling: In view of the fact that the annual report of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is almost 19 months staledated, would the minister inform us when he intends to table a more current report, bearing in mind that he is asking the House to deal with legislation affecting his department, yet we have no up-to-date information concerning its activity?

Hon Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs): I shall investigate the matter, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Thank you for your recognition, Mr. Speaker. My question is for the Minister of Transport. In the light of statements made by the minister on October 10 that the study of the feasibility of an Arctic railroad carried out by CN-CP is still under review jointly with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and noting that this study has been in the minister's department for six months, may I ask the minister whether he will table this report immediately as the information contained in it could have a direct bearing on

current National Energy Board and right-of-way pipeline hearings?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the report is not yet completed; it is still under consideration by the department. A summary will be prepared and tabled as soon as possible.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour on a serious matter involving a multinational corporation, Firestone, in Hamilton. Has the minister received a telegram from local 113 of the United Rubber Workers of America asking for government action to eliminate the import of United States made tires? The telegram states that tire imports have soared 80 per cent since the strike by the 1,300 Hamilton workers began, and that these imports have countered all the bargaining pressure the local union could muster.
If so, could the minister advise the House, the country, and Hamiltonians in particular, what his answer is in this regard?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: I can indicate what the answer is in terms of any corrective action in the import field. Discussions have been held with the officials of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce previously and with myself, and I indicated that if we ever start to break our trade agreements with the United States and impose any type of import quotas, they can do the same to Canadian steel going into the United States. I think the hon. member would agree that this would have had repercussions on employment. I think the hon. member would agree but I have also suggested to the union in question that there is, perhaps based on the arguments they are prepared to submit, other action that the federal government could take with respect to this particular strike.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Seeing that the minister has opened up the door with respect to action I wonder if he could give us a little hint as to what he has implied in this regard. I do not see the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce here, so it is up to the minister to let us know what he is talking about.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I can. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce together with myself in our respective departments have authority to look into the question generally of the domination by parent corporations of their subsidiaries here in Canada in terms of their industrial relations, perhaps to see whether the subsidiaries in question are acting in the best interests of Canada and Canadian employees.
October 25, 1974



POSSIBLE DUMPING OF TIRES BY FIRESTONE COMPANY IN THE UNITED STATES-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION

John Edward Broadbent: Supplementary to the Minister of National Revenue. Since the minister can on his own authority initiate an investigation as to whether or not there has been any dumping on the part of the parent company in this regard on to the Canadian market, since I wrote to him about this about a month ago and asked him to conduct such an investigation, I wonder if the minister is in a position to inform the House as to whether or not he has done it yet.


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Dereliction of duty.



COMBINES


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: I have a question for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Further to the request of members on this side of the House, Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday of this week that the minister's proposed amendments to Bill C-2 be tabled, would the minister indicate if he now intends to table his amendments, and if so, when?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I announced that these amendments will be introduced when the bill is considered in committee.



APPLICATION OF BRACKEN FORMULA IN ALLOCATION OF BOXCARS-REQUEST FOR REVIEW

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as minister in charge of the Wheat Board. It has to do with the current application of the Bracken formula in allocation of boxcars. Having regard to the importance of the facilitating of grain movement and in the interests of equity to all competitive elevator companies, I wonder if the minister is reviewing the current application of the Bracken formula in that it now appears that the spirit enshrined within the Bracken formula is not truly being upheld.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the formula is not currently being reviewed, although it is reviewed certainly on an annual basis. I have no recent complaints about its operation, and I will of course be glad
Business of the House
to receive any specific objections the hon. member has heard about it.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I wonder, since the current allocation of boxcars in effect locks in the status quo in that the allocation is made on the previous year's business rather than the current demands, if the minister would consider looking into this, particularly in view of the fact that we face the potential of large amounts of grain which is tough and damp which could cause undue elevator congestion.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the formula is based on the most recent deliveries. Regularly the previous months deliveries dropped and the most recent months are taken on. In addition there are steps taken to deal with particular congestion problems, and between these two measures the formula has been working well. As I indicated to the hon. member, I have received no complaints about it.


Mr. Nowlan:: I will make my point of order short, Mr. Speaker, because I am about as tired as that clock. The clock looks as though it is a little behind schedule, and I am a little tired of jumping up and down during question period.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: This government can at least take measures to fix the clock and get it in time, even though they are running behind in everything else.
In terms, Mr. Speaker, of the reality of members jumping up and down-obviously all cannot get recognized-I hope, Your Honour, that in future when a minister of the Crown does something in the House in which a member opposite is somewhat interested, that member is sometimes recognized.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Walter David Baker: I do not believe this was done yesterday, and I wonder if I might ask the government House leader what business we will be proceeding with later today and into next week.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as for the business today, the House order provides that we will be continuing with discussions of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, followed by the Minister of Public Works with all questions to be put at four o'clock. On Monday, the first order of business will be the continuation of the second reading debate on Bill C-2, the bill relating to the Combines Investigation Act, with the hope that the bill can be referred to the standing committee that day. We will then call the bill approved by the Senate amending the Trust and Loans Act. This is an extremely urgent matter because there are now unnecessary limitations upon the spending and borrowing powers of these various trust and loan companies. If this is approved in

October 25, 1974
Estimates
time, we will then call two bills, C-10 and C-19 standing in the name of the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. I would like if possible to have this business completed before Wednesday, but if not as soon as it is competed and not later than Thursday we will call the petroleum administration bill.


George H. Whittaker: I have a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. After a question today to which the Minister of National Revenue replied, part of his answer was an answer to a question that I asked yesterday. His remarks today were what I consider as offhand and almost bordering on being smart aleck. The question that I asked yesterday in this House I take very seriously. Also, since asking that question, I understand that the same situation exists in Toronto. I did not ask him that I be supplied with any names or addresses. I asked him to look into this matter and to report if he is going to do anything about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 24, consideration in committee of Bill 31, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1975-Mr. Chretien- Mr. Penner in the chair.
The Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose last evening the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development were under consideration. They may be found on pages 10, 11 and 12 of the bill. I am prepared to recognize the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I would remind the hon. member that taking into account her time of last evening, she has about two minutes left for her presentation and questions.
On Schedule A-Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Chairman. The hon. member will pardon me for raising a point of order at this time. Since the minister will be making a statement on hamburger at two o'clock this afternoon, we seem to have only forty minutes left for the consideration of Indian Affairs. I wonder whether, after the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has completed her remarks, there would be general agreement that for the remaining forty minutes hon. members be limited to ten minutes each.


B. Keith Penner: Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. Is it agreed?


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, has it been agreed that consideration of the Indian Affairs estimates will terminate at one o'clock?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that there is to be a statement on hamburger at two o'clock, and we will have to do Public Works and the consideration of estimates will end at four o'clock, I do not see how we can do much more than close off Indian Affairs at one o'clock. However, a ten-minute limit would give a few more members a chance to participate.


Miss MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Chairman, there was no agreement, to my knowledge, that we would complete the discussion of these estimates in 40 minutes. I have no objection to the ten-minute limit on questions, but there has been no agreement that I know of that we would finish this department by one o'clock.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I am not aware of any agreement, other than the one which was read in the House, to spend 2 Vi to 3 hours on this department. I have asked the House leader to come back to the chamber and clarify the situation.


B. Keith Penner: I thank hon. members for giving the Chair direction on this matter. The only agreement that the Chair has is that the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development shall constitute, in time, 2Vi to 3 hours. If there is any change in that agreement, I think the Chair would have to be so advised following consultation among the House leaders. We will assume that discussion of this department's estimates will continue this afternoon unless the Chair receives direction otherwise.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In any case,
Mr. Chairman, was it agreed that speeches be limited to ten minutes?


B. Keith Penner: The Chair asked whether that was agreed. I understand that for the remainder of the time until one o'clock, speeches or questions will be limited to ten minutes. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding from the estimates that the allocation for purposes of research into Indian treaties and rights is exactly the same in this year's estimates as it was in the preceding year. I should like to ask the minister about the statement made yesterday in Yellowknife by Dr. Lloyd Barber, the Indian land claims commissioner, to the effect that settlement of Indian land claims is of emergency proportions and needs the highest priority, and that failure to act on it would lead to militancy and violence. Was the Indian land claims commissioner stating government policy when he made that statement?


Mr. Buchanan:: Mr. Chairman, Dr. Barber is basically voicing his own opinions in this area. Our policy is to provide funding and a five-year program was set up with $7 Vi million to be used in this area. I believe we are in the third year of the program.
October 25, 1974


Flora Isabel MacDonald: 1 have a final question. While Dr. Barber speaks as the Indian land claims commissioner, nevertheless he was appointed to that position by the government and I should like to know if his statement means there are to be new government initiatives in the recognition of aboriginal rights.


J. Judd Buchanan: I apologize, Mr. Chairman, but I missed the question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I should like to know if the statement of the Indian land claims commissioner means there are to be new government initiatives in the area of aboriginal rights.


J. Judd Buchanan: No, Mr. Chairman.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Chairman, let me begin by offering congratulations to the minister on the assumption of his responsibilities. I think it is agreed he has made an encouraging start in his portfolio, and it is well known that he comes to the department with a background of goodwill among its constituents. I want to point out to him, however, that while he has goodwill in the three areas of his responsibility, it is also a very clear fact that the mandate won by his government was denied him in each of the three areas of the north where the election returned members of this party and the New Democratic Party to represent the native people of Canada and certainly those within the national parks. I hope he will bear that fact in mind if there is ever temptation to carry too far the idea of upgrading the government's mandate as a result of the July election. I think the minister clearly has a special responsibility in that he is the first new minister to hold this portfolio for a long time. Many members of this House, and people who have to deal with the department, hope he will take advantage of his status as a new minister to change some of the people and some of the procedures that clearly were not working well in dealing with the problems of the native people and the northern territories. There has been no approval of the status quo as it relates to the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. We hope the minister is aware of this as he assumes his responsibilities.
Mr. Chairman, I want to begin by referring to the statement made many times and repeated in the standing committee by the president of the National Indian Brotherhood, George Manuel, who expressed concern about the bureaucracy with which the native people have to deal. I recognize that the minister claimed last night that the bureaucratic proportion of his department amounts to only 7 per cent. I am not interested in arguing percentages, but I am interested in ensuring that the public servants involved in the administration of this department are helping to achieve the goals of native people, national parks and northern policy, and are not serving as obstructionists. I think it is recognized that it is the view of the National Indian Brotherhood that in many cases these public servants are obstructive.
I wonder, in view of the opinion recently articulated by the new parliamentary secretary to the minister, whether we may look forward to the day when the department will phase itself out, whether there is any concrete plan to reduce the number of public service employees in the
Estimates
department or the proportion of the budget that goes to administration costs.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for the kind remarks that he made prior to bringing me down to earth with a thud through his caution. I do not accept the idea that people employed in this department serve as obstructionists. By and large, a great many dedicated people are employed in all aspects of the operation of the department. There is no question that there is a transition in progress in the role of many employees and administrators and managers are being moved more into the role of advisers as the programs are being taken on and administered by the Indian people.
I indicated last evening that roughly $60 million of the budget is now handled directly by the band councils and Indian associations. I think this is the basic thrust, and the role is changing. As I said last evening, the number of employees in the department who are concerned with Indian and Eskimo Affairs programs has remained static for the last half-dozen years, but the budget has gone up threefold. So there has been a substantial increase in the funds used on behalf of the clientele of this department.


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me repeat my specific question. Does the department or the minister intend, over a stated period of time, say five or ten years, to wind down the department? Is there any such plan?


J. Judd Buchanan: No, there is not. The hon. member may recall that in 1969 the federal government put out a policy statement dealing with Indian and Eskimo Affairs programs. This policy was put out for consideration. One of its proposals was precisely in line with the hon. member's suggestion. With few exceptions, there was strong reaction on the part of the Indian people against acceptance of the proposals in that document. The Prime Minister and my predecessor undertook, to a group of Indian people who came to a meeting, that the government would not unilaterally make the suggested changes. Again, I should mention that this proposed revision is now being conducted with regard to the Indian Act. We hope at some time in future to straighten this out and move ahead. But that undertaking was given.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Chairman, the minister knows as well as I do that the objection of the Indian people in this country was not related so much to the contents of that report as to the means by which the report was put together. It was done by virtually ignoring the undertaking given by the minister's predecessor to consult with the Indian people.
I do not want to rake over old coals, but the matter of consultation is one to which I shall return. Let me remind the minister of the repeated request of the president of the National Indian Brotherhood. That organization seeks a complete and detailed review of the structure and operation of the Indian and Eskimo Affairs branch of the department. Will the minister accede to that request and allow the National Indian Brotherhood unfettered access to the records of the department so that a complete and full review can be undertaken by the National Indian Brotherhood? In that way we shall allay the apprehension
766

October 25, 1974
Estimates
of the Indian people that the bureaucracy of the department is working against them. Will the minister give us that commitment? Will he say yes or no, because time is short.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Chairman, as I said last evening, a consultative mechanism was set up for discussions with the National Indian Brotherhood. If they make such a precise request at their next meeting in Feburary with the cabinet committee, I will be prepared to take a serious look at it.


Charles Joseph Clark: In other words, we have the commitment that when George Manuel repeats his specific request for a full, detailed and unfettered review of the operations of Indian and Eskimo Affairs programs, the minister may not accede to that request but he will give serious consideration to it.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Chairman, yes, more or less. The point is that George Manuel does not set the agenda. The executive of the National Indian Brotherhood does. If the National Indian Brotherhood wants to give that item top priority, it will be considered.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Chairman, I regret that it may be less, not more. Let me point out that this kind of double-talk, this refusal to accede to the request of the democratically elected representatives of the Indian people of Canada, creates suspicion and difficulty among these people who deal with the department. Turning specifically to the question of consultation-


B. Keith Penner: Order please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I remind him that the time allotted to him under the agreed ten-minute limitation of speeches has now expired.


Mr. Bussieres:: Mr. Chairman, I was very glad yesterday to note the great objectives that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) announced concerning the policies of his department. I was somewhat surprised after listening to the speech of the minister to hear some people come back and say that we should try to involve the Indians and the Inuits in the fields of education, housing and cultural affairs, since the minister had just told us that the main objective of his department was to give as much autonomy, freedom and independence as possible to the Indians as concerns the administration of their own affairs.
It is obvious, Mr. Chairman, since education concerns me particularly, that this is a field where the independence of individuals is extremely important. Indeed, the very aim of education is to achieve an independent status as an individual. However, education itself involves a contradiction since education also means training and training nearly always implies certain restrictions. Several years ago, we acted restrictively towards the Indians because we wanted to mold them or bring them to see things our way and to share our cultural, linguistic and other values.
I am very glad, Mr. Chairman, to see that the objective of the department is to give back to our native people, the

Indians and the Inuits, through a grant of a few million dollars, the means to regain their own linguistic, cultural and educational independence.
Yesterday some comments referred to the number of Indians who take part in their own education, either by being teachers or in some other way. It is quite obvious that the restrictive action taken in the past has eliminated some native people from this process of education, particularly in the field of teaching.
If one looks at the progress made and characterized by statistics provided by the minister, one sees the movement is going in a positive way and towards ever increasing native involvement in that process at all levels.
I am quite happy to see that the votes allocated to the cultural and educational areas follow precisely that objective of involvement, and I am convinced that in a few years the minister's statistics will be higher. We will then see that for the larger part, Indians will be looking after their education, their other problems and dealing with them themselves.
I would like to point out another thing, Mr. Chairman, about the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with respect to Parks Canada. I think the minister went over an aspect of Parks Canada much too quickly yesterday and I am referring to the byways and historic sites. I find that program particularly interesting because a few years ago there was talk already that that program about byways and historic travel routes would help link the core of Ontario to Quebec City.
Mr. Chairman, that route would go through the whole riding of Portneuf where the sites are magnificent, the scenery beautiful and one could also find famous historic sites such as the old Jacques-Cartier Fort at Donnacona. That panoramic route on those byways would make it possible for the people of Quebec City to admire the beautiful scenery in a natural environment. That would also allow us to preserve our natural resources in their state of wilderness.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the minister intends to make a greater effort to have this special route built. I would also like to know whether the minister is still consulting with Ontario and Quebec so that those magnificent projects are achieved as soon as possible.
Mr. Chairman, in conclusion, I want to express to the minister my best wishes for success in his new duties. I am very happy to see that on this side of the House there are a great many people as dynamic and intelligent as the minister who can be called upon to continue the good work of those who leave their posts.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Chairman, to reply briefly to the hon. member for Portneuf, I share his concern as far as the parks and sites aspect is concerned. In fact, when I was making some remarks last evening I think the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre sort of jokingly asked what I meant by the term "linear parks". I think this program is becoming more and more effective in parts of our country which are heavily populated, such as the Windsor-Quebec City access. It is going to be more dif-
October 25, 1974

ficult to put together the large land assemblies we will need to create this type of park. We will have to look at other types of programs such as by-ways and canals to try to create ways for Canadians in heavily populated areas to gain some meaningful experience from our parks system.


An hon. Member:: How about the Grand River?


J. Judd Buchanan: Perhaps the Grand River as well, and your 66-foot footpath. For a good many people, even in our national parks such as Banff and Jasper the experience is pretty well limited to the road, interpretation centre and the visitors' centre. I think you can make a very strong case that canals, and so on, are areas to which we should be devoting a significant amount of attention.
I wish to report that nothing has been concluded; we are still very much in the negotiation stage. One of my first acts was to go, with Hon. Allan Grossman who has responsibility for this area in Ontario, to look at the Blueridge parkway in the United States to see whether it had any application for Canada. I wish to reassure the hon. member that while I cannot report anything substantive at this time, we are still very interested in a Laurentian parkway from Quebec City to the province of Ontario.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Chairman, I join other members in congratulating the minister upon his ascension to this important and interesting portfolio. Unfortunately, he has arrived at this position when many of the long-standing problems have reached crisis proportions.
I was interested in the presentation of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the statement of the Indian land claims commissioner who until recent times has been a fairly moderate and mild man with regard to land claims. He is now reaching the point where he is becoming strongly critical.
Because of the shortage of time, I wish to zero in immediately on the subject I have in mind. In a recent interview with Joan Cohen, as reported in the October 15 issue of the Ottawa Citizen, Harold Cardinal made some pointed remarks on the deterioration of the Indian situation across Canada. Included in this article was the following interesting statement:
And as serious as anything, the announced reform of the education system, which was to have put schools under the control of Indians, simply didn't materialize. The Department of Indian Affairs is running things, just as it always did.
That is why he sees it as essential that economic and education reforms be separated from the long-term policy decisions that have to be made when discussions begin with the federal government.
I think the minister is much more sensitive on these matters because he has been chairman of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and has gone through the inevitable educational process of chairing that group of MPs. However, as recently as last week the National Indian Brotherhood made a statement which has been made repeatedly, that the white man speaks with a forked tongue. There is some justification for this with respect to education. We had a formal, staged press conference held on May 24, 1973, where the former Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the president of the National Indian Brotherhood, George Manuel, announced the implementation of the new look in education which had been derived from the committee's report
Estimates
of June, 1971, and the Indian Brotherhood statement on Indian culture and education which was released, I believe, in 1972. On that occasion, the minister made this commitment, and I quote from his official statement:
I have given the National Indian Brotherhood my assurance that I and my department are fully committed to realizing the educational goals for the Indian people which are set forth in the Brotherhood's proposal. In consultation and co-operation with the Indian organizations, my department will begin immediately to effect the educational changes for the Indian people that they have requested.
Obviously, this undertaking has not been discharged, if we are to accept the words of Harold Cardinal who has been a very responsible and discerning leader in matters affecting our Canadian Indians. I want to ask specific questions to see if we can get any information as to how far this program has gone. We might not have time to get all the answers. If the minister is not able to deal with them in the chamber this afternoon, perhaps he will send me written answers.
In order to implement the program, as Mr. Cardinal says, priorities must be given to economic and educational matters. I agree with that statement. As H. G. Wells said, civilization is a race between education and catastrophe. I think we can translate that into the critical situation facing our native people at the present time. How many staff members at the upper echelon in the education branch of the Department of Indian Affairs are native people? What are their positions? This information is essential if we are to implement the objective of the Indians themselves in regaining control over education. The priorities were expressed in their paper as parental responsibility and local control.
Second, how much do the funds amount to that are available for experimental and innovative projects? How have they been used? This is one of the points made in the minister's statement of 1973. Third, how far has the process of the provincial curriculum enrichment proceeded? What provinces have taken action? How far down into the local educational level has this program proceeded? Fourth, how many native cultural educational centres have been established under this specific program? Of the $40 million that was allocated, how much has been spent, and for what specific programs?
The next question concerns an item for professional and special services, the amount of which keeps going up. I notice from the current estimates it has increased by $4.5 million to a level of $82 million. What is this particular estimate used for, what reports have been produced, how many people have been involved in those reports, and who are they? Are Indian research projects funded from this item of special services amounting to $82 million? Is there not overlapping and duplication in making available this amount of money, a substantial sum that might be more directly funnelled into the educational process itself?
I think that will suffice for the moment. If the minister would start his answer, he could then perhaps send me a written reply.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for his kind comments. I am more optimistic than the Indian claims commissioner regarding the
28305-4 9'/j

October 25, 1974
Estimates
matter of Indian land claims. I feel that we are reasonably close to some sort of significant breakthrough in Quebec. If that is accomplished, I think hon. members will find that a settlement there will more or less establish the parameters of claim settlements and that there will be faster movement in the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and British Columbia. I am talking now basically in the area of comprehensive claims as opposed to the specific claims being made in the treaty areas. As I say, frankly I am more optimistic than is the Indian claims commissioner in this regard.
Moving on to the hon. member's next area of questioning, the basic commitment of the government to the undertaking made by the minister and Mr. Manuel when they appeared before our committee, the government is still committed in this area. Progress has not been as rapid as we would like, partly because-the hon. member will recall this statement being made in the committee-the government could not really walk away from the joint agreements that we had entered into throughout this country with provincial school boards. This could be one of the areas of greatest difficulty.
We have incurred very substantial capital costs in buying places for Indian children in schools, and we are locked into ongoing contracts for the provision of educational services. No doubt this creates a very awkward situation; the Indian people would like to terminate these things, move out and spend very significant sums on duplicating these facilities on the reserves. The cost implications of this, as Mr. Manuel appreciated when we were discussing the matter before the committee, are very great, so that progress has not been nearly as rapid so far as getting schools established is concerned.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. I very much regret interrupting the minister, but I want to recognize another hon. member before we adjourn for lunch. Since the time for this set of questions is over, perhaps the minister could adopt the suggestion of the hon. member and reply in writing to the remaining questions.


J. Judd Buchanan: I will be happy to do so.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Chairman, I am glad of the opportunity to take part in this debate, which is necessarily a brief one. I, too, heard what Dr. Lloyd Barber said as reported on CBC radio this morning. As Indian land claims commissioner, I assume he is not given to alarmist statements on this subject and knows what he is talking about. I was startled, and I think the people of Canada should be started, by his statement that the situation constituted an emergency. I am still not sure whether the department as a whole recognizes the gravity of the emergency.
He also spoke of the urgent necessity for a just, generous and fairly rapid settlement of Indian land claims. He spoke of the fact that if frustration continues as a result of the failure of the negotiations and discussions being held on Indian land claims, then we in Canada might find ourselves in a position similar to that in northern Ireland. I think we should take these warnings very, very seriously.
I wanted to call to the attention not only of the committee but of Canadians generally, a report that was made on

Canada's Indians by a minority rights group, a very prestigious group of jurists, scholars and others, I think mostly in the United Kingdom though also in Europe and other areas. They carried out a thorough study and a report was prepared quite recently by James Wilson. I want to thank the minister for sending me a copy of the report, which I read and found extremely interesting. I think it constitutes as good a summary of the background of this situation as any I have read. Naturally, it does not deal with all the complex details, but I hope Canadians will read it and understand it. If they do it will contribute to a change in attitude that seems to be essential to the finding of a solution.
This report was referred to in the House by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands during the debate on the Speech from the Throne, and I think it will become common knowledge. The report offers a fairly objective view of the Canadian scene and historical background. I do not have time to go into the report in detail, but there are one or two quotations I should like to make, First, the report begins:
After a century of spiritual and physical isolation, during which time they were commonly considered a dying race, the Canadian Indians have recently begun to emerge from the shadows and claim attention for their chronic problems of poverty, neglect and cultural and social alienation.
The report continues:
-the harsh facts of a poor and demoralized existence remain stubbornly unchanged for a majority of Canada's native people.
The report states that in spite of the complex efforts that have been made, the harsh facts remain the same. I see it is one o'clock, and I think I will have another five minutes or so when I have finished my hamburger.


B. Keith Penner: Order. It being one o'clock p.m., it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to consider this bill again later this day.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair till two o'clock p.m.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. By agreement reached in the House earlier this day, the House will revert to motions at this time to permit the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to make a statement.
October 25, 1974



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, my statement will be very short and it will be essentially a summary of the statements I have made this week in answer to questions asked in this House by hon. members. Contrary to allegations made in the House this morning that I misled the House, the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) will realize that what I am about to say is for the most part what I have already said in this House.
In view of the current concerns expressed over the quality of meat products, I know that many consumers are alarmed and I thought it would be appropriate to take a short period of the time of the House to make a summary of the situation in this regard. As a matter of fact, as I said a few minutes ago to the hon. member for St. John's East, I am surprised he needed 3*/2 hours to read a two-page document, most of which covered points that have already been covered this week.
The recent CBC program "Market Place" reported on studies carried out at the University of Guelph. The program implied that most of the samples tested were not safe for human consumption. The present programs and activities of my department do not substantiate this. As I said in this House on Wednesday, there are at present no epidemiological data to associate ground meat with human illness in Canada. My department has not received a single report from a doctor or a hospital relating human illness to the consumption of ground meat.
In the regular surveys carried out by the government's health protection branch, tests were negative for the organism salmonella which would have posed a health hazard. In both our survey and the work recently carried out at Guelph, with some assistance from my department I might add, this organism was absent. The total bacteriological count reported by "Market Place" is not related to a health hazard since these organisms do not produce toxins and are very readily destroyed by cooking. The high total count of bacteria reported in the program does suggest, however, that inadequate storage conditions with regard to time and temperature, and possibly unsanitary handling, may have occurred.
Like all members of this House, I want the best quality of food possible for Canadians.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: That's a good idea.


Marc Lalonde: To this end, the health protection branch is doing the following. As I said in this House yesterday, regulations governing the protein quality and content of meat products and meat substitutes have been discussed with the food industry, the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs over the last few months. These regulations are being forwarded to the Department of Justice for promulgation within the very near future.
Ground Beef
The second aspect of my department's regular work includes spot-checking samples of all meats across the country. In the most recent survey, 100 samples from 50 outlets were examined in five regions of the country. We found a total bacterial count lower than that reported on the "Market Place" program. As with any independent report of this nature, we will be checking their data, and if further action is warranted hon. members may be assured we will take it.
Several months ago the health protection branch planned a workshop for November 4 to November 6, 1974, for personnel involved in food control at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. Ground meat will be one of the topics of these discussions. As I said in this House last Wednesday, a new laboratory of the health protection branch on the campus of Saint Mary's University in Halifax will be opening on November 1 and will have a staff of 22 people working in microbiology on programs associated with the quality of foods. These personnel will be augmented by the necessary field staff in the regions to support our monitoring program, for which the total staff involvement will therefore be 30 persons in Halifax.
In view of the recent concern, I have instructed officials of my department to expand their program on microbiological standards for meats. In total, there are 245 people assigned to food programs in the field operations directorate of the branch. We will immediately assign 30 of our technical and professional staff in the field to work exclusively on meat samples across the country. This, of course, as I said this morning in reply to a question asked by the hon. member for St. John's East, will be in addition to the work normally being carried out by the 1,255 meat inspectors in the Department of Agriculture and by the 195 inspectors of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs involved in various aspects of food inspection.
It should also be noted that provincial and municipal governments are involved in food inspection. For provinces alone, for instance, there are over 1,500 inspectors associated with food programs across this country. The analyses that will come from the services to be carried out will help us to establish baseline levels of micro-organisms in meat on the Canadian market. From these results we will develop guidelines for use by the health protection branch and guidelines for provincial and municipal agencies in improving the sanitary aspects of meat processing. From this base, future regulatory programs will be developed. If substantiated cases of health hazards associated with ground meat are discovered, we shall not hesitate to take legal or regulatory action.
As I said in the House this morning, Canada has a food inspection program which compares favourably with that of any country in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: There has been increasing emphasis in the last two years in my department on the improvement of food standards, and this work will be continued at an accelerated rate. I want to assure the House and the people of Canada that as their minister of health I shall ensure

October 25, 1974
Ground Beef
that my department makes every effort to provide consumers with the best possible quality of meat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I say that the minister's statement, with all its shortcomings, would have saved us all a great deal of trouble had it been made last Monday. At least he would have been expressing his concern, instead of giving us the flippant and irresponsible answers we have experienced during the past week. Now we are being told there is no need to worry about bacteria and waste organisms in meat products. Indeed, typhoid and hepatitis, diseases which result from eating unclean food, are things of the past. However, in reality the decline of these diseases can only be attributed to the work of previous ministers of health who recognized the dire implications of the presence of bacteria in food and who enforced the regulations.
The physical symptoms which result from consuming food with a high bacterial content can range from mild diarrhoea to violent stomach upset. The absence of reported incidents in no way implies that sickness caused by poisonous ground beef does not exist. It may well be the case that these symptoms were attributed to some other cause. Does the minister prefer to wait until there is evidence of this type before taking action? Does somebody have to become seriously ill, as happened in the case of electric kettles and the lead poisoning which was uncovered by a very attentive nurse in Toronto who diagnosed lead poisoning contracted by a baby? Does the minister dispute the findings of the University of Guelph, that their samples contained human and animal waste; and does he not regard the existence of this foreign matter as constituting a health hazard? Would the minister serve meat infected by this kind of bacteria to his own children?
It is not uncommon for Canadians to prefer to eat their meat rare or in slightly cooked form. Does the minister feel that these people should change their eating habits because his department is incapable of instituting and enforcing regulations which would protect them from a potential health hazard? The minister told us that a high bacterial count could result from inadequate storage facilities. But he did not say what he intended to do about it. What steps does he intend to take to improve storage conditions at the supermarket level?
On Wednesday, the minister said the presence of coli bacteria does not constitute a health hazard if the meat is well cooked. He further stated that cooking at 160 degrees Fahrenheit would kill the bacteria. In other words, the secret is in the cooking. Now we are told, in a Canadian Press dispatch written after checking with an Ottawa hospital, that meat would have to be cooked for at least an hour at 172 degrees Fahrenheit to kill staph bacteria. Mr. Speaker, not even the minister would eat hamburger which had been cooked for an hour. He couldn't eat it; it would be too tough. Moreover, the Canadian Medical Association, according to the same dispatch, said to day that even cooking the meat at these higher temperatures would not necessarily ensure that all the bacteria were destroyed.
I know the minister would not want to mislead the House on a matter of such importance. We can only con-

elude, Mr. Speaker, that he is getting bad advice. The hon. gentleman has told us how much he has grown to like powdered milk. This was in response to our concern over the removal of the 5 per cent subsidy and the effect it would have upon the health of the country. He even went so far as to tell us that powdered milk improved if, after mixing, it was left in the refrigerator overnight. But hamburger cooked for an hour is stretching even the minister's credibility.
On Monday, when the subject was first raised in the House following the release by the CBC of the University of Guelph studies, the minister, instead of taking his responsibilities seriously and making a statement at the first opportunity, replied in a flippant and irresponsible manner. As a result of this flippancy and arrogance he now finds himself in hot water. This question, affecting as it does the health of Canadians, should have been treated by the minister as a matter of the utmost urgency and importance.
Now we turn to the presentation by the Food Prices Review Board. We saw the spectacle of the chairman of that board having to call a press conference to remind the Canadian public that the government was dragging its feet on the recommendations contained in the board's report on ground beef which has been in the hands of the government and, presumably, of the minister, since June 6. Lest anyone should doubt that, the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board made a formal statement. The response from the minister's department was that there were higher priorities within the department. That, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, was a most irresponsible reply. This is a most urgent matter and it directly affects Canadians because we are consuming more than 400 million pounds of ground beef. As a result of inflation the price of other cuts has risen beyond the reach of most Canadians.


Marc Lalonde: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, did I understand the hon. member to say I declared that this was not a matter of priority? Did he impute that statement to me? If so, I ask him to withdraw such a statement because I never made any statement of that kind. Also, I have checked with my officials and they advise me that no such statement was made by spokesmen of my department at any time.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


James Aloysius McGrath: Well, I will read now from the press release issued by the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board. This is what it says:
In contrast to the positive response of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the director of the health protection branch of Health and Welfare Canada termed as nonsense the board's recommendation for more inspection for bacterial content in ground beef. He is reported to have said that food poisoning bacteria are rare in ground beef, and that food spoilage bacteria which frequently occur in this meat are harmless to humans. He also maintained his inspection division had higher priorities.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member has indeed corrected his statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 25, 1974


Marc Lalonde: I would like to point out that that statement was made in June and that action has been taken since.


James Aloysius McGrath: In fact, Mr. Speaker, this statement was made on October 23, 1974, by the chairman of the Food Prices Review Board.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister's statement today is not enough, when so many Canadians are concerned; and I suggest the reason for their concern is the irresponsible and flippant response given by the minister when he told us that coli bacteria are harmless if we cook our meat well.
We are now told we will have 30 inspectors seconded from other areas of responsibility. For how long? Is this to be temporary, or is it to be a permanent, new feature of the health inspection branch of the minister's department? I suggest that the time has come when we must change the regulations. We may even have to change the law. We may have to come up with stiffer penalties. We may even have to change the minister.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my comments I should like to pay public tribute to two institutions in Canada which have done an excellent job in bringing this serious matter to the attention of the public and contributing in some way to getting the minister to act. I refer, first, to the CBC who did a good job of coverage in raising an important issue on a political program. It was responsible journalism of the finest kind. I refer, also, to the good work done in this respect by the Food Prices Review Board. It is good to see some public agencies performing well.
I turn now to another public agency, namely, the minister's department. I want to refer to a number of important omissions in the minister's statement. First, it is worth noting that for the first time, if one can find it in a statement a page and a half long, the minister actually says there is something wrong with our meat inspection procedures. He says there are some real hazards in this area and therefore he has taken steps to bring in new regulations and to increase the number of inspectors. At least, he has started to act and has acknowledged that a potentially dangerous situation exists. But what is missing? I would like to know when these important new regulations will be brought in. The minister did not give us a date, but he did acknowledge that he is finally going to move in that regard, and I hope it will be soon.
What about the action that the government will take if someone is found to be derelict in his responsibilities? What if it is discovered that people who keep the meat are not meeting the regulations laid down by his department? Are we going simply to have the maximum $50 fine, which I understand is the highest fine ever imposed upon someone who has not complied with the regulations? There is nothing in the minister's statement to say that the punitive aspect, in dealing with this situation, is to be considered. Surely that is a crucial matter, given the price of meat in Canada today. If you are caught neglecting your legal responsibilities, $50 is a negligible amount-perhaps
Ground Beef
only a very small part of an afternoon's sales in a store. Surely this is an inadequate fine for such a potentially serious offence.
The minister said there will be 30 full-time meat inspectors. My understanding-and the minister might clarify this-from the information we have been able to get, is that at least the equivalent of ten inspectors are working full time now, so we have an increase, presumably, of 20. I would like to know what the minister's criterion is. He has not said why we are going to have 30 inspectors now, as opposed to 50 or 500 or 1,500. Was it just guesswork? Was he simply saying, "Well, people are legitimately upset about this matter. We had better move in some direction. Let's increase it to 30"? Or was some rational criterion applied?
The minister did not indicate-and I think he should do so-why he thinks 30 is a reasonable number. Some people might think that 30 is a reasonable number for one city alone. I do not know the answer to that question; I will be candid about it. It might be a reasonable figure. But the minister, surely, has an obligation to say how the number was determined and to assure us that it was not simply a political response in the House of Commons to a critical situation.
There is another point I wish to make. It has a direct bearing on the number of inspectors who are now being put to work, but more broadly it has a direct bearing on the entire health protection program of the minister's department. Meat may be just one example of a potentially dangerous situation in the health field. Therefore, a very important part of the minister's department is the health protection program., I notice, Mr. Speaker, that the budget for this program has been virtually frozen for the last few years, with a very slight fluctuation. If the minister checks the figures he will find there has been no significant variation in the number of dollars allocated to this program. Given the rate of inflation in recent years, this means that real spending in the health protection program of his department has gone down in the past few years.
Surely if we are to deal with medical matters in a serious way, it would make much more sense to spend a lot of money before people become sick-to avoid illness; to avoid problems-than to pay for doctors after medical problems occur. I cannot forgo the opportunity of saying to my Conservative friends who are always complaining about government spending that this, surely, is an area where there should be more government spending to ensure that the people of Canada are protected and to avoid medical expenses, even if we are putting it on a dollars and cents basis.
I conclude my observations on the minister's statement with this point. It seems to me that the minister has displayed a totally unacceptable air of complacency. This is why he has been criticized by the Food Prices Review Board, by the opposition parties and by others. It arose from the statement in which he told the people of Canada, "You can drink powdered milk, if the price of milk is too high." I say to the minister that that is unacceptable. It is unacceptable, not only coming from a minister but from any Canadian whose income happens to be not particularly high, to tell people, "Drink powdered milk". The second

October 25, 1974
Ground Beef
illustration of this, which I mentioned in the House the other day and the hon. member for St. John's East mentioned it today, is in saying to the people of Canada, "Well, cook your hamburger a long time and then you don't have to worry. If you cook it at 160 degrees, you don't have to worry about bacteria."
I say to the minister that we should not have bacteria in our meat at any significant level, and we should not have to cook it at 160 degrees for up to an hour. If the minister or anyone in Canada wants to eat hamburger raw, we should be able to do so with complete safety.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that I hope this situation will shock that minister out of his state of complacency, because if there is one field where complacency should be totally inacceptable, it is that of the health and welfare of Canadians. We need a totally new approach to this problem.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I shall indicate first of all that the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) certainly contradicts the one made by the Chairman of the Food Prices Review Board. Even if this board is concerned with reviewing food prices, I seriously feel that, to be effective, it must also supervise not only the application of the Weights and Measures Act, but also make sure that food products are of satisfactory quality. This is the reason for the position adopted by the Chairman of this board concerning ground meat.
Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that producers are not to blame when consumers do not get good quality meat. Cattle producers do their utmost to deliver healthy animals. At the slaughterhouses, the inspectors do an excellent job of protecting consumers, and I suggest that this is an important stage of meat marketing.
I have often had the opportunity of visiting slaughterhouses and I can bear witness to the efficiency of their inspections. Still, I am not so sure that the ground meat sold in supermarkets is always of top quality. It may be the result of unsanitary handling as well as aging of the meat.
The minister has stated that 240 persons are employed on food programs in various areas. In the future, he said, 30 technicians and professionals will devote all their time, from sea to sea, sampling meats, this, naturally, in addition to the work normally performed by the 1,255 inspectors from the Department of Agriculture and 195 others from the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who are responsible for the various aspects of food inspection.
Mr. Speaker, in view of the large number of people who, right across the country, supervise the quality of the meat offered the consumer in commercial establishments, in addition to provincial and municipal inspectors, I cannot understand that with such an army out in the field some firms should still break the law, at the present time by taking the risk of offering consumers meat of dubious quality.
Mr. Speaker, we agree that there is nothing better than good meat. On the other hand, nothing is so hard to digest,

so harmful for one's health than bad meat, meat that even dogs would eat with little enjoyment.
I feel strongly that, in addition to the steps to be taken by the various departments to ensure quality meat to the consumer, we should see to it immediately that the producers get sufficient profits and income to enable them to live decently and to continue producing enough to meet the needs of the domestic market.
Otherwise, they would have to import meat from somewhere else, and then the consumers might be entitled to complain louder about meat's bad quality.
So it is a very serious problem, and I hope the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), with the help of the Cabinet, will introduce measures likely to improve the situation.
In conclusion, I hope the minister will have the courage to deal severely when necessary with the big corporations which deal in meat and do not comply with the legislation and regulations, in the same way he will deal severely if necessary with smaller businesses.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. While we are on motions, I believe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) has had discussions and there is agreement that he file a document pursuant to Standing Order 41(2).


TABLING OF INTERNATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM AGREEMENT-REFERENCE TO COMMITTEE
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions about the international energy program agreement which was arrived at in Brussels on September 27, 1974. I made the suggestion that if the House permitted, I might lay it on the table. The House might agree to an order in the following terms:
That the agreement on international energy program tabled this day be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works for consideration and report back to the House.
If the House is agreeable, I wonder if that could be made an order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, we are quite agreeable to the motion. However, we should like to have from the minister or from the acting prime minister, in light of the very serious implications for Canada, the assurance that this agreement will not be signed by the government until the report of the committee has been dealt with in the House.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to give that undertaking.
October 25, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


BUSINESS OF SUPPLY
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, October 24 consideration in committee of Bill C-31 for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31 March, 1975.-Mr. Chretien-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Mitchell William Sharp: I rise on a point of order, Madam Chairman. Because of the time remaining until four o'clock, there has been an informal agreement which I should like to have expressed more formally in order to avoid any problems. It was agreed that the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development should be considered until 3.15 p.m., at which time the estimates of the Department of Public Works would be before the committee. If I may make a suggestion, since the Department of Public Works is being considered at the specific request of the Social Credit Party, Your Honour might give their spokesman priority.


B. Keith Penner: Is it agreed? The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.


Walter David Baker: We concur, Madam Chairman, although I am a little concerned about the government House leader's attempt to direct the Chair with respect to the order in which speakers will be recognized. I presume you will consider this caveat which I file.


An hon. Member:: It was a suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Chairman, we agree to the suggestion. I think the government House leader was speaking on behalf of all of us.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Chairman, I agree with pleasure to the suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), all the more so, because it is obvious we have had consultations on this matter. I should thank my colleagues for their generosity. I believe this is due to the fact that we have not abused our right to speak during the debate on the Estimates.


B. Keith Penner: Is it agreed that at 3.15 p.m. we shall move to the estimates of the Department of Public Works?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
On Schedule A-Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Madam Chairman, before lunch I used up five of the ten allotted minutes, so I shall now continue
Estimates
my bisected remarks. I was referring to the report of the minority rights group regarding Canadian Indians. I read a few excerpts from the report because I find it particularly worth while and interesting. I should like to read further from page 7 of the report:
The simple fact is that successive governments have found it easier and cheaper to keep the Indians dependent on welfare than to make the enormous capital investment required to enable them to stand on their own feet.
The economic effects of this policy can be easily measured: unemployment among Canadians as a whole is 6 per cent, among Indians it is 50 per cent. In 1969 the average income of a Canadian family was $8,874; while 88 per cent of all Indian families made less than $3,000, and about 50 per cent made less than $1,000 .. . including all welfare payments.
I continue reading from the report:
Despite these encouraging signs there has still not been a major transformation of Indian life. The Department of Indian Affairs is still a huge and costly vested interest and may, wittingly or unwittingly, obstruct the movement of power and resources to the Indians ... There is a long history of failure, parsimony and neglect to be made up for.
I draw this matter to the minister's attention, not because he condones or wills that this should be so but because he should recognize how difficult is the task he has undertaken.
Finally, the document reads:
In order to make this more trusting atmosphere possible, and give the Indians the best chance of success in finding solutions to their chronic ills, the government will have to act in good faith and make available to them adequate resources for a long period of experiment and development, and Canadians as a whole must abdicate the responsibility they assumed for deciding whether "their" Indians should be "preserved" or assimilated. Whatever paths the Indians decide to follow, and however unwise they may appear to outsiders, the choice must now be made by the Indians themselves. White Canadians are not being asked to determine what the Indian was or is or could become; they are being asked to do something far more difficult; accept him as he is.
May I say a few words about property and land claims. This is a difficult and complex matter and I want to sound a note of warning. If it is dealt with in a purely legalistic manner, it will not succeed. It must be dealt with in a statesmanlike manner. These problems need political judgment and probably legislation. I wish to ask the minister some questions on this matter. He has told us of some of the negotiations and has expressed optimism about the negotiations relating to northern Quebec. I understand these are being conducted primarily with the Quebec government.
I ask about the other negotiations. How are they getting on. Are they progressing? Are adequate funds being made available to enable Indians to carry out adequate research for the presentation of their cases? I stress the need for adequate funds. Are they being made available? Is the process of negotiation being used with regard to aboriginal claims, and also respecting those who have had settlement of their treaty rights but claim that their treaty rights are being disregarded? This needs to be rectified because the treaties were totally unfair when first entered into.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
774

October 25, 1974
Estimates


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Chairman, the procedure in committee of the whole is somewhat strange to me. Nevertheless, I am pleased to have this opportunity to explain my views during the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
I am interested in many aspects of the department, particularly the parks branch and the branch concerned with Indian affairs. Most of the national park known as Kouchibouguac is in my constituency. Actually, I share the honour with the Minister of State (Fisheries). A new national park, known as Beaubear's Island, is being constructed in my area because of the generosity of the late Lieutenant-Governor of New Brunswick, Hon. J. Leonard O'Brien, who donated the island to the people of Canada for that purpose.
Today I shall speak about education, particularly as it relates to the Indian people of Canada. I hope to see the day when the department will no longer be necessary and the Indian people of this nation will not look to departments of government but will rely on their own competence to accomplish their goals and attain their destinies. It is to be regretted that there is a so-called Indian problem today. If there is a problem, the responsibility cannot be laid at the feet of any one government but must be shared collectively by all governments and by all white people, as this process has gone on since the white man began colonizing this continent. On the day the first white man set foot on the shores of North America, the so-called Indian problem began. I am not sure that we cannot call it the white man's problem. I am sure the Indians would.
In the beginning, white men attempted to solve the problem by confronting the Indians. White men tried to make the Indian adopt the white man's culture. I will not quarrel with our ancestors, who I believe were sincere in their efforts. However, they were not completely successful. Some Indians resisted and the white man used his traditional method of solving problems, that is, the gun. For several generations we perpetuated the notion that we came here to convert savages but they resisted our efforts. Any battle with Indians which the white man won, was won by superior tactics and incredible bravery. On the other hand, if we lost to the Indians it was through treachery and sneak attacks and we subsequently set it down as a massacre. In my view, any battle is a massacre. However, the bias of the historian makes a great difference.
Fortunately, our attitude in recent years has changed. We want to see Indians take their rightful place in the fabric of society and of Canadian life. In the past half-dozen years the consultative process has begun to function to the benefit of the Indian people and the Canadian government. I hope that this consultative process will continue and will be enshrined in the spirit of departmental operations. I am sure the minister shares this view.
If the Indian people of Canada are to achieve their goals, it will be necessary for us to introduce improved educational programs. A very high proportion of Indian children drop out of school because the education they receive has no relevance to their lives. We need education which will help the Indian people meet their aims. It is not necessary that curriculums for Indian children should be the same as
those for whites. Such a program is not logical. Indian education should be designed around the traditional skills, culture and heritage of the Indian peoples because these are the skills they will find useful.
I do not think we should educate the native peoples of Canada in such a way that they will lose their heritage and culture. It is imperative that they acquire skills which will enable them to live independently and in keeping with the dignity which is so necessary to the nature of man. When Indians attend public schools because of arrangements with provincial departments of education, we must be particularly careful to make sure they retain their culture and heritage. In my limited experience of teaching Indian children, I have found they are not capable of coping with our system, because it is largely irrelevant to them. So when we force them to undergo our sort of education we are not keeping in tune with their interests.
I have seen parents take their children out of school to hunt caribou or look after trap lines. Some people have expressed despair that this should be so. Personally, I think this kind of activity can have significant educational value if the system is designed to fit this kind of learning experience into the over-all pattern of native education. That is not to suggest that we should keep our native people as hunters, fishermen and trappers. However, there is nothing wrong with that if it is what some of them want to do.
I want to state as firmly as I can that education of the native people must improve both quantitatively and qualitatively. I am confident the minister shares this view and will make every effort to ensure our native children the best possible educational opportunities. However, all our efforts to improve their education will go for naught unless employment opportunity is available and accompanies the improving educational opportunity which we provide. I look forward to the day when the native peoples of Canada will take their place alongside the rest of us in whatever walk of life they choose.


Cecil Morris Smith: Madam Chairman, I shall deal with no more than two of the major problems in northern Manitoba, the area with which I am most familiar. However, I feel these two subjects affect the entire country. In the past three weeks we have heard a great deal about Indian and native housing. I admit it is a problem. I travelled with the minister into several parts of my constituency where we saw the situation at first-hand.
Housing in many parts of our reserves is one of the most needed commodities. However, we seem to have the idea that housing must be built to our standard. If the Indians do not accept the standard we have set for them, there just does not seem to be any housing available. Professors say that everyone must have so many feet of air space. Let me assure you, Madam Chairman, that the rate at which we are building houses on reserves today cannot keep up with the population explosion taking place on the reserves. I am sure all hon. members are aware of that fact.
My idea to eliminate some of the problems in housing is this. A certain percentage of houses should be built each
[The Assistant Deputy Chairman]
October 25, 1974

year on any given reserve. I am not sure how they are allocated. However, there are still many people on the reserves who would be very happy to have a roof over their heads. With the oncoming winter, we still face the problem of having two or three families living in one home. I wish to emphasize to the minister that there are ways in which we can accommodate people on the reserves. We can go right back to the old log home. In most cases the timber is in the area and the people are skilled in the construction of this type of home; they do not need training programs in order to build them. I am not talking about a 12 by 14 foot log home but about a home in which a family can survive.
The unemployment rate in my constituency is 12.8 per cent. We have LIP and a step, "A HOP" and a jump programs to do all kinds of things to create employment. These people in my constituency could be employed and housing could be provided for them at the same time. This is what is wanted by the people in many of the communities which I represent. They would be very happy to be able to move into a small home: let's call it a transitional type of home. The log home was the traditional until a few years ago when we stepped in and told the Indians they needed gyproc on the inside and something else on the outside. A good log home can be built by the people in the community at one third of the cost of today's traditional home.
The biggest problem facing people in the north is the high cost of transporting materials to the reserves. Half the money is used for that. I next want to speak about the alcohol problem which faces our Indian people. It is a problem which we, along with the Indian people, must overcome or the whole system will break down. Neither we nor the Indian people can cope with the alcohol problem. I am not a world traveller; I am only talking of my constituency. The chiefs and the people in my area admit there is a problem and they are trying to do something about it.
I cannot find in the estimates the amount of money which will help these people overcome this serious problem. Is it included in the $82 million set aside for professional help? Sending professional people to help them will not solve the problem. Someone comes in with a theory that if you all get together, hold hands and talk about the problem, it will go away. That theory should go out the window. The problem has to be dealt with by the people on the reserves. We can provide some expertise, but they must recognize that it is their problem. I would like to see an effort made to help them.
I understand that the community development program will be, or has been cut back to some extent. I do not believe I have been a strong promoter of community development programs, but I feel there must be a continuing program to help educate the people living on reserves.
This morning the minister referred to the transfer of funds to the band level. I support that idea. However, the necessary training must accompany this program. In many areas the native people want to have funds. There is no doubt about that. They should have them. However, they also need training so they do not end up with pie all over their faces. This is what has happened in many cases. Indian Affairs have been in too much of a rush to turn
Estimates
everything over to the band and let them go it on their own. Some of the bands have fallen down badly. Indian Affairs have been forced to return and take over these services because of the mess some bands made of it. That is why I want a community development program which will ensure that the bands are trained to carry on their own programs. They would then be much happier in handling their own programs.
The minister spoke this morning about utilizing reserves land, and so on. I am in favour of this. However, there is one problem in my constituency. At The Pas reserve a large complex is now being built. I admit that I am not up to date on everything that is happening there. However, I do not believe many of the people in the adjoining communities are in tune with just what is happening at that complex. There should be more communication between the adjoining town of The Pas and Indian Affairs so each can be apprised of where the other stands in this regard.
I say that because The Pas stands to lose a lot of tax money with a facility like this on the reserve. There should therefore be a little more consultation between Indian Affairs and the people of The Pas so as to let everyone know exactly where they stand.
Another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the committee is the alcohol problem. I am sure all hon. members are aware of the statistic that 85 per cent of the Indian people who fill our jails today have been convicted of alcohol offences. I should like to see the Department of Indian Affairs, through its educational programs, work very closely with the bands and help them overcome this very serious problem which is going to be the backbreaker of every reserve in northern Canada.


J. Judd Buchanan: Madam Chairman, so I do not transgress upon the desire of several hon. members who wish to speak, all I shall say at this point is that I am very sympathetic to the remarks made by the hon. member. He dealt with several areas, and the first was the provision of log homes. As a youngster I spent some time in one in Athabasca, and one of the first things that I did when I came to this department was to look into that possibility.
As hon. members know, our most critical housing areas are northern Quebec and Ontario, across the northern part of the three prairie provinces into B.C. and down the Mackenzie valley, all areas where, as far as I and, it seems, as far as the hon. member is concerned, there is potential to build log homes. He is quite right in drawing that to our attention.


Mr. Cyr:: Madam Chairman, during the few minutes at my disposal, I should like to talk about the estimates for Parks Canada.
National parks contain characteristics of great beauty which are protected for the benefit of Canadians and future generations.
Canada is a young country where a large part of the population lived not so long ago in or near the wilderness.
28305-50>/j

October 25, 1974
Estimates
Today, most Canadians are within easy reach of areas which are still suited for outdoor activities. However, Canadians do not care for these outdoor activities. They will have to learn from the experience of densely populated countries respecting the preservation and conservation of areas which can be converted into national parks.
As the population and urban development increase, it will be increasingly imperative to keep these areas in their natural state and it will cost more and more money. Madam Chairman, this brings me to call your attention to an article in yesterday's issue of La Presse to the effect that Kuwait is purchasing an American island with $17.4 million of its oil profits. Kuwait has just added to its territory a small island called Kiawah in the Atlantic, only 30 kilometers from Charleston, South Carolina.
The developer chosen by the Kuwaiti to convert this wooded island into a large and highly profitable amusement park believes that this purchase could be the first of a series of investments by Kuwait in American holiday spots. This small island, sold for $17.4 million, was bought in 1955 by an American promoter for $125,000. This week's transaction in South Carolina should make us think about preserving our historical sites, of our enchanting sites in Canada, so that they do not become foreign-owned.
Thus, Madam Chairman, it is important to recognize from now on the wilderness areas in Canada and to take them into account when putting forward a policy on the national parks purpose, and thus provide for the development of the system. Speaking of the development of the park system, I must pay tribute to the president of the Privy Council (Mr. Chretien) who established ten national parks in Canada between 1970 and 1974. I think this House should pay tribute to this great Canadian for his great concern for preservation.


Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order, Madam Chairman. Our understanding, and the understanding held by the House leaders, with respect to this particular series of estimates in committee of the whole was that this was going to be primarily a committee hearing for the use of the opposition, to enable them to examine ministers on the government spending estimates for the year 1974-75. As a result of that understanding, and in view of the importance of these three days, we agreed with this procedure.
In the House this afternoon we have, for some reason or other, government members rising in their places; there was one over there a few minutes ago and now we have my hon. friend. They have been making speeches that laud ministers. This is not the purpose of the committee of the whole on estimates, and I must protest. I do so reluctantly, Madam Chairman, but I must protest. If this is allowed to continue-I say this with great respect-through the rest of the afternoon, then we are destroying what is a very important experiment in parliamentary procedure, this operation upon which we are engaged.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Madam Chairman, I do not want in any way to detract from my colleagues' right to speak. But I would ask you, Madam Chairman, and my hon. friends on the other side of the House to remember

the understanding reached between the government House leader, the opposition House leader and, as I understand it, the House leader for the New Democratic Party. If government members continue to pay homage to ministers-we know they all pay homage to their own-then we are destroying the purpose of this experiment, which frankly we think is a very valuable one in the course of the reform of parliament that the Prime Minister himself mentioned. I say this with respect, but in the circumstances I felt I could not sit here any longer and not say anything.


Mr. Reid:: On the same point of order, Madam Chairman, I do not think it is possible for members on this side of the House to accept the principle that the House of Commons belongs to members of the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Mercer Reid: The agreement reached between the House leaders was that we would revert to the old system of committee of supply as an experiment. That we have done. In committee of supply in my time in the House of Commons-before the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton came here-government members used to speak in the same way as opposition members, and this has been going on today. There are members on this side who represent large numbers of Indians and who have not spoken; I am one of them. There are a large number who would like to speak. My point of order is that, to my knowledge, there was no agreement that Liberal members would not participate in debate; and I reject wholly the proposition that the House of Commons belongs only to members of the opposition.


Walter David Baker: Madam Chairman, the parliamentary secretary is quite right if he says there is no House order in that regard. The government House leader indicated that perhaps it might become inflexible if there were a House order, and I agree with him. Nonetheless, there was an understanding that, because of the experimental nature of this, and the circumstances under which this agreement was reached, government members would not over-extend their time.
Right now we are standing at a point with three speakers from the government side and we have had three speakers from the opposition side. I think the undertaking and the understanding have now been breached, and I continue my protest with regard to the understanding that was reached. Since we are trying an experiment in the course of the consideration of these estimates I think things are being badly affected by the attitude of the government, and by the parliamentary secretary who spoke for the government on this matter.


Alexandre Cyr: On a point of order, Madam Chairman.


B. Keith Penner: The hon. member for Gaspe on a point of order.


Alexandre Cyr: Madam Chairman, if the hon. member had allowed me to ask my question, which I wanted to explain, I would have yielded to another member and we could
October 25, 1974

have had five minutes more for debate. I believe we should stop raising points of order. I have been a member of the House of Commons for many years and I am entitled to speak just as well as hon. opposition members.


B. Keith Penner: There being only a few minutes left perhaps I should recognize the hon. member for-


Mr. Leblanc (Laurier):: On a point of order, Madam Chairman.


B. Keith Penner: The hon. member for Laurier rises on a point of order.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Madam Chairman, it was agreed three days ago between party leaders that the estimates would be discussed, but the discussion is now on something else. Members are talking about personal problems in their constituencies. I heard but few remarks on estimates.
If it is actually intended to allow opposition members to talk about their ridings' problems, may I remind that the Standing Orders already provide 29 days for that purpose. We should therefore have been debating estimates for the last three days. In my opinion, such has not been the case, and I am in disagreement with members of the opposition who submit that the government does not allow them sufficient time to debate what they call extravagant sums of money reguired for this country's administration.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. As it is now 3.15 p.m., it is my duty, according to our understanding earlier today-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Chairman, I rise on a point of order, and I do so because of the time we have lost on this one. May I say in this regard that the second statement by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton was more accurate than his first statement. It was undertaken that government members would not abuse the time. There was no understanding that they could not take part.


Walter David Baker: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is now 3.15 o'clock and we are supposed to go on to Public Works estimates for 45 minutes. I will take the liberty of speaking for my party in saying that we are prepared to forgo our time in respect of Public Works in order that we might have another 15 minutes on Indian Affairs.


B. Keith Penner: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Chairman, I am wondering if the House and yourself would be good enough to agree that, because the last six or seven minutes of time allotted for the consideration of the estimates of Indian Affairs have
Estimates
been taken up on points of order, the hon. member for Brant, whom I think you were about to recognize, and who has only two questions he wants to ask, might be given the opportunity to do so now. Perhaps you would be good enough not to see the clock for two or three minutes in order that he might ask those questions.


B. Keith Penner: Is it agreed that I should recognize the hon. member for Brant?


Alexandre Cyr: Madam Chairman, I rise on a point or order. On the same point of order I had a question for the minister. I believe I have the right to speak as members on the other side. If not, let us turn to Public Works estimates.


B. Keith Penner: There being no agreement, and it being 3.15 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to the agreement reached earlier today, to interrupt the proceedings and call the estimates for the Department of Public Works to be found in Schedule A at pages 19 and 20 of the bill.
On Schedule A-Department of Public Works [Translation]


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Madam Chairman, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity of this debate on the estimates of the Department of Public Works to make certain representations to the Minister on the urgent needs of the area in connection with wharves and channels.
Even if a member is elected to represent the Canadian people as a whole, he must nevertheless have a greater concern for the problems of his constituency.
As far as the ministers are concerned, namely the executive members, I suggest they must administer the funds entrusted to them by Parliament so that every area of this country gets its fair share. Therefore, I wish to call the attention of the minister on very important matters that concern all the South Shore people, namely Montmagny and its suburban area. In the 1974-75 estimates, one can see that the department's objectives concerning the marine program is to provide and maintain at the most economical cost marine facilities as required by federal programs for the development and support of industry and for water level control. Secondly, this program provides for the construction, improvement and maintenance of marine structures, the planning and establishment of channels, wharves and harbours to facilitate the transportation of passengers and bulk and general cargo. That is a very clear objective.
For a number of years, representations have been made to the federal government by the municipal authorities of the city of Montmagny, middle officials and people in general through petitions to have dredging operations carried out in the channel leading to the wharf in Montmagny, but so far in vain.
All members who have represented that area in Parliament made representations to the various levels of government. Liberal and Conservative members, and even the

October 25, 1974
Estimates
Hon. Jean Lesage, when he was the hon. member for Montmagny-l'Islet, made representations to that effect. Whether the governments were Liberal or Conservative, the answer was always no. I do not think that the authorities were motivated by partisanship in their refusal. However, there is an extensive record on the channel to Mont-magny, It is not because the various ministers who were in charge of the department of Public Works and the department of Transport are unaware of the unfavourable situation of Montmagny that the problem has remained unsolved. On the contrary, the problem is quite clear to them. However, I think more and more that it is the bureaucracy that ill-advises the ministers and tells them that the nature of the work to be done would be extremely expensive and would not be viable. In support of that I will quote a paragraph of the letter from the director of the Quebec district:
The answers boil down to that: the department agrees that this project could improve the tourist industry and promote trade traffic. However, quayage revenues would not warrant the cost of the improvements which would reach over half a million dollars and for those reasons, the department would not be justified in authorizing that project.
That is one version, but there are others. Looking very closely at that record, one can realize that the various civil servants who studied the matter do not agree about costs. Some speak in terms of $500,000 and others in terms of $750,000. I have come to the conclusion that if we really wish to contribute to the development of the South Shore area, we should not hesitate to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to do the necessary works and to exploit those vast touristic resources which are natural but which need man's intervention to become profitable. Furthermore, it would create many jobs. If we were ready to spend one tenth of the money wasted on the refitting of the Bonaventure, all the people of the South Shore would be very proud of it and this would make us forget the unfortunate case of the Bonaventure.
In Montmagny and the vicinity, there are many islands, especially l'lle aux Grues, opposite Montmagny, that is inhabited by many brave people eager to develop this island further and who would wish to go on living there, but with means of communication which would be adequate in 1974. The transportation system available to them is inadequate. It would be necessary to make major improvements to the island dock, and I ask the minister to take note of that so that an amount be provided for that purpose in the next estimates of 1975-76.
I spoke some time ago of the benefits that the dredging of the channel would bring to the South Shore.
But there would also be many advantages for the islands because the tourists would find access much easier.
The government calls on local initiatives to stimulate our economy. That is all well and good. But I think we should make more use of the natural advantages to be found in our area. One of them is the tourist industry with all the developments it can bring in this area.
For several years, a lot has been said about industrial decentralization. I, for one, suggest that decentralization is urgent but talking is not enough: action must follow and the faster the better.
Dragging the channel and repairing the Montmagny wharf would greatly help the region. In my opinion Mont-

magny is the capital of the south shore. If industry is to be attracted a centre of attraction must be created and to do this the co-operation of government authorities at all levels is needed. And as the federal government swells its offers with the greater part of what the taxpayers must part with it is normal that the federal government should be responsible for the work of dragging the channel and repairing the wharf.
May I be allowed, Madam Chairman, to take this opportunity to thank the ex-minister of public works, the hon. member for Restigouche (Mr. Dube), for having accepted to put on the 1975-76 program an amount of $14 million towards the rebuilding of the Montmagny wharf. I am asking the new minister to consider continuing his predecessor's program and I am confident of the minister's understanding and I congratulate him on his new post. I am also asking the minister to take into account the representations made to his department by the authorities of the city of Montmagny concerning the damages done each year by the spring break-up on the South River, near the Rivard bridge, in Montmagny. To prevent a recurrence of these damages, it would be absolutely necessary that a wall be built from the Rivard bridge towards the falls to eliminate the right angle which is the main cause of the damages suffered.
I also take this opportunity to ask the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) to review legislation and regulations dealing with retaining walls along the St. Lawrence River. It is regrettable that retaining walls built some years ago are now in a deplorable state because they are not regularly repaired. They are in particularly bad shape along the coast opposite the Saint-Michel-de-Bellechasse municipality in Montmagny. The municipal authorities have often made representations for restoration or repairs to these retaining walls, but department employees always found the right answer to free themselves from that responsibility. Nevertheless, if the department feels that it must allocate too much money for maintenance, may we seriously-


The Chairman:: Order. I regret to have to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allocated to him has now expired. There was agreement in the committee to limit speeches to 10 minutes. His 10 minutes have expired.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
I have never understood that there was an agreement on the votes of the department. There was an agreement on the others but not on this one, and I do not think I abused the time of the House this week on the votes; I would like to take a couple of minutes to conclude my speech.


Mr. Ellis:: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman. My understanding is that the agreement did not include any limitation with regard to speeches on Public Works.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think the agreement to limit speeches to ten minutes was for the balance of the time we were on Indian Affairs. I do not think we made any change regarding Public Works.


Gérald Laniel: The Chair has no objection. The hon. member may complete his remarks.
October 25, 1974


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Chairman, I hope the minister will bear in mind the representations I just made, and will find a way out of the embankment walls' lack of maintenance as soon as possible, so that the existing walls at least can be kept up.
I would also request the up-grading of the breakwater of the community of Berthier-sur-mer, which used to be called Berthier-en-Bas. In 1970, the department spent several thousands of dollars for repairs on that breakwater, which is of very great historical value. I know that won't earn people a living, but they value it a lot! I do think it is worth being maintained. That breakwater has been entered lately as a ruin on marine charts. I feel sorry about that. The hon. member for Bellechasse, who lives in Berthier-sur-Mer, deserves no credit for it. Moreover, the waters are quite deep in that area, and if the breakwater was upgraded, it could be put to a very practical use.
There is more and more talk about a Canadian merchant navy. If it becomes a reality some day, and the sooner the better, we shall be glad then to use that wharf. Finally, I thank the Minister for the upgrading work under way at the Montmagny federal building. I am sure the people will welcome it, and the civil servants who work in that building will feel more at ease and, consequently, will be more efficient in their work.
Those, Mr. Chairman, were the remarks I wanted to make on the occasion of the examination of these estimates. In the name of the South Shore people, I hope the Minister will see those representations in a favourable eye so that jobs be created in our area which experiences an unemployment rate of 11.3 per cent and so that our skilled workers be put to a better use for everyone's well being and in order to fight inflation efficiently.


John Raymond Ellis: Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in the discussion on the estimates this afternoon. Recently I spent a fair length of time on the same subject in the debate on the Speech from the Throne. I join many members on this side of the House who claim that we do not have enough time to scrutinize the accounts.
A Public Works project was before the standing committee for only one meeting. Given the usual delays, that meant we had only eighty minutes. Given the make up of the committee, this meant that my colleague and I had only a total of 28 minutes in which to examine the estimates of $522,747,000. If you break that down, approval had to come at approximately $315,000 per second.
It is bad enough that these huge amounts have to be considered with lightning speed, but the one man responsible for this budget, the Minister of Public Works, felt it was beneath him and did not bother to show up at the meeting at all. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River had the audacity on Wednesday to stand up in the House and lecture us, with his arrogant and insolent finger waving in the air, telling us that a careful examination of the estimates was needed. Of all the unmitigated gall!
Estimates
Not only did he utter the most senseless drivel I have ever heard, but he did it from the Prime Minister's chair. He must have been swept away by delusions of grandeur. The minister did send along his deputy to the committee meeting together with his staff who, I guess, all told probably collect a few thousand dollars an hour. The deputy minister, Mr. MacDonald, is a very competent fellow. I found him to be knowledgeable and willing to co-operate. His answers sometimes contained that loquacious multisyllabic nomenclature typical of all senior civil servants.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Say that again.


John Raymond Ellis: I am sure I can say it better the second time than I did the first. On the whole, he is an excellent administrator. However, I am sure he would be the first to admit that the responsibility must lie with the minister who has been elected and is responsible to this House. Nevertheless, the minister felt it was beneath him to attend the meeting. Perhaps he will understand that I am delighted to be here to put some questions on the record. I say "on the record" because I will put my questions in a list, and frankly I want the minister to answer them, but I expect I will run out of time. Perhaps he will have a chance to answer them later.
Coupled with the unwillingness of the minister to attend the meeting and be questioned is the matter of the annual report of the Public Works Department, which is usually the basis for a good deal of questioning. Although the minister may have inserted the document in the record somewhere, it was described by the deputy minister as an advance copy on October 15, and I, did not see the document publicly placed on the record after that date. In fact the report must have been around for quite some time since it was over the signature of the former minister, the hon. member for Restigouche. Many of my questions will relate to that report.
But first I must question the sanity of a department which, even in these inflationary times, allows its budget to gallop along at the rate of 38 per cent in two years, from $375 million in 1972-73 to $520 million in 1974-75. Is it any wonder we have inflation? Can there be any question of who is feeding the most fuel on the fires of inflation? Some of the questions which I wish to put forward have to do with some comparisons that I have made.
In the annual report estimates, Place Guy Favreau in Montreal, Quebec, is shown at $173 million. The estimated total cost, however, in the 1973-74 estimates is shown at only $87 million. The previously estimated total cost was only $42 million. Is this building now going to cost four times what it was supposed to cost originally?
Also in Montreal is the M.A.P.P. building, which shows in the annual report at $184 million. It is placed in the estimates at which we are looking right now, at $53 million, and before that, for some unknown reason, a year earlier it was $3 million more, or $56 million. Again, is that building going to cost us three and a half times the price at which it was estimated originally?
There is a small building in Ottawa at which I look with real concern, namely, the building for the Department of Urban Affairs, the former LaSalle Academy. The annual report estimates it at $7 million. The estimates that we are given show it at only $5 million, and a year ago it was

October 25, 1974
Estimates
estimated at only $4.3 million. I strongly suspect this will be extremely expensive housing for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
The Toronto, Ontario, M.A.P.P. building presents an even stranger picture. The annual report estimates show it at $140 million. The estimate before us today shows it at $121 million, but the previous estimate shows it at $200 million. The previous year that same building was estimated at $80 million. From $80 million to $200 million, down to $121 million, and then back up to $140 million- surely someone must have a reasonable idea what this building will cost, but obviously it is not the Department of Public Works.
We do not have to restrict ourselves to these large buildings. We could consider a small government of Canada building in Nova Scotia which, two years ago, was estimated at $850,000. No'-' it is up to $2.4 million. Again there is one million dollars difference in what the estimates show. In Calgary, Alberta, we have a government of Canada building estimated at $25 million in the annual report. The previous estimates show it at only $18.5 million. There is one other government of Canada building on Sparks Street in Ottawa that is now listed at $56 million in the annual report. It is only $49 million in the estimates before us, and in last year's estimates it was to be only $36.7 million.
If we take those seven buildings we find that the difference between the estimates that we are asked to scrutinize and the estimates that are in the annual report vary by a total of $251.6 million. How are we supposed to make a reasonable scrutiny of two documents put out by the same department, supposedly at the same time, with a discrepancy of a quarter of a billion dollars? We cannot possibly come up with reasonable and sensible answers if this is the case.
I took a look at some of the other discrepancies. I was interested because members of parliament receive other documents besides the estimates. We also receive the Public Accounts books, and I thought it might be interesting to look at them to see what they had to say about some of the estimates. For example, we find at Acton Vale, which is somewhere in Quebec-I do not even know where-a little government of Canada building there for which there is a tender for $316,000. That may be a reasonable amount for that building; I do not know. The estimates say it was going to be $338,000. So, for a change, it appears to be within the budget.
The estimates for 1973-74 say $338,000, but the Public Accounts books say that a contract was let for $324,000, or a difference of $8,000. In addition, the Public Accounts estimate for 1973-74 was only $228,000. Public Accounts do not dream up these figures, they must get them from somewhere. I suggest they come from the department. If the department gives Public Accounts an estimate of $228,000 on the one hand and puts before the House of Commons a figure of $338,000 in the annual estimates, obviously something is wrong.
I am going to take a few more minutes to go through similar examples. At Beloeil, Quebec, a government of Canada building was shown, finally, at $599,900. That sounds like a good deal, but the estimates for 1974-75

showed $652,000, and the estimates for 1973-74 showed $814,000. While some of us might be accused of being gullible we do not believe that this building can have depreciated by 25 per cent while everything else has gone up in cost. So, I looked back at the Public Accounts estimate and found that their report for 1973-74 was $350,000. I wonder where Public Accounts got that estimate. If the Department of Public Works is giving out two sets of figures I should like to know why.
In Stouffville, Ontario, there is a little post office at $257,800 with the estimates showing previously at $342,000 and $325,000, while Public Accounts show $195,000. These figures vary too much for us to take reasonable cognizance of them, Mr. Chairman, yet we are told by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council that we have enough time to scrutinize them in committee.
There is one last thing that I want to bring to the attention of the committee. Assuming that the estimates given to us by the department are valid, let me just report four items that I have picked out across Canada.
The estimates show a renovation in Arvida, Quebec, at $281,000; the contract was let at $340,000, a considerable difference. In Downsview, Ontario, for a postal station the estimates show $290,000; the contract was $348,000. In St. John's, Newfoundland, another mail processing facility, the estimate was $3,700,000, and the actual contract $6,199,000. In Terrebonne, Quebec the estimates show $293,000, and the actual contract $343,000.
If this level of inflationary spending is to continue, I should like to know if the department is going ahead erecting every building it has on its drawing boards and inflating its budget completely out of reason. Would it not be better to slow down and look at government spending?
While I do not want to offend my friends in Alberta, nevertheless I find that a building is shown in Lethbridge, Alberta, for $22,159,885 and the contract let. I looked diligently but I could not find it anywhere in the estimates. I do not know where that one sprang from, Mr. Chairman. Somehow we dreamed up a building very quickly, but I could not find it in either book.
I merely want to say in closing that we have little enough time to scrutinize these estimates. The figures are stunning in size and complexity, and I think it is high time we had a different method of presenting them, and certainly a different method of studying them.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, I do not want to abuse my privilege, but I would merely like to make a remark. I regret that, when we make claims for some retaining walls which were built a few years ago with the use of gabions- cylinders of wicker filled with stones-those gabions have completely deteriorated after decades and then we get to the department whose budget we are studying to find out that there is no money to provide for the maintenance and repair of those walls.
I think that if the government had retaining walls built, it is because they thought it was necessary to protect the banks, and it must act as any citizen would and provide for the upkeep of the property. And if it is left to individuals it would seem to me, Mr. Chairman, that the Canadian
October 25, 1974

government should at least help them provide for the maintenance of those walls.
In the riding of Portneuf, Mr. Chairman, this problem is frequent and we are told there are no funds. I would like the Minister of Public Works to provide funds, at least to maintain the retaining walls already built in several places in the riding of Portneuf.
Mr. Chairman, I would also point out a certain lack of coherence which now and again becomes apparent in administrative decisions. In Cap-Sante, for example, also in the same electoral district, a boat landing has been built near the wharf. Unfortunately, there is no road from Cap-Sante to this wharf. Money has been invested for a boat landing but there is no road. If we ask for one, we are told there is no fund to solve this problem.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will now leave the floor to the next speaker.


Mr. Elzinga:: Mr. Chairman, I have just a few questions for the minister. In the Department of Public Works annual report for the fiscal year April 1, 1973, to March 31, 1974, there is reference to the Enoch Indian Band Development Study. On October 22, 1973, the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development invited the Department of Public Works property development branch to prepare a detailed feasibility study on the development of a native planned community for up to 40,000 people on the Enoch Indian reservation at Winterburn, Alberta.
This land was surrendered by the band for the purpose of generating revenues from leasehold developments. Indian Affairs set aside payment fees and expenses of $120,000. Has the Department of Public Works put any money into this project and, if so, how much?


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Chairman, I will not make a long speech because there is not time, but I shall try to reply briefly to some of the interventions.


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I wonder if the minister plans to take all the questions, or if I might recognize the hon. member for Chambly who indicated he had a question or two.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Chairman, a point of order-


Gérald Laniel: I think I can foresee the point of order. Actually the hon. member sat down and the minister stood up thinking that the hon. member had completed his remarks.


Mr. Dick:: It is question and answer. That is what this is all about.


Gérald Laniel: Of course, but the Chair is not in a position to give the answer. That is up to the minister.


Peter Elzinga: I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I stated at the beginning of my comments that I had several questions.
The figures in the estimates indicate that 1,263 people are employed at the administrative level in the Department of Public Works. Is this total correct?
Estimates


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, although I cannot answer completely accurately right away, the hon. gentleman was substantially correct. With respect to the project about which the hon. gentleman asked, the funds for it are provided entirely out of the estimates of the Department of Indian Affairs.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Chairman, I notice that the minister's budget provides for an expenditure of $520 million. Is the productivity of the department's administrative staff comparable with the productivity of people in the private sector, and I am excluding the building in which we are now speaking?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the building in which we are presently speaking comes under the jurisdiction of the Speaker; I will not comment on it. I can say that the productivity of the Department of Public Works is equal to and in many cases superior to that of the private sector.


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question on behalf of a colleague who cannot be here. I understand that in the community of White Rock there is a breakwater type of harbour which is in serious disrepair. Does the Department of Public Works intend to bring that dock up to standard? Apparently it is dangerous right now. I gather there was some move to turn the facility over to the community, but the community cannot afford it.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, my answer will also interest the hon. member for Bellechasse. The development and, to some degree, maintenance of harbours, falls under two jurisdictions. Harbours devoted primarily to commercial purposes are the developmental responsibility of the Department of Transport, which determines priorities in this area and commissions the Department of Public Works to execute the necessary works.
With regard to fishing and pleasure or tourist harbours and marinas, development is the responsibility of the Department of the Environment. Funds available to the Department of the Environment are devoted to priorities established by that department. Again, the Department of Public Works is commissioned by either of those two departments to carry out the actual work. The Department of Public Works is responsible for the provision of technical advice. The responsibility for determining whether the work is to be carried out belongs either to the Minister of Transport or the Minister of the Environment.


Peter Elzinga: Are projects carried out by the Department of Public Works on the basis of merit, or is there a formula under which the department allocates projects in accordance with some regional plan?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, I think the same question was asked in the standing committee, and the answer furnished by the deputy minister was substantially the same as the one I shall give. There is neither a cast iron nor rigid formula in the examination of any particular project. It is, however, looked at within a general framework. A variety of considerations have to be taken into account. Those considerations will vary with each project.

October 25, 1974
Estimates


Peter Elzinga: Mr. Chairman, I know this matter was brought up in committee but sometimes, as you know, there is a difference between what the minister says and what the individual appearing before the committee says.
I thank the minister.


Pierre Bussières: Mr. Chairman, some years ago, where retaining walls were concerned, the practice was that the Public Works Department was paying the cost when the channel was running within 2,000 feet of the shore line and if it was between 2,000 and 3,000 feet from it they paid 50 per cent of the cost and if it was 3,000 feet or more away from the shore, they paid one third of the cost.
I was surprised when after my election I came upon several reports on that subject. In my riding, many lots lie within 1,500 feet from the shore. I considered that problem with the officials of the department and the municipal authorities and yet there are no sustaining walls. The final answer that I received from the department was that they had not provided money in their budget for that purpose. I wonder if there is a policy on land ownership. Also they could have established a policy on the access to ownership. Maybe they could have also established a policy with respect to conservation of personal properties.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the question of sustaining walls is very interesting. Many years ago, a formula was devised concerning what we call water lots. There is also an alternative technique for retaining the ground. It seems that the method used in the water where water lots are concerned did not require any change while the method relating to ground is under current review. That is what I could answer now to the hon. member.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Chairman, I wish to ask a question about the post office in the community of Kanata. When was the minister's department advised by the Post Office that they would not need the seventy linear feet in regard to lot boxes as door to door delivery is to be instituted?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member's question demonstrates how unsatisfactory is this kind of colloquy, this questioning here. Neither I nor my officials have the specific information relating to the seventy feet not required by the post office at Kanata. We will have to get it. If that kind of question were asked in the standing committee, we could provide information on the spot [DOT] because of the presence of sufficient numbers of officials with documentation.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I thank the minister for undertaking to provide that information. I bring this matter up because it
raises a larger question. Since my election in January, 1973, I have written to the Post Office and been in communication with the Department of Public Works-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. It being four o'clock p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to the special order made on Thursday, October 3, 1974, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of Bill C-31.
Shall Schedule A carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Schedule A agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall Schedule B carry?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Schedule B agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 6 inclusive agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 1 carry?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I am overwhelmed by the tremendous number of Liberals present at four o'clock on a Friday afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder, Mr. Chairman, whether somebody could explain this phenomenon.


Mitchell William Sharp: On the point of order, Mr. Chairman, it is because we are seriously interested in the business of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Chretien moved: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Special Order made October 3, 1974, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m.
At 4:05 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Special Order.

Monday, October 28, 1974