1974-03-18

PRIVILEGE


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I am rising to reply to the question of privilege raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) on Friday and to clear up a misunderstanding that has arisen with respect to the equalization of provincial receipts from the export tax on oil. Since last Tuesday when I responded to a question from the hon. Leader of the Opposition I have reviewed the various exchanges that have taken place on this subject and I can now understand why there is some ambiguity about my position.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: When I made my statement on this subject on January 4,1 was under the impression that provincial receipts from the sharing of the oil export tax for the period October, 1973, to January, 1974, would be included in the provincial revenues subject to equalization. Under the circumstances, I calculated that the cost to the Canadian taxpayer of the additional equalization payments involved would be about $25 million.
Although I was disturbed about the long-term consequences, because I had not yet verified the legal situation, I simply assumed that they would be subject to equalization. At the same time I was very concerned that the inclusion of rapidly rising oil royalties in the equalization formula and the resulting sudden jump in equalization payments would have grave consequences for Canadian taxpayers and, indeed, for the continuing viability of the equalization program itself. Hon. members will be aware of my concern from the remarks I made to the House on January 3, the day immediately preceding my reference to the potential $25 million equalization payment. During those remarks I said that if oil prices reached international levels, arid were reflected in provincial revenues subject to equalization, I could foresee an increase in costs to Canadian taxpayers of over $800 million. As I later stated outside the House, the costs could be considerably more than this. Under such circumstances we would be forced into considering appropriate amendments to the equalization formula. It was these dangers I foresaw that formed the context in which I asked the Leader of the Opposition to view increased equalization payments, when I answered his question on Tuesday March 12.
In the ordinary course of pursuing this matter, I sought legal advice as to whether, under the present statute and regulations, the provincial share of receipts from the oil export tax was to be included in the provincial revenues that are equalized. The opinion I received, some time after
January 4, was that these provincial receipts are not subject to equalization. Having received this advice I then attempted to clarify the situation to the first ministers at their conference on energy in January, to my colleagues the provincial treasurers and ministers of finance and subsequently to members of this House. My explanations, however, may not have been adequate, Mr. Speaker, and I am sorry if I have caused any confusion.
The one feature of this whole problem which disturbs me in the statements of the hon. Leader of the Opposition is the implication that I had misled him in our discussions prior to the passage of the export tax bill. I tried to see him last week but he was heavily committed in a way which I quite understand. It is my impression that he feels that I misled him in my argument that I needed freedom with respect to the federal share of revenues from the oil export tax after January 31 in order to pay for equalization, yet it now appears that equalization may not be due on provincial revenues charged from that tax.
First, may I say to him that when we had those discussions in early January, I, myself, was under the impression that equalization was payable against those revenues. Second, the reason for my saying that I needed freedom with the federal share of oil tax revenues was that they were required to cover the cost of any price shelter in eastern Canada if we were to achieve uniform prices across Canada and the cost of equalization. That is still the fact. The price shelter will require almost the total proceeds of the export tax. I still do not know the full amount of the total increase in equalization payments that will be due, if not on the proceeds of the provincial share of the export tax, then upon the normal flow of provincial revenues which would be eligible for equalization.
The concern I expressed to the hon. Leader of the Opposition in our private discussions, which he generously accepted, is very much alive and valid. I do not want to see the basic principles underlying the equalization program destroyed. This program has served Canadian federalism well. It has been generous to the "have-not" provinces which, this year, will get an additional $400 million to bring the total payment to cover $1.4 billion. The program enjoys an enviable international reputation and is one all Canadians can be proud of. I shall continue to protect its basic principles against the dangers I see emerging from the current energy crisis. However, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition still feels he is owed an apology because of my failure to explain it to him and the House before now, he shall have it freely.



MR. JELINEK-COMMENTS BY POSTMASTER GENERAL ON REMARKS BY MEMBER ON 1976 OLYMPIC GAMES

['The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta has given notice of his intention to move first reading of a bill to amend the Canada Student Loans Act. The Chair has had a preliminary look at the proposed bill and, even with a preliminary look, has very serious doubts whether it is acceptable from a procedural standpoint. The hon. member in his proposal seeks to extend the provisions of the act so as to widen the category of persons who may become the beneficiaries of loans under the act. It seems to the Chair that this provision would create an additional charge upon the treasury. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member. It may be that he has some argument to submit in support of his bill from a procedural standpoint and perhaps the matter could be allowed to stand today and the hon. member could look at the procedural aspect. As he knows, the difficulty is that he does not have the royal recommendation. If, in the meantime, he could go to His Excellency and receive from him a recommendation, that would assist the Chair considerably and the hon. member also.']
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from the

March 18, 1974
Privilege-Mr. Jelinek
remarks made by the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) on March 8, when he attempted to twist remarks I made in the House the week previous, March 1, regarding some of the circumstances surrounding the 1976 Olympic games.
I was most surprised, after the government's admitted lack of interest and their recent statements pertaining to the fact that the Montreal Olympics were not a federal matter, that the Postmaster General saw fit to waste his entire speech in the throne speech debate on just that matter. From his statements of that date, it is inconceivable that a minister of the Crown-even this minister- could pursue a course of such bigotry.
The minister is entitled to voice any opinion regarding his thoughts and feelings toward my competence to act as the spokesman for this party on Olympic matters. His suggestion to the leader of this party as to a possible replacement will, I am sure, receive the consideration it deserves. But, Mr. Speaker, the minister goes beyond the point of parliamentary etiquette and, in fact, contradicts himself outright when he says that I and my party are anti-Quebec and anti-Olympics.
If the minister would take the time to check the record, he would find that on numerous occasions, inside as well as outside the House, I have stated, on behalf of myself as well as on behalf of our party, our support for the Olympics in general and the site of Montreal as host city in particular.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: On March 11 my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, rose on a similar question of privilege on behalf of the party. I now rise on this same matter in defence of my convictions not only regarding the Olympics but in the very important matter of the unity of this country. Therefore I request as a matter of privilege that the Postmaster General retract his statements which are totally untrue and completely unfounded.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member claims that he has a question of privilege. I have serious doubts about that. In any event, his notice and the speech he has just made do not include a motion. I have some qualms also in that this matter is being raised by the hon. member on March 18 and he is referring to a statement made on March 8, ten days ago. I doubt very much that there would be a question of privilege in such circumstances. The minister has indicated that he wants to reply. I wonder whether anything would be gained by pursuing the matter further at this time.
The hon. member claims to be replying to a statement made by the minister during the throne speech debate. That was ten days ago. The hon. member asks that I invite the minister to retract his statement. He knows that the Chair has no power to do this unless the statements made are clearly unparliamentary. I have heard similar statements, perhaps worse, made from time to time, and I would not think that the Speaker should be invited to intervene when a statement of this kind is made in the

House in the course of debate, sometimes heated debate. Hon. members are aware of the well known precedent that matters which relate to a dispute as to facts should not be the basis for privilege, and I would think that in the circumstances the matter should not be pursued further. [Translation]
I hope that the minister will agree with me that it is really of little avail to keep on discussing this point. I do not want to deprive the minister of the opportunity to reply since generally it has always been customary to allow an hon. member involved in a statement to reply to it. Should the minister insist, I will have to hear him but I must say that I doubt very much that this is really a question of privilege.



Mr. Norval Horner (Battleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As a result of the beef subsidy announced by the Minister of Agriculture last Friday, cattle markets are in a state of confusion. They are in effect closed today. The terminal markets are convinced that the subsidy will ruin them, the small packers will then be unable to operate and the large meat packing houses will be able to set the price free of competition. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Hollands):
That the government rescind the subsidy announced last Friday and that they instead institute a subsidy on grain fed to cattle for finishing.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires unanimous consent under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


DEFICIT UNDER CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning the massive turnaround in Canada-U.S. automotive trade, according to figures released today by Statistics Canada which reveal that we have moved from a surplus position to a more than $350 million deficit position, a turnaround of more than $400 million in one year. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House instruct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to make a statement on motions within 24 hours explaining the
March 18, 1974

reason for the $356 million deficit in Canada-U.S. automotive trade for 1973, and outlining the course of action, particularly concerning future investment, the government plans to take to remedy this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Again, this is the type of motion which requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity brought on by the bankruptcy of Cardinal Travel Limited whereby at least 700 secondary school students lost, on average, in excess of $400 each and were deprived of travel arrangements to Europe and elsewhere made by school groups. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Beattie):
That this House direct the government to inquire into the international travel business and prepare statutory regulations for the industry, including the regulation of foreign airlines operating to and from Canada, requiring airlines to be responsible for travel arrangements organized by booking agents to the effect that in the event of the defalcation of the booking agent the airline benefiting from arrangements is responsible to the travelling public making the arrangements, whether privately or in a group, including responsibility for ground arrangements.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask for unanimous consent to move a motion on an urgent matter. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Coast-Chilcotin (Mr. Olaussen):
That the subject matter of collective bargaining rights for fishermen, and the appropriate allocation of jurisdiction as between the federal and provincial levels of government in labour relations legislation pertaining thereto, be referred to the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration for investigation and report, and that the labour ministers of interested provinces be invited to appear before the committee to present their views in connection therewith.
Yukon and Northwest Territories


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 it requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 concerning the exclusion from the DREE program of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the question of the exclusion of the Yukon and Northwest Territories from the opportunity of its residents to qualify for assistance under the provisions of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion be referred to the Standing Committee on Regional Development for study and report.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the present situation of eastern Canada farmers, and in view of the expected increase in milk subsidies in the new milk policy which the government is about to announce, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That this House consider the possibility of directing the Plumptre commission to do the utmost to prevent a price increase on feed grain which would equal the subsidy increase and leave farmers in the same precarious situation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

March 18, 1974
Government Guaranteed Loans


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent, except negatively; the motion therefore cannot be put.


CANADA STUDENT LOANS ACT
[Stage Direction]
enable capital stock of banks to be held and voted by provincial governments.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Introduction of Bills:
March 14, 1974-Mr. Reynolds-Bill entituled: "An Act to amend the Canada Student Loans Act."
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta has given notice of his intention to move first reading of a bill to amend the Canada Student Loans Act. The Chair has had a preliminary look at the proposed bill and, even with a preliminary look, has very serious doubts whether it is acceptable from a procedural standpoint. The hon. member in his proposal seeks to extend the provisions of the act so as to widen the category of persons who may become the beneficiaries of loans under the act. It seems to the Chair that this provision would create an additional charge upon the treasury. I do not want to be unfair to the hon. member. It may be that he has some argument to submit in support of his bill from a procedural standpoint and perhaps the matter could be allowed to stand today and the hon. member could look at the procedural aspect. As he knows, the difficulty is that he does not have the royal recommendation. If, in the meantime, he could go to His Excellency and receive from him a recommendation, that would assist the Chair considerably and the hon. member also.



BANK ACT


John Napier Turner: for leave to introduce Bill C-13, to amend the Bank Act to enable banks to be incorporated by letters patent and to


John Napier Turner: for leave to introduce Bill C-14, to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act, the Small Businesses Loans Act and Fisheries Improvement Loans Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.) [Text]

Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many persons in Canada, and in each province, are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension?
2.	Of the recipients of the Old Age Security pension, how many persons in Canada, and in each province, are in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement?
3.	Of those receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement, how many persons in Canada, and in each province, are receiving the full amount?
4.	What is the average amount, in Canada, and in each province, being received as a Guaranteed Income Supplement by recipients of the Old Age Security pension?
5.	Do the answers to the above questions take into consideration persons living outside of Canada who are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension and, if so, how many of such persons are there, and if they are considered as belonging to the various provinces, what is the number for each province?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1-4. See table; effective December 1973.
5. See table; average number of pensioners paid while outside Canada during the quarter ending December 1973.
	a)	(2)
	OAS	GIS
Province	Pensioners	RecipientsNewfoundland	34,273	28,948Prince Edward Island	12,849	9,883Nova Scotia	75,655	51,809New Brunswick	57,349	39,183Quebec	447,404	284,289Ontario	678,995	339,245Manitoba	100,533	62,945Saskatchewan	98]371	60,286Alberta	125,536	76,584
(S)
Quarterly Average Number of
(3)	(4)	OAS Pensioners Paid WhileMaiimum GIS	Average GIS	Outside Canada DecemberRecipients	Payment	197319,978	% 65.27	1065,262	62.72	7726,427	62.45	43020,926	61.76	404148,366	61.91	3,701125,372	58.33	5,86925,991	59.79	64225,126	58.14	43233,353	60.44	740

March 18, 1974

Province
(1)

Pensioners
(2)
gis
Recipients
British Columbia North West Territories Y ukon
218,104
530
122,809 764 331
National
1,850,516	1,077,076
Source: DSS Statistical Report for December 1973.


NEWSPRINT DISTRIBUTION RESEARCH
Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Has the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce undertaken a study entitled "Newsprint Distribution Research"?
2.	Does the planned research include all newsprint origins in Eastern Canada or just some and, if the latter, which ones?
3.	What is the estimated cost of the study?
What are the names and qualifications of the principal personnel engaged in the study?
5. Has any computer time been purchased and, if so, from what companies or institutions?


Mr. Rayrtald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. As part of the government's strategy to improve the international competitiveness of Canada's pulp and paper industry, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is contributing to the cost of an investigation of possible methods of reducing distribution costs for the movement of newsprint from Eastern Canada to customers in the United States. Marketing is not included. Under the Trade/Industrial Program, contributions are being made to the Canadian National Railways and to Newsprint Distribution Research, which are conducting separate parts of the investigation at arms length. Newsprint Distribution Research is a non-profit association established on May 1, 1973, to carry out the investigation. Principals are a group of five newsprint companies operating mills in Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Newfoundland: Anglo-Canadian Pulp and Paper Mills Limited, The Price Company Limited, Domtar Limited, Abitibi Paper Company Limited, Consolidated-Bathurst Limited.
2.	The study covers newsprint originating in mills of the principals. Subsequently, if results indicate significant economies, all newsprint producers in Eastern Canada will be invited to participate in the formation of a co-operative distribution organization.
3.	Estimated cost of the project is expected to total about $1 million of which the Crown is contributing approximately $500 thousand. The government portion is repayable if the project results lead to the formation of a distribution organization.
4.	The Chairman of Newsprint Distribution Research is Mr. J. P. Lunderville, Vice-President, Engineering, Purchasing and Transportation, Domtar Limited. Mr. S. French, seconded from Domtar Limited where he was Director of Transportation, is full time Project Director. Both have many years experience in the manufacture and distribution of forest products. The Project Director of the Canadian National section of the project is Mr. Walter Wynne, a senior rail systems planning specialist with the railroad.
(3)
Maximum G1S Recipients
Order Paper Questions
Co)
Quarterly Average Number of (4)	OAS Pensioners Paid While
Average CHS	Outside Canada December
Payment	1973
	$
48,799	57.49
631	71.85
231	66.23
480,462	59.97
2,677
10
15,089
5.	No computer time has been purchased to date.


CLOSURE OF POST OFFICES IN ONTARIO
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many post offices have been closed by the government in the Province of Ontario since April 20, 1968?
2.	In what municipality and in what electoral district are each of these post offices located?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):: 1. April 1968-September 1970, 327; October 1970-Present, 55. The program to close small post offices ended in September 1970. Closings since that date are due to factors such as inauguration of letter carrier or rural delivery to meet public request, amalgamation of communities, dwindling populations, inability to recruit replacement on death or retirement of former postmaster, etc.
2.	Nipissing, 10; Algoma, 18; Cochrane, 17; Thunder Bay, 6; Kenora-Rainy River, 2; Frontenac-Lennox-Addington, 22; Grenville-Carleton, 5; Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton, 14; Northumberland-Durham, 8; Peterborough, 6; Renfrew North-Nipissing East, 4; Victoria-Haliburton, 20; Parry Sound-Muskoka, 7; Grey-Simcoe, 5; Kent-Essex, 4; Brant, 4; Perth-Wilmot, 1; Norfolk-Haldimand, 5; Sarnia-Lamb-ton, 1; York West, 1; Scarborough East, 1; Wellington, 1; Elgin, 5; Perth Wilmot, 3; Oxford, 3; York North, 1; Parry Sound-Muskoka, 32; Timiskaming, 10; Sudbury, 5; Timmins, 1; Nickel Belt, 1; Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, 12; Hastings, 23; Leeds, 13; Ottawa-Carleton, 3; Prince Edward-Hastings, 9; Stormont-Dundas, 4; Simcoe North, 10; Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo, 14; York-Simcoe, 9; Halton-Wentworth, 2; Northumberland-Durham, 6; Lincoln, 2; Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe, 4; Ontario, 7; Welland, 2; Lambton-Kent, 8; Bruce, 22; Middlesex, 3; Huron, 4; Essex-Windsor, 2. It is not possible, without going to a very large expense, to include the municipalities of each closed post office. Many former offices are located in unincorporated areas and do not belong to any municipality. Many Townships have been amalgamated with other municipalities and now come under one government.


POST OFFICE, LYNDHURST, ONTARIO
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	(a) What is the location of the Post Office in Lyndhurst, Ontario (b) from whom are the premises rented and what is the rent?
2.	How long is the lease and does it contain an option to renew?
3.	What are all addresses whatsoever contained in government records for the owner of the premises?
4.	Who is the Postmaster at Kingston, Ontario and what is his residence address?

March 18, 1974
Order Paper Questions
5.	(a) Who negotiated the lease for the Lyndhurst Post Office on behalf of the government (b) what are the names of all persons involved in such negotiations (c) what is the exact or approximate date that such negotiations commenced?
6.	Is the government aware whether or not the owner of the premises containing the Lyndhurst Post Office is the daughter of any relative whatsoever of the Postmaster at Kingston, Ontario?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of Post Office and Public Works as follows: 1. (a) The former store known as the "Webster Building" located on the northeast corner of Charles and Jonas Streets in Lyndhurst, Ontario, (b) Mrs. Deborah Lawlor. The rent is $5,500 per annum (all inclusive).
2.	Five years effective May 1, 1973, with option to renew for a further period of five years on three months' written notice.
3.	82 Pembroke Street, Kingston, Ontario. K7L 4N7.
4.	Mr. J. S. Hackett, 82 Pembroke Street, Kingston, Ontario. K7L 4N7
5.	(a) Mr. M. Dubuc, Property Officer, Property Services Branch, Capital Region, Department of Public Works, Ottawa, Ontario, (b) Mrs. Deborah Lawlor, the owner, and Mr. M. Dubuc of this Department, (c) January 3, 1973.
6.	The owner of the premises housing the Lyndhurst, Ontario, Post Office is the daughter of the Postmaster at Kingston, Ontario.


CLOSURE OF POST OFFICES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many post offices have been closed by the government in the Province of British Columbia since April 20, 1968?
2.	In what municipality and in what electoral district are each of these post offices located?


André Ouellet: 1. April 1968-September 1970, 78; October 1970-present, 26. The program to close small post offices ended in September 1970. Closings since that date are due to factors such as inauguration of letter carrier or rural delivery to meet public request, amalgamation of communities, dwindling populations, inability to recruit replacement on death or retirement of former postmaster, etc.
2.	Kootenay West, 19; New Westminster, 1; Kamloops-Cariboo, 12; Skeena, 13; Okanagan Boundary, 4; Okanagan-Kootenay, 3; Capilano, 2; Comox-Alberni, 11; Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, 7; Surrey-White Rock, 3; Fraser Valley West, 6; Prince George-Peace River, 7; Burnaby-Richmond-Delta, 1; Victoria, 1; Coast Chilcotin, 10; Yukon Territories, 4. It is not possible, without going to a very large expense, to include the municipalities of each closed post office. Many former offices are located in unincorporated areas and do not belong to any municipality. Many townships have been amalgamated with other municipalities and now come under one government.


CLOSURE OF POST OFFICES IN ALBERTA
Mr. Cossitt: I.	How many post offices have been closed by the government in the Province of Alberta since April 20, 1968?

2.	In what municipality and in what electoral district are each of these post offices located?


André Ouellet: 1. April 1968-September 1970, 184; October 1970-present, 7. The program to close small post offices ended in September 1970. Closings since that date are due to factors such as inauguration of letter carrier or rural delivery to meet public request, amalgamation of communities, dwindling populations, inability to recruit replacement on death or retirement of former postmaster, etc.
2. Crowfoot, 21; Red Deer, 14; Palliser, 10; Medicine Hat, 11; Rocky Mountain, 14; Lethbridge, 5; Peace River, 16; Northwest Territories, 2; Vegreville, 25; Pembina, 29; Wetaskiwin, 18; Battle River, 2; Athabasca, 19; Edmonton West, 3; Calgary South, 2. It is not possible, without going to a very large expense, to include the municipalities of each closed post office. Many former offices are located in unincorporated areas and do not belong to any municipality. Many townships have been amalgamated with other municipalities and now come under one government.


CLOSURE OF POST OFFICES IN MANITOBA
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many post offices have been closed by the government in the Province of Manitoba since April 20, 1968?
2.	In what municipality and in what electoral district are each of these post offices located?


André Ouellet: 1. April 1968-September 1970, 138; October 1970-present, 9. The program to close small post offices ended in September 1970. Closings since that date are due to factors such as inauguration of letter carrier or rural delivery to meet public request, amalgamation of communities, dwindling populations, inability to recruit replacement on death or retirement of former postmaster, etc.
2.	Provencher, 30; Dauphin, 32; Lisgar, 17; Brandon-Sou-ris, 8; Portage, 9; Churchill, 9; Marquette, 31; St. Boniface, 1; Selkirk, 10. It is not possible, without going to a very large expense to include the municipalities of each closed post office. Many former offices are located in unincorporated areas and do not belong to any municipality. Many townships have been amalgamated with other municipalities and now come under one government.


CLOSURE OF POST OFFICES IN QUEBEC
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many post offices have been closed by the government in the Province of Quebec since April 20, 1968?
2.	In what municipality and in what electoral district are each of these post offices located?


André Ouellet: 1. April 1968-September 1970, 199; October 1970-present, 10. The program to close small post offices ended in September 1970. Closings since that date are due to factors such as inauguration of letter carrier or rural delivery to meet public request, amalgamation of communities, dwindling populations, inability to recruit replacement on death or retirement of former postmaster, etc.
March 18, 1974

2. Gatineau, 5; Brome-Missisquoi, 3; Pontiac, 5; Labelle, 6; Temiscamingue, 8; Joliette, 1; St-Jean, 1; Hull, 1; Berth-ier, 2; Argenteuil-Deux Montagnes, 1; Levis, 1; Villeneuve, 11; Compton, 1; Richelieu, 2; Vaudreuil, 2; Terrebonne, 1; Bellechasse, 10; Gaspe, 25; Bonaventure-Jles-de-la-Madeleine, 31; Abitibi, 8; Charlevoix, 13; Beauce, 7; Montmorency, 4; Kamouraska, 11; Matane, 5; Portneuf, 7; Rober-val, 9; Richmond, 2; Manicouagan, 4; Rimouski, 3; Fron-tenac, 10; Champlain, 7; Lotbiniere, 1; St-Maurice, 1. It is not possible, without going to a very large expense, to include the municipalities of each closed post office. Many former offices are located in unincorporated areas and do not belong to any municipality. Many townships have been amalgamated with other municipalities and now come under one government.


CLOSURE OF POST OFFICES IN NEW BRUNSWICK
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many post office have been closed by the government in the Province of New Brunswick since April 20, 1968?
2.	In what municipality and in what electoral district are each of these post offices located?


André Ouellet: 1. April 1968-September 1970, 185; October 1970-present, 3. The program to close small post offices ended in September 1970. Closings since that date are due to factors such as inauguration of letter carrier or rural delivery to meet public request, amalgamation of communities, dwindling populations, inability to recruit replacement on death or retirement of former postmaster, etc.
2. Northumberland-Miramichi, 39; Restigouche, 18; Carleton-Charlotte, 22; Moncton, 6; Fundy-Royal, 23; West-moreland-Kent, 16; Gloucester, 46; York-Sunbury, 14; Madawaska-Victoria, 4; Saint John-Lancaster, 2. It is not possible, without going to a very large expense, to include the municpalities of each closed post office. Many former offices are located in unincorporated areas and do not belong to any municipality. Many townships have been amalgamated with other municipalities and now come under one government.


CLOSURE OF POST OFFICES IN NOVA SCOTIA
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many post offices have been closed by the government in the Province of Nova Scotia since April 20, 1968?
2.	In what municipality and in what electoral district are each of these post offices located?


André Ouellet: 1. April 1968-September 1970, 217; October 1970-present, 10. The program to close small post offices ended in September 1970. Closings since that date are due to factors such as inauguration of letter carrier or rural delivery to meet public request, amalgamation of communities, dwindling populations, inability to recruit replacement on death or retirement of former postmaster, etc.
2. South Western Nova, 32; South Shore, 29; Cape Bre-ton-The Sydneys, 3; Annapolis Valley, 18; Cumberland-Colchester North, 23; Central Nova, 23; Dartmouth-Halifax East, 10; Cape Breton-East Richmond, 15; Halifax East-
Order Paper Questions
Hants, 7; Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, 68; It is not possible, without going to a very large expense, to include the municipalities of each closed post office. Many former offices are located in unincorporated areas and do not belong to any municipality. Many townships have been amalgamated with other municipalities and now come under one government.


CLOSURE OF POST OFFICES IN PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many post offices have been closed by the government in the Province of Prince Edward Island since April 20, 1968?
2.	In what municipality and in what electoral district are each of these post offices located?


André Ouellet: 1. April 1968-September 1970, 35; October 1970-present, 1. The program to close small post offices ended in September 1970. Closings since that date are due to factors such as inauguration of letter carrier or rural delivery to meet public request, amalgamation of communities, dwindling populations, inability to recruit replacement of death or retirement of former postmaster, etc.
2. Cardigan, 11; Malpeque, 13; Hillsborough, 6; Egmont, 6. It is not possible, without going to a very large expense, to include the municipalities of each closed post office. Many former offices are located in unincorporated areas and do not belong to any municipality. Many townships have been amalgamated with other municipalities and now come under one government.


CLOSURE OF POST OFFICES IN NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	How many post offices have been closed by the government in the Province of Newfoundland since April 20, 1968?
2.	In what municipality and in what electoral district are each of these post offices located?


André Ouellet: 1. April 1968-September 1970, 166; October 1970-present, 12. The program to close small post offices ended in September 1970. Closings since that date are due to factors such as inauguration of letter carrier or rural delivery to meet public request, amalgamation of communities, dwindling populations, inability to recruit replacement on death or retirement of former postmaster, etc.
2. Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, 38; Gander-Twillin-gate, 24; Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, 28; St. John's East, 6; Burin-Burgeo, 46; Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador, 18; St. John's West, 18. It is not possible, without going to a very large expense, to include the municipalities of each closed post office. Many former offices are located in unincorporated areas and do not belong to any municipality. Many townships have been amalgamated with other municipalities and now come under one government.

March 18, 1974
Order Paper Questions


DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS-USE OF ADVERTISING AGENCIES
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all advertising agencies used by the Department of Veterans Affairs since the present Minister assumed his portfolio?
2.	(a) What are the amounts of all advertising contracts given such agencies during this period of time, what are the dates such contracts were awarded and in each case, were tenders or competitive presentations of any kind requested and, if not, who authorized in each case the expenditure of public funds without such tenders or competitive presentations (b) in each case, what was the general subject matter of the advertising contract?
3.	What are the names and addresses of all advertising agencies used by the Department of Veterans Affairs during the term of the Minister's immediate predecessor and if any of these agencies have not been used since then, for what reason and on whose decision were changes made?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Hulme Advertising, 4 Lansing Square, Willow-dale, Ontario. M2J 1T1
2.	There is no formal contract awarded. The agency is used on an as required basis. The expenditure from November 1972 amounts to $92,833.
3.	Petersen Hulme Limited, 130 Bloor Street West, Toronto, Ontario. M5S 1N5 (This is the same agency which has undergone a change of ownership.)


IN-FLIGHT ENTERTAINMENT COSTS
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Disregarding the revenue from renting or selling earpieces, what is the annual cost of renting films for presentation in flight on Air Canada flights?
2.	How often are the films changed?
3.	How much extra would it cost to change films (a) weekly (b) each fortnight?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Air Canada's annual cost of renting films and equipment for in-flight presentation is approximately $340,000.
2.	Films are changed approximately every six weeks.
3.	(a) A change of films every week would cost Air Canada $874,000 and $1,197,000 more per annum, (b) A change of films every two weeks would cost Air Canada between $494,000 and $539,000 more per annum.


CANADA-UNITED STATES RELATIONS IN EARLY 1973
Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Concerning the diplomatic reprisals by the United States against Canada in January and February, 1973, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs aware that Canadian Diplomats were advised at the State Department that no one above the level of the Canada Desk Officer would receive them?
2.	Is the Minister aware that United States businessmen were specifically warned by White House Aides to avoid Canadian Diplomats?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Presumably the question is related to various press reports at the time and later to the effect that the embassies of a number of countries were having difficulty

maintaining normal contact at different levels of the U.S. Government. The Canadian Embassy was not advised by the U.S. State Department that there would be any restriction of access by Canadian diplomats.
2. No information was received of any warning to American businessmen to avoid Canadian diplomats.


CHARGES FOR SAR IN ARCTIC WATERS
Mr. Forrestall: Has any decision been taken by the government with respect to whether or not charges should be levied against the rescued owners of a vessel beset in Arctic waters and (a) if so, what is it (b) if not, on what date might such a policy be forthcoming?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: No decision has yet been taken by the government, (b) No date has been set for the issuance of such a policy.


POLAR ICEBREAKER
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With reference to Question No. 750 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament, has the government revised the estimate of the late seventies in terms of the date at which natural resources are likely to be exploited in the Canadian Arctic Achipelago?
2.	What length of time would be required from date of approval of funding to the bringing about into fully operational capability of a polar icebreaker capable of 10 to 12 month operation in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago?
3.	On what date will a decision be required to construct such a vessel in order to meet the government's stated deadline as indicated in answer to Question No. 750, namely, the date that natural resources are likely to be exploited in the north?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. The estimate has not been revised at this time.
2.	Approximately five years.
3.	No date can be given upon which a decision will be required to construct a polar icebreaker, capable of 10 to 12 months' operation in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago, in so far as this date relates to an estimated date that natural resources are likely to be exploited in the north. The reply to part 3 of Question No. 750 indicated only that there was some degree of relationship between the two dates.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF AN ICE-BREAKING MACHINE
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Does the government anticipate receiving from the Federal Republic of Germany or firms based therein proposals for co-operation with Canada in the research and development of an ice-breaking cargo ship in (a) 1974 (b) 1975 (c) 1976?
2.	What is the nature and status of present negotiations in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Canadian and West German officials have held exploratory talks to examine the possibility and desirability of some form of co-operation between the two countries in the development of cargo ships capable of icebreaking. The German government has been working for over two
March 18, 1974

years with a German shipbuilder on studies of icebreaking cargo vessels-the so-called EOS class. During this time the Canadian government has been invited to discuss ways of joint co-operation on ice research and on the design and development of icebreaking cargo vessels. The results of the German work are expected to be made available to the Canadian government some time in early 1974. The Germans have stressed that this offer carries no obligation to any joint endeavour; in turn, the Canadian government has stated that agreement to study the German report implies no commitment to joint endeavour. At this stage, it is therefore not possible to state whether these talks will lead to co-operation between the Canadian and West German governments since we have, at the moment, neither sufficient information about the FGR capacity nor comparative data about the capacities of other countries and systems of transportation in ice-covered waters to take decisions regarding co-operative ventures on this field. A wide variety of approaches to the subject of transport in ice conditions will be examined as part of the policy announced last July by the Ministry of State for Science and Technology that Canada would achieve excellence within five years in transportation on and below ice covered waters. No formal proposals for co-operation with Canada have been received from the government of the Federal Republic or firms based therein; it is not possible to state at present whether such proposals should be anticipated in any of the years specified in the question.
2. There are no formal negotiations going on in this regard; the discussions taking place on this question are described above.


TONNAGE MOVED IN CANADIAN ARCTIC ARCHIPELAGO
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What was the level in terms of tonnage moved in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago in each year since 1963?
2.	For each year, what was the percentage of this tonnage moved in (a) Canadian (b) Commonwealth (c) other vessels?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Tonnage figures for the total cargo which was moved in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago (Arctic Islands only) during 1963/73 are not available. However, the tonnages shipped/handled to sites in the eastern Arctic during the annual Department of Transport resupply operation in the years 1963-73 inclusive, are shown in the statement attached hereto.
2. The percentages of the tonnages lifted in Canadian, Commonwealth and other vessels, during the same period, is included in the statement.
			Vessels	
	Tonnage		Common-	
Year	S hipped / Handled	Canadian	wealth	Otherper cent	per cent	per cent1963	112,509 s/tons	89	Nil	111964	105,000 s/tons	97	Nil	31965	106, 600 s/tons	97	Nil	31966	100,675 s/tons	86	Nil	141967	108,067 s/tons	85	Nil	151968	106,745 s/tons	95	Nil	5
Order Paper Questions
Year	Tonnage Shipped/Handled	Canadian	Vessels Common- wealth	Other1969	117,062 s/tons	per cent 94	per cent 3	per cent 31970	127,079 s/tons	94	Nil	61971	113,573 s/tons	88	Nil	121972	99,871 s/tons	97	Nil	31973	92,700 s/tons (Estimate)	100	Nil	Nil


TEAM COMMISSIONED BY GOVERNMENT TO GATHER DATA RELATING TO ICEBREAKER DESIGN
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What are the names of the members of the team commissioned by the government to gather all the pertinent data to bring about a polar icebreaker design, cost estimate and anticipated Arctic traffic that it may be required to support?
2.	What progress has been made to date by this group and what is (a) the present cost estimate (b) the anticipated traffic for the next ten years?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Persons from several government departments, MOT, DSS, NRC, AECL and DRB have been involved to date in the studies related to the design of a polar icebreaker. Numerous other individuals including outside consultants will be contributing to a greater or lesser degree as the studies and design progress and it is consequently not possible at this time to list the names of all the persons who have had, or will have, involvement in this group.
2. Model and full scale preliminary tests have been conducted, discussions have been held with consultants both in Canada and abroad and the undertaking of a further major study and design contract is now being considered, (a) No realistic cost estimate can be given at this time nor will be available until major ship parameters, such as dimensions and type and power level of propulsion machinery, have been determined, (b) Not known at this time.


OFFICERS DESIGNATED TO CARRY OUT INSPECTIONS UNDER ARCTIC SHIPPING POLLUTION PREVENTION REGULATIONS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many officers of the Marine Administration of the Department of Transport have been designated as pollution officers?
2.	How many selected officers of the Canadian Coast Guard have been provided with the necessary authority to carrying out inspections under the Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. Three hundred and ninety.
2. One hundred and forty three.


PERMITS ISSUED UNDER THE ARCTIC SHIPPING POLLUTION PREVENTION REGULATIONS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many vessels have been (a) inspected and issued permits under the Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Requirements (b) inspected and refused permits under the ASPPR?
2.	Did any vessels operate in the territories under the jurisdictional purview of the ASPPR without the permits required and, if so, how many and what company owned each?

March 18, 1974
Order Paper Questions
3.	How many ships operated by the government were so inspected and issued such permits in the 1973 shipping season?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. (a) During the 1973 navigation season, 12 vessels were inspected and issued with Arctic Pollution Prevention certificates by the Ministry of Transport, (b) No vessels were refused Arctic Pollution Prevention Certificates for which application was made.
2.	All of the vessels known to have operated in territories, to which the requirement applied, carried an Arctic Pollution Prevention Certificate issued by the Ministry of Transport or by the relevant classification society, as required by the Arctic Shipping Pollution Prevention Regulations.
3.	None of the vessels operated by the government were inspected and issued with Arctic Pollution Prevention Certificates.
JOINT AIR/SEA STAGING CENTRE IN THE CANADIAN ARCTIC


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What departments or agencies of government are currently involved in discussions relating to the establishment of a joint air/sea staging centre in the Canadian Arctic, particularly the High Arctic, with multi-departmental purpose including defence and transport?
2.	What level of funding has been provided for such consideration?
3.	What progress has been made to date with such discussions in terms of the establishment of a date at which such a centre would become essential for Canada's claim to Arctic sovereignty particularly over the Canadian Arctic Archipelago?


John Mercer Reid: 1. The Department of National Defence and the Ministry of Transport are not discussing, with other government departments or agencies, the establishment of new air/sea staging areas in the Canadian Arctic. An air/sea staging area in the Canadian High Arctic, at Resolute Bay, is operated by the Ministry of Transport. It serves the interest of several government departments and meets transportation requirements of the resource exploration industry.
2.	No funding has been provided.
3.	Not applicable.


ARCTIC OPERATIONS OF &quot;R&quot; CLASS ICEBREAKER
Mr. Forrestall: Within what zones of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago will the R-class icebreaker be able to operate and, in each instance, for what period of time?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The R-class icebreaker will be able to operate in all the zones of the Canadian Arctic Archipelago. The period of time the ship will be operating in any particular zone will depend upon operational requirements at that particular time.


FACILITIES FOR ICE-MODEL TESTING TANKS
Mr. Forrestall: 1. What are the facilities of the Department of Transport or other agencies of the government in terms of ice-model testing tanks for
[Mr Forrestall.]
research and design experimentation into the construction and development of Canadian icebreaker capability?
2.	Does the government assess this capability as adequate to accommodate the indicated development of a polar icebreaker and, if not, on what date can such capability be upgraded to accommodate such requirements?
3.	Has the government any arrangement at the present time to share or make use of such facilities located in the United States and, if so, with what frequency have such facilities located outside Canada been employed in the past year?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. There are no ice-model testing facilities operated by the Ministry of Transport but there is one operated by the National Research Council.
2.	The existing government facility is not totally adequate. The National Research Council advise us it would take about three years, $1.5 million and 12 extra staff to accommodate such requirements.
3.	No arrangement for sharing or making use of any facilities exists except on a contract basis. These facilities were employed once in February of last year.


OPERATIONS OF UNITED STATES COAST GUARD ICEBREAKER &quot;POLAR STAR&quot;
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What significance does the launching of the United States Coast Guard 60,000 shp icebreaker Polar Star by Lockheed Shipbuilding Co. Ltd. have for Canada's claim to sovereignty in the Arctic Archipelago?
2.	On what date does the government envisage the use of this vessel in Arctic waters in fully operational capability?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. The waters around the Alaskan coast and in the Antarctic, where the United States maintains research facilities, are ice covered for much of the year and the government does not therefore consider the launching of the United States Coast Guard icebreaker "Polar Star" has any significance with respect to Canada's claim to sovereignty in the Arctic Archipelago.
2. The government has no knowledge as to the date of use of this ship in Arctic waters in a fully operational state, however, it is understood that the Polar Star will be commissioned in late 1974.


ATTENDANCE OF TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT OFFICIALS AT LAUNCHING OF U.S. COAST GUARD ICEBREAKER
Mr. Forrestall: Were any officials of the government present at the launching of the 60,000 shp icebreaker for the US Coast Guard by Lockheed Shipbuilding Co. Ltd., of Seattle, Washington on the week-end of November 17, 1973 and, if so, what were their names and what positions do they hold?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: There were no officials of the Ministry of Transport present at the launching of the U.S. Coast Guard icebreaker on the week-end of November 11, 1973.
March 18, 1974


GOVERNMENT POLICY ON FOREIGN ICEBREAKERS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the policy of the government towards the granting of permission to icebreakers owned and operated by the Coast Guard of a foreign nation to operate continuously within Canada's territorial waters for purposes other than search and rescue?
2.	Does this policy apply to the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and, if not, what policy in these terms does apply there?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. It is government policy that all requirements for the services of icebreakers within Canadian territorial waters be met by Canadian Coast Guard icebreakers.
2. Yes.


TRANSPORT-FLEET SUPPORT SHIP
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,335 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament, what is the nature of the Fleet Support Ship indicated by number 166 in the Ministry of Transport's Marine Transportation Program Capital Budget Update of December 31, 1972, in terms of demands to be made of it by the government?
2.	When does the government expect to see this vessel put into operational capability?
3.	What class hull will such ship have and what rate of speed will it be able to maintain through six foot ice in the continuous progress mode?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1. The answer to question No. 2,335 indicated, under item 166, a projected requirement for a Fleet Support Ship or alternative. The matter is still under review.
2.	Not applicable at this time.
3.	Not applicable at this time.


CONSTRUCTION OF POLAR ICEBREAKER
Mr. Forrestall: With reference to the answer to Question No, 2,335 of the First Session of the 29th Parliament, respecting item R12 of the Ministry of Transport's Marine Transportation Program Capital Budget Update of December 31, 1972 entitled "Construction of Polar Icebreaker-$100,000,000'', when does the government now anticipate to see initial construction contracts let for this icebreaker with full polar capability?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: No firm decision has been taken by the government to construct an icebreaker with full polar capability.


PORTABILITY OF PENSIONS AND RETIREMENT BENEFITS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	With how many provincial governments has the government entered into arrangements to provide portability of pensions and retirement benefits of their respective public servants (a) from provincial realm to federal realm (b) from federal realm into provincial realm?
2.	In each case, what groups of federal public servants are not provided for under these agreements?
3.	In each case, what was the date of the agreement?
4.	In each case, where no agreement exists, when is such anticipated?
Order Paper Questions


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: 1. (a) nine; (b) 9.
2.	The only Public Service employees who are not eligible to take advantage of these agreements are those who are not contributors under the Public Service Superannuation Act.
3.	British Columbia, June 24, 1955; Quebec, February 13, 1962; Alberta, May 30, 1962; Saskatchewan, April 29, 1964; New Brunswick, August 31, 1965; Ontario, May 16, 1966; Newfoundland, February 19, 1970; Prince Edward Island, June 15, 1972; Nova Scotia, August 8, 1972. Employees of the governments of both the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories are considered employees of the Public Service for purposes of the Public Service Superannuation Act.
4.	Since negotiations with the province of Manitoba are currently in progress, it is not possible to anticipate the date upon which an agreement will be completed.


CIDA-PURCHASE OF GOODS AND SERVICES
Mr. Forrestall: What estimate do officials of the Canadian International Development Agency have of the percentage of funds expended by CIDA, since its inception, outside of Canada that have been returned to Canada either in the purchase of goods or services by the particular interests and countries to whom Canadian funds were initially granted?


Mitchell William Sharp: It is virtually impossible to make an educated estimate of the percentage of funds expended by CIDA, outside of Canada, that have been returned to Canada either in the purchase of goods or services by the particular interests and countries to whom Canadian funds were initially granted. This question makes reference to untied aid for which CIDA is not provided with any procurement statistics by the recipient countries receiving this type of aid. Untied aid up to now has represented a very small portion of CIDA's over-all aid program and certainly does not exceed 15 per cent of all CIDA's expenditures. It is estimated, however, that up to 90 per cent of all CIDA's expenditures since its inception have been spent in Canada mainly in the form of purchase of food and commodities, engineering and consulting contracts, payments of various other types of service contracts, contracts with advisers and teachers and payment of scholarships to trainees.


CANADIANS IMPRISONED IN OTHER COUNTRIES
Mr. Carter: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all Canadian citizens imprisoned in other countries?
2.	What are the dates of imprisonment and the reasons for such imprisonment?
3.	What is the present legal status of each person imprisoned?
4.	What action is the Department of External Affairs taking to secure the safety of such citizens being held in foreign countries?
5.	What action is the Department of External Affairs taking to secure the immediate release of such citizens held in foreign countries not charged with any crime?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Foreign states are under no legal obligation to

March 18, 1974
Order Paper Questions
inform other governments that they have arrested or detained their nationals unless the persons concerned so request or unless the local representatives of the governments concerned should inquire. It can be the case that Canadian representatives abroad are not informed of the arrest or detention of Canadians because the particular persons concerned do not wish this to be known. Where such information is known to the Canadian authorities, its release would not be in the public interest. It would involve unnecessary humiliation to the individuals concerned, their families and their friends.
2.	In view of the answer to part 1 above, the first part of part 2 cannot be answered. Canadians are imprisoned abroad for a variety of reasons including possession, use and trafficking of narcotics of all kinds, fraud, indebtedness, theft, traffic accidents and murder or attempted murder.
3.	A number of Canadians held in prisons abroad have been tried and sentenced. Others are awaiting trial in accordance with the legal and judicial systems of the countries in which they are detained.
4.	Canadians imprisoned in other countries are subject to the jurisdiction of local authorities who are responsible for the maintenance of law and order in their territories and their penal institutions. Legally and officially the most that Canadian representatives abroad can and usually do in such circumstances is to ensure that a Canadian citizen is treated no less fairly than other foreign nationals, or perhaps than the citizens of that country would be treated in similar circumstances, and to ensure that appropriate legal counsel is obtained.
5.	Every effort is made to secure without delay the release of Canadian citizens held without charge in foreign countries.



DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES, 1972-74

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of External Affairs on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. Expenditures of the Department of External Affairs were as follows: 1972-73, $2,663,000; 1973-74, $1,344,226 (to January 31, 1974).
2. The above amounts include program expenditures of an informational nature for the purchase of materials and supplies, relating to library services, microfilming, printing of publications and promotional and cultural activities. In addition contract expenditures were incurred on advertising in connection with a nation-wide publicity campaign to inform the public on requirements relative to the procurement of passports. The amounts were paid to John Doherty and Company, Ottawa, as set out below: 1972-73, $32,320; 1973-74, $312.

3. Direct program costs under the Department's Information Division were as follows:
1972-73	Expenditure	Purpose of Expenditure

9,413 General Travel 953,165 Exhibits and Displays 346,569 Information Publications 63,635 Visitors Program 14,018 Speakers Program 1,728 Foreign Affairs Information in Canada 124,132 Canadian Book Program-U.S.A. Schools
65,005 U.S.A. Projects 100,752 Other Program Expenditures
1,678,417
7,686 General Travel 134,349 Exhibits and Displays 221,903 Information Publications 90,817 Visitors Program 8,407 Foreign Affairs Information in Canada 48,873 Visual Presentations 146,427 Programs in Foreign Countries 8,594 Other Program Expenditures
667,056



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES-USE OF ADVERTISING AGENCIES

Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all advertising agencies used by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources since the present Minister assumed his portfolio?
2.	(a) What are the amounts of all advertising contracts given such agencies during this period of time, what are the dates such contracts were awarded and in each case, were tenders or competitive presentations of any kind requested and, if not, who authorized in each case the expenditure of public funds without such tenders or competitive presentations (b) in each case, what was the general subject matter of the advertising contract?
3.	What are the names and addresses of all advertising agencies used by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources during the term of the Minister's immediate predecessor and if any of these agencies has not been used since then, for what reason and on whose decision were changes made?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: 1. None.
2.	Nil.
3.	None.



AGREEMENT BETWEEN AIR CANADA AND AVIS TRANSPORT OF CANADA

Mr. Reynolds: 1. Has Air Canada given an exclusive two year agreement to be the primary supplier of car rentals to Air Canada to the Avis car rental firm and, if so, was this exclusive right tendered to all other car rental firms by Air Canada?
March 18, 1974

2.	On what date did Avis Canada and Air Canada enter into such agreement?
3.	On what date was the controlling interest of Avis Canada sold to Avis U.S.A.?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Each year more and more passengers come to Air Canada for all elements of what is termed the "total travel experience"-an airline seat combined with a place to stay, a sight-seeing trip, a rental car, etc. As part of the activities being developed to satisfy this demand, the company has initiated a program whereby a passenger can, at the same time as making his flight arrangements, also reserve a rental car. Each of the three major rent-a-car firms in Canada (Tilden, Avis and Hertz) was approached regarding participation in this program. Proposals were reviewed and a complete plan selected which best satisfied Air Canada's commercial and service interests. The plan involves certain arrangements with Avis. However, these are non-exclusive; if the customer asks for a Tilden car or one from any other particular agency, an attempt is made to satisfy his request.
2.	February 1973.
3.	This is not known by the government.



BELL CANADA SURVEY ON AIR CANADA FLIGHTS

Mr. Reynolds: 1.	Did Bell Canada hand out questionnaires to passengers boarding Air Canada flights in Toronto on October 15, 1973 and, if so, who authorized it?
2.	What fee did Bell Canada pay for this privilege?
3.	To whom did Bell Canada pay this fee?
4.	What is the procedure that one would use who would like to use the facilities of the government and Air Canada to do a survey?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Yes, with the Corporation's authorization.
2 and 3. No fee was paid. The Corporation will be compensated in the form of useful marketing data and information resulting from the survey.
4.	There is no set procedure. The Corporation co-operates with the federal government (The Office of Tourism, the Canadian Transport Commission, the Ministry of Transport), provincial governments and tourist boards and other airlines and industries in the conduct of such surveys; each one is handled on its own merits and generally in a different way.



TRANSFER OF INMATES FROM BRITISH COLUMBIA PENITENTIARY

Mr. Reynolds: What are the names and sentences of the eight most difficult inmates transferred from the British Columbia Penitentiary to other institutions in Canada and to what institutions were they transferred?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: It is not
considered in the public interest to divulge the names of eight inmates who were transferred from British
Order Paper Questions
Columbia Penitentiary in the latter part of October 1973 nor to divulge the names of the institutions to which these inmates have been transferred. The publication of this information would only provide these inmates with an opportunity to gain status among other inmates and to confirm them as leaders, a consequence which is most undesirable in any institution and definitely not in the interest of the maintenance of good order and discipline in the Federal Penal Institutions. In addition, it is necessary to preserve the anonymity of these inmates so as to avoid unnecessary humiliation to them, their families and friends.



CANADIAN PENITENTIARY SERVICE-EMPLOYMENT OF MR. AND MRS. BRIAN MURPHY

Mr. Reynolds: Were Mr. Brian Murphy and his wife Jeanette of Surrey, British Columbia committed to stand trial on a charge of cultivating marijuana following the completion of a preliminary hearing and, if so, will the Solicitor General (a) suspend their operations as researchers for the Canadian Penitentiary Service (b) comply with the wishes of the penitentiary staff and make sure they have no further admittance to the British Columbia penitentiary until after their trial is completed?


William Warren Allmand: Yes. (a) and (b) Mrs. J. Murphy who had been employed on a contractual basis terminated her employment with the Canadian Penitentiary Service at the end of May, 1973. It is not intended to suspend the operations of Mr. Brian Murphy as a researcher nor to deny him admission to the British Columbia Penitentiary when necessary in the performance of his duties. Mr. Murphy is employed on a study of inmates' profiles and his work, unlike that of correctional officers, does not require him to be in daily, continual contact with inmates in a supervisory teaching or counselling relationship. His continued employment, pending disposition of the charges now before the courts, does not in any way jeopardize the security of the institution.



DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-COMMUNICATION OF GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): On what occasion and for what reasons has the Department of External Affairs assumed responsibility for communicating statements of government policy to any or all provinces?


Mitchell William Sharp: The white paper of 1968 entitled "Federalism and International Relations" (Catalogue No. E2-6368) outlined the nature and extent of the co-operative relationship to be developed between the federal and provincial levels of government in the implementation of Canada's foreign policy. In accordance with the policies outlined in the white paper, the department conducts active and on-going discussions with the provinces on questions of foreign policy involving provincial interests. The department's Federal-Provincial co-ordinating division assures the necessary liaison on a day-to-day basis. On occasion, other departments have requested, and have been granted, the use of the department's telex communication facilities to commiinicate government policy, other than foreign policy, to the provinces. On these occasions the department's role was technical rather than substantive.

March 18, 1974
Order Paper Questions



CANADIAN TRANSPORT COMMISSION EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	For the fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73 what amount of the total expenditures for the Canadian Transport Commission were spent (a) outside of Canada (b) within Canada (c) in each of the 10 provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories?
2.	(a) What was the total number of employees in the Canadian Transport Commission as of March 31, 1973 (b) how many of those employees would be considered employees of the headquarters and are employed on the (i) Quebec side of the national capital (ii) Ontario side of the national capital (c) how many employees does the Commission have in each of the 10 provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows:
	1971-72	1972-73	
	S	$	
(a)	29,501	39,911	(b)	121,705,613	184,353,531	(c)	7,224,405	9,010,299	Ontario123,883	134,515	Alberta100,267	127,259	Manitoba43,714	46,720	Saskatchewan143,848	169,371	Quebec74,679	105,945	British Columbia23,242	25,980	Newfoundland72,875	79,059	New Brunswick-	-	Nova Scotia-	-	Prince Edward Island-	-	Yukon-	-	Northwest Territories
The above figures do not include $120,352,015 in fiscal year 1971-72 and $182,751,983 in 1972-73 which represent payments under the following grants and contributions: Grants to universities and other organizations and individuals, Railway payments, Regional air carriers, Steamship Subventions, Atlantic Region Freight Assistance Act, Maritime Freight Rates Act, Railway Grade Crossing Fund. These items are not identified by province and the information would require an inordinate cost and length of time to prepare.
2. (a), 619; (b) (i), nil; (ii), 564; (c) British Columbia, 6; Alberta, 6; Saskatchewan, 3; Manitoba, 6; *Ontario, 13; Quebec, 15; New Brunswick, 4; Nova Scotia, nil; Prince Edward Island, nil; Newfoundland, 2; Yukon, nil; Northwest Territories, nil. *In addition to the 564 reported in 2 (b) (ii).



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES EXPENDITURES AND PERSONNEL

Mr. Nystrom: 1. For the fiscal years 1971-72 and 1972-73 what amount of the total expenditures for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources were spent (a) outside of Canada (b) within Canada (c) in each of the 10 provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories?

2. (a) What was the total number of employees in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources as of March 31, 1973 (b) how many of those employees would be considered employees of the headquarters and are employed on the (i) Quebec side of the national capital (ii) Ontario side of the national capital (c) how many employees does the Department have in each of the 10 provinces, the Yukon and Northwest Territories?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1. (a) 1971-72: $10,767,716.22; 1972-73: $3,428,540.68; (b) 1971-72: $72,496,283.78; 1972-73: $73,661,459.32; (c).
Provinces	1971-72	1972-73
	t	$
Newfoundland	210,389.10	62,720.08Nova Scotia	1,395,232.85	1,633,270.95New Brunswick	4,260,328.70	4,307,722.99Prince Edward Island	4,414.17	17,386.99Quebec	5,450,845.28	4,291,202.27Ontario	54,111,829.75	56,273,371.94Manitoba	469,175.98	443,825.16Saskatchewan	195,448.93	227,885.91Alberta	3,414,633.07	3,945,422.53British Columbia	2,391,490.06	1,781,489.05Yukon	81,897.08	74,972.14Northwest Territories	510,598.81	602,189.312. (a) 3,029 continuing full-time employ	ees of which twoare serving outside of Canada, (b) 2,728;	(i) 38; (ii) 2,690;(c).	Number ofProvinces	employeesNewfoundland	nilNova Scotia	76New Brunswick	nilPrince Edward Island	nilQuebec	52Ontario	2,715Manitoba	4Saskatchewan	2Alberta	126British Columbia	43Yukon	1Northwest Territories	8



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT EXPENDITURES AND PERSONNEL

Mr. Nystrom: 
Joseph-Phillippe Guay: 1.
Fiscal Year 1971-72	1972-73
(In thousands of dollars)
a) Outside Canada	224	232b) Within Canada	547,451	545,342c) Ottawa Headquarters	196,759	196,160Newfoundland	20,609	22,695Prince Edward Island	4,162	4,257Nova Scotia	22,511	25,996New Brunswick	19,117	19,081Quebec	130,808	111,817Ontario	71,062	75,643Manitoba	12,067	14,803Saskatchewan	4,346	3,067Alberta	17,432	20,872British Columbia	37,147	36,445Yukon	1,890	1,598Northwest Territories	9,541	12,908
2. (a) 16,267; (b) (i) Nil; (ii) 3,387; (c) Newfoundland, 1,287; Prince Edward Island, 172; Nova Scotia, 1,423; New Brunswick, 1,009; Quebec, 3,018; Ontario, 5,030; Manitoba, 770; Saskatchewan, 201; Alberta, 1,007; British Columbia, 1,929; Yukon Territory, 82; Northwest Territories, 325.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS

[Stage Direction]
CWA/WVA CASES
Mr. Marshall: 1.	How many CWA/WVA cases are handled by the district authority in each province and what amount of money is disbursed in each province?
2.	How many people are on the staffs of the various district authority offices administering CWA/WVA in each of the ten provinces?
3.	What criteria are used to provide staff to the various district authority offices which administer CWA/WVA accounts?
Return tabled.



FEDERAL LABOUR INTENSIVE PROGRAM

Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Since the inception of the Federal Labour Intensive Program (FLIP) in each year of operation including the fiscal year 1973-1974, what has been the breakdown in funding (a) by federal department participating (b) by province (c) by identifiable project funded (d) by year?
2.	For each department and identifiable project, what has been the number of jobs created or sustained through this program?
3.	What are the broad criteria for acceptance of projects, do these differ by department and, if so, in what respect?
4.	What has been the deadline for submission of proposals and, for each year, what has been the date of commencement and termination of this program?
Return tabled.



DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT PUBLICITY EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What were the amounts of money spent by the Department of Transport on publicity and/or information in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date?
Oral Questions
2.	What were the names and addresses of firms and individuals who received these contracts, what amounts of money were spent in each case and what was the purpose of each contract?
3.	In the case of expenditures for publicity and/or information made within the department by its publicity or information division, what was the amount in each case and the purpose of the expenditure?
Return tabled.



CMHC RESEARCH EXPENDITURES

Mr. Nystrom: 1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 to date by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
Return tabled.



AIR CANADA-CONTRACTS FOR FOOD SERVICES

Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	With what company or companies has the government contracts for food services (a) on Air Canada flights (b) at DOT airports?
2.	(a) What is the duration of each contract (b) on what date is each contract up for renewal (c) which contracts are awarded by (i) tendering (ii) other means (d) what is the means of award in each case where there is not tendering?
Return tabled.


Mr. Speaker:: Oral questions. The hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, I thought there might be more applause from the other side of the House, since members over there so frequently express concern that I might cease to be Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture, whose announcement of a subsidy on certain grades of beef seems to have created a degree of confusion unusual even following announcements by this government. I would ask him whether the subsidy is to be included in the price the processor pays on buying beef or whether it is to be added to the price the processor pays for beef?

March 18, 1974
Oral Questions


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, when the right hon. Leader of the Opposition asks-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am so used to answering questions about beef and farming put by the right hon. member for Prince Albert that I got a little confused.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: I apologize to the Leader of the Opposition. Later this day I hope to have in the possession of every opposition member all the details of how this program is to work, so that it can be readily understood. We realize there is some confusion about a plan like this, especially in the minds of opposition members. We want it to be in plain language so they can readily understand it and explain it to their constituents in order that the whole country can understand the plan as it should operate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to overtax the mind of the Minister of Agriculture, but I wonder whether he can answer the very simple question I asked him. Is the subsidy to be included in the price the processor pays, and therefore kept by the processor, or is it to be added to the price paid by the processor? It is not a question of confusion in the minds of the opposition; it is a question of confusion in the minds of the people in the trade.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the whole formula that must be followed, if this is to be a success, is not that easy to recount in one answer to one little question. I can say this, Mr. Speaker: It will be a fair policy.


Mr. Fairweather:: What is it? We do not know whether it is fair until we hear it.


Eugene Whelan: It will be in line with what some members of the opposition have been asking, that consumers should not have to pay more for beef, etc., and that the government should be participating in this kind of program. What it does mean is that the packers and the processors will be paying the price and they will be reimbursed for it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another supplementary question which is necessary in order to try to get rid of the existing confusion. I understand from the answer the minister gave me that the subsidy will in fact be paid to the processor and will not be added to the price paid to the producer by the processor. I wish to ask the minister a question about this subsidy which is to be paid to the processor, who may very well be buying cattle from jobbers, that is, cattle imported from the United States. Why is the minister subsidizing the possible importation of United States cattle with the Canadian taxpayers' money in this way?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the initial announcement clearly stated this is a subsidy on Canadian cattle for Canadian consumers. That means the meat must be consumed in Canada. Accurate records must be kept of all accounts, bills of sale and so on, so these can be checked

by both their auditors and our auditors to ensure this is carried out in a proper manner.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What assurance can the minister give that all cattle bought by processors and on which a subsidy is paid will in fact be produced in Canada and not imported from the United States?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, we know all the cattle-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker:: Have you got them on the voters' list?


John Napier Turner: The steers are
conservative.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it may sound strange to say that you can tell an American animal from a Canadian one, but you can tell. Any good feeder or buyer can tell by looking at them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: All cattle brought in from the United States on consignment are directed right to the packing firm. There would be no doubt as to the proper identification of American cattle or Canadian cattle.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SUBSIDY TO BEEF PRODUCERS-REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF ADVISORY COMMITTEE TO ENSURE THAT PRODUCERS AND CONSUMERS BENEFIT
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. As the new policy is designed to benefit the consumer and the producer, will the minister consider setting up an advisory committee in the early stages of this plan, possibly with representatives from the National Farmers Union or other representative groups in agriculture, to ensure that the money goes to the producer and that the consumer gets the benefit?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a worthy suggestion. It will be considered. But I can tell the hon. member that we have had meetings as late as 15 minutes ago with people who represent the farmers and beef producers of this nation. I understand my officials have been in consultation with the Consumers Association because of their concern that the benefit be passed on to consumers. This is a worthy suggestion and it will be considered.


SUBSIDY TO BEEF PRODUCERS-ISSUANCE OF INSTRUCTIONS TO TRADE ON ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to my leader's question to the Minister of Agriculture and further to the minister's announcement last Friday of the seven cent subsidy. In view of the extreme confusion and nearly disastrous conditions presently existing on the Toronto cattle market
March 18, 1974

where very heavy deliveries have already been made today although the market had not opened up to 15 minutes ago, and in view of the same confusion in cattle markets all across Canada together with the very real prospect of an immediate beef cattle market drop, will the minister now clearly indicate whether his department has issued working instructions to the trade on how the subsidy is actually to be administered so that markets all across Canada can open for business today?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, if it has not been done at this time, it will be done shortly. They were certainly forewarned on Friday that this plan was going into effect. That is why it was announced on Friday. With the consent of the House, we made the announcement so that the trade would be prepared for it today. There may be some nitty-gritties to try to work out, difficulties in regard to technicalities, but I am sure that once the program is understood by all concerned it will work to the benefit of the beef industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I see at least three or four members seeking supplementaries on this subject. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Medicine Hat and then try to complete the first round of questions. I will then return to all hon. members who have supplementaries on this very important matter. The hon. member for Medicine Hat will be recognized for one supplementary for the moment.


Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Further to the minister's comment on the possibility of American cattle coming into Canada, will he indicate the procedure of payment? Will the minister explain how he intends to prevent heavy feeder cattle imports from the United States benefiting from this subsidy? I ask this very practical question notwithstanding your comment on this on Friday and just now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked a question. I do not think it is in order to explain why he asked the question. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply.


Eugene Whelan: All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that we know American and Canadian prices did not vary very much on Friday. There was not that much difference. It would not have paid anyone to bring in any kind of cattle from the United States at that time. The cattle in the Toronto yards today are cattle bought last Thursday and Friday and shipped in. We are hoping the market will be taken over by Canadian cattle and there will be no need to buy cattle from the United States. If there is an influx of cattle from the United States other than the normal good grade cattle we want from Canadian yards, we will have to take further action.


Mr. Speaker:: I will return to the hon. member for Medicine Hat in a moment, I suggest to hon. members that in fairness we should try to complete the first round of questioning and then return to this matter.
Oral Questions TRADE


DEFICIT UNDER CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-ACTION BY MINISTER TO OBTAIN GREATER INVESTMENT IN CANADIAN INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Considering that the $356 million deficit in Canada-United States automotive trade for last year, the first since 1969, is undoubtedly related to the fact that 95 per cent of the investment in the industry was on the United States side of the border in each of the past two years, will the minister inform the House what he has done to obtain assurance that investment in the industry this year will ensure that Canada gets its fair share?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we do not regard these figures with any enthusiasm at all when they go into a deficit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Alastair William Gillespie: It should be equally clear that the United States does not regard the reverse with any enthusiasm. I would hope that with the operation of the agreement in the future, as in the past, we can expect swings around a neutral point. With regard to the specific question as to the effect of investment, he is correct that approximately 95 per cent or slightly more of the investment on a pro rata basis took place in the United States in the past few years. However, I do not think that was the reason for the heavy swing this past year. Based on the advice I have received, the reason was the unprecedented demand in Canada for North American made vehicles.


John Edward Broadbent: Since the demand for vehicles in itself cannot explain it, because one has to consider the components of the vehicles, whether they are Canadian or United States produced parts, and considering that there was a deficit in Canada in terms of automotive parts amounting to over $1 billion last year, would the minister assure the House that with reference to the parts sector the government intends to make representations at least to the automotive manufacturers, if not to the United States government itself, in an effort to ensure that a greater percentage of the parts that go into vehicles assembled in Canada are produced in this country?


Alastair William Gillespie: If the hon. member would look at the report from Statistics Canada from which he quoted earlier he would see that parts production in Canada rose very substantially. Indeed, so did automobile production. Production and export from Canada last year were unprecedented.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: As to the point the hon. member made with respect to investment, may I say I have made representations to the automobile manufacturers, both in the United States and in Canada, representations addressed to the senior officers of those corporations, with respect to the level of investment in this country and what

March 18, 1974
Oral Questions
we would expect in future in terms of automobile investment.


HOUSING
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Last November, the minister announced in a speech that the government intended to help the provinces and municipalities under the terms of the Housing Act and contribute up to 50 per cent of the construction costs of community centres such as sports centres. Could the minister say whether the government policy is definite or when it will be?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure my announcement indicated we would assist solely in the building of sports centres. The announcement related to the provisions of the neighbourhood improvement program. This is essentially a housing program although it is designed to enhance the whole of the neighbourhood affected, and certain essential neighbourhood facilities would be available. * We have entered into agreements with most of the provinces with regard to the application of neighbourhood improvement schemes. Only last week I discussed the application of the program in the province of Quebec. I anticipate reaching agreement with the provincial minister very shortly.
* * +


AGRICULTURE
Norval Alic Horner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture arising from the subsidy announcement made last Friday. There will be excessive runs of cattle to market as a result of which prices will undoubtedly be depressed to the point at which neither the producer nor the consumer will benefit from the subsidy. Would the minister consider assuring those who buy short-keep feeders that this plan will still be in operation when they return them to the market? Will the minister qlso extend the periods from April 6 and April 13 in respect of A-3 and A-4 steers so that the glut on the market in the next few weeks will not be so great?


Eugene Whelan: The dates April 13 and April 6 were chosen so that people would not be inclined to rush to the market, but we want enough cattle to supply the Canadian market. We have announced that this program will be kept in force until the beef market returns to normal. We are also working on a long-term program covering not only beef products but

other red meat products. If we have a long-term agreement ready to put into force, and if agreement has been reached with the provinces in this regard, we shall put it into force; it will take over from this other plan, one which we realize is an emergency plan to meet the present situation.


Norval Alic Horner: Surely the minister realizes there will be a tremendous run of cattle in the next short while and that it will far exceed the capacity of the market to accept. Those dates are far too early. It is rumoured this morning that the packer-buyers are going to ask $4 less per pound, which will take away the 7-cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary is more debate than a question. I am sure hon. members would not wish to prolong this subject too long, although I see a number of members are still seeking to be recognized for supplementaries. It might be we could spend the whole 40 minutes on this one subject, but I am not sure that is what hon. members want. Perhaps I might recognize the hon. member for Medicine Hat who asked the first supplementary, I believe, and then I will recognize the hon. member for Halton.


SUBSIDY TO BEEF PRODUCERS-POSSIBLE APPLICATION TO IMPORTED FEEDER CATTLE
Herbert Thomas (Bert) Hargrave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I should like to return to the subject of my first supplementary on the possible importation of heavy feeder cattle, not killing cattle sent to the packing plants. Surely the minister is aware that it is possible for these cattle to enter the country, be held here for three or four weeks and then slaughtered, and their owners would be eligible for the subsidy. How will it be possible for the minister physically to identify these cattle?


Eugene Whelan: A lot of
the cattle being fed and put on the market right now in southwestern Ontario did come from the United States as feeder cattle. I am sure the hon. member is aware of this. It is a custom which has been followed for years; feeder cattle imported from the United States are finished in Canada and are sold as Canadian cattle. I do not know how we would overcome this situation. At the present time there is no movement of feeder cattle into southwestern Ontario although such a movement could easily develop. I am not prepared to say what we would do in those circumstances, because I believe the hon. member for Medicine Hat has stated many times that he wants the North American market for cattle-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


DEFICIT UNDER CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT-STEPS TO RENEGOTIATE SAFEGUARDS
Mr.   Terry@: I have a supplementary for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce relative to previous questions. In view of the significant deficit recorded in trade figures already announced and in view
March 18, 1974

of the increasing price gap evident from figures announced last week, would the minister tell us what specific steps he is prepared to take with his counterparts in the United States-not within the industry, which we recognize as being almost wholly owned in the United States-to renegotiate the safeguards in the auto pact, perhaps in the direction of establishing mutual safeguards which would protect both countries?
Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade
and Commerce): I should like to make it quite clear that I do not accept the figures the hon. member put on the record last week. I think I should make it quite clear to him, as he did not make clear to us, that he was using 1972 figures for the calendar year 1972 before we took our action. Second, he was using figures for a typical vehicle, not for a weighted average of all vehicles. If he looked at it from that point of view I think he would find that the statement I made and the statement he made do not bear any relationship with one another. Mine was correct. His was not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope we shall not become involved in a debate or argument between the hon. member and the minister.


Mr. O'Connor:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would point out that the figures I used in connection with the price gap widening were 1973 model figures, not 1972. They were clearly indicated in the report of the President of the United States to Congress, and I do not know how the minister justifies his interpretation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would say that both the minister and the hon. member are out of order when they debate who is right and who is not. We should return to questions and answers. The hon* member may ask his supplementary.


Terrance Patrick (Terry) O'Connor: Mr. Speaker, the minister effectively raised a smokescreen by debating the figures I gave last week. I ask him now to answer the question I put to him a few moments ago.


Alastair William Gillespie: I hope the hon. member will take a look at the difference between a 1973 model and the 1972 year. I should like to make it clear to him and to the House, as I have in the past-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member rose on a point of order, and after making that point of order he asked the same question he had earlier. He was not satisfied with the minister's first reply-
An bon. Member: There was no reply.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest we go on to the next question.
Oral Questions LABOUR RELATIONS


STRIKE BY SEAFARERS' UNION-ACTION TO SETTLE-REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. It has to do with a very serious situation in that a couple of hundred dock workers, members of the Seafarers' International Union, are already on strike. The threat has been made that the rest of the 3,750 members will not show up on fitting day which, as it happens, is April 1. I ask the minister what is being done to settle this strike, because, if it goes ahead, it will be a knock-out for the western producer of wheat and other grain for export.


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I fully realize, as does the government, how serious this situation could become, especially if the strike carried on after April 1, the normal opening of the shipping season. Experienced and knowledgeable mediators with the Department of Labour have been meeting with the parties, union and management. The last report we have is that the positions are quite clear. They are still apart, but the mediators and all the facilities of my department, including any efforts that I can make, are available to the parties in the hope that this dispute can be resolved. I feel there is still sufficient time to permit a settlement before serious damage can be done.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the right hon. gentleman-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John Carr Munro: Perhaps hon. members would let me mention-I am sure the House will be happy to know this-that the strike involving Air Canada was settled over the weekend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: We read that in the newspapers.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. minister would want to revert to motions for the purpose of making a statement.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I asked about one thing and the answer is about another. I now ask the minister whether the government, in view of the fact that negotiations under the federal negotiator or mediator have virtually broken down, will bring this matter before parliament before April 1, unless a settlement is arrived at, in order that action may be taken so that this strike will not continue, or will the government follow the alternative of getting in touch with that Liberal protege, Banks, who was always able to settle strikes?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John George Diefenbaker: He was the best mediator of all until he became a refugee from justice.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it has been the history of labour negotiations at the national level that it has never paid to deny the right to strike to

March 18, 1974
Oral Questions
employees to whom parliament has given the right to strike.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Regardless of the national interest?


John Carr Munro: I would also indicate that the right hon. gentleman must be well aware of the position of his own party, as I understand it, which is not to deny the right to strike to employees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, that was not an answer and I rise to ask a supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the right hon. gentleman but he should give me the opportunity to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: I will now ask the question once more, Mr. Speaker. In view of the minister's loud protestations all over the country recently in respect of his new ideas on labour relations, will he assure the people of Canada and in particular the farmers that this strike is not going to go on, thus avoiding a further knock-out blow to the western farmers?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, it is my belief that the farmers fully realize how oversimplified the hon. gentleman's remarks can be.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: They realize that a denial of the right to strike to workers does not ensure a resumption of work.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: That is an asinine attempt at an answer.
*


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development in his capacity as the minister for northern development. Will he explain to this House why residents of the Yukon and Northwest Territories have been excluded from the right to apply for DREE grants and loans?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the problem is now under study by my department and that of Regional Eco-

nomic Expansion. As soon as we have an announcement to make, I shall be pleased to make it to the House.


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Get a load of the new image.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I see the Minister of National Health and Welfare smiling, at least I have some hair on top.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: You have some on top, but nothing inside.


Erik Nielsen: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Was his special assistant, Paul White, expressing government policy when he announced in Whitehorse-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member can ask the question directly. I would hope the hon. member knows what the practice is-I am not sure about the rules-in respect of questions respecting statements made outside the House. If questions are asked about statements made outside the House by officials, including special assistants, we will get into difficulty. I am sure the hon. member can ask the question directly.


Erik Nielsen: Forgetting the first part of the question, Mr. Speaker, which is already on the record, was the statement made an expression of government policy to the effect that DREE was going to apply and did apply to the two northern territories?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think it is well known that the government is studying the problem, but it is good to have the views of Yukoners representing both parties.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: What about the third party?


Erik Nielsen: That does not answer the question.


POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER CANADA-RUSSIA HOCKEY GAMES
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the great interest generated by the Canada-USSR hockey series and the honour which fell upon us, may I ask the minister if he can tell the House whether he is willing to recommend another event of this kind, and if
so, whether he will soon make a statement to that effect?
March 18, 1974


Mr. Speaker:: I am under the impression that the first part of the hon. member's question could easily be placed on the order paper. If the hon. member simply asks the minister if he intends to make a statement on motions, the minister could answer that part of the question, after which we will move on to the next question.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, we have been approached by Soviet representatives. If it is in the interest of Canada to hold such a series, I am sure that the members of the House will share my enthusiasm for such a project, provided all Canadian players, no matter which league they belong to, can take part. I have therefore instructed Hockey Canada to invite Canadian interested parties to consider the situation.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Is he aware of the practice in Winnipeg where a firm offers immediate rebates on income tax returns but at an amount lower than what the Department of National Revenue would return as a particular rebate? If so, what steps will the minister take to ensure that Canadians will receive tax refunds as quickly as possible to avoid having to turn to these practitioners of usury?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I deplore the practice the hon. member mentions. I think both the provincial and federal governments should be examining ways to avoid people being victimized by such operators. On the other hand, people are free in this country to raise money on the expectation of funds or assets coming to them. It is a difficult question. The government of Manitoba could take some steps, as hon. members know, and I have some ideas as to what the federal government might do. The province of Quebec has taken a step which has been quite effective in that province. It is not only federal action which might be effective in this regard.


A. Daniel McKenzie: It is alleged that they keep between 40 per cent and 70 per cent of the rebate as a charge for providing ready cash. I believe the government should be preparing measures in co-operation with the provinces to eliminate or control this practice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might comment.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member was implying, and if so I agree with him completely, that one thing we can do is try to speed up as much as possible the process of getting refunds out to the taxpayers. This year those refunds are going out three times as fast as
Oral Questions
they did last year. I think that is a way in which we can help to discourage that kind of activity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I remind hon. members that we are running short of time. I see some 25 or 30 members rising. There are less than five minutes before the end of the question period. I would hope we could limit the number of supplementaries. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has a supplementary and will be recognized.


ALLEGED ERRONEOUS ISSUANCE OF T4 SLIP BY SYDNEY STEEL CORPORATION-REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary for the Minister of National Revenue. Will the minister undertake to investigate how the Sydney Steel Corporation can send out a T4 slip to somebody who was never employed by the steel company and call themselves the employer?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I will be very pleased to, Mr. Speaker.


TRANSPORT
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is he in a position to give a favourable reply to the request of the government of Prince Edward Island that the proposal to impose compulsory pilotage at the four main ports of that province will not be done at least until such time as the representations of the government of Prince Edward Island have been sympathetically considered?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am in the very unenviable position of having to state that the four regulations concerning the Atlantic, the Laurentians, the Great Lakes and the Pacific are still on my desk. I have not yet been able to approve them because of the objections which were made on this subject. Among those who have objected is the Prince Edward Island premier.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. When names and addresses from income tax returns are supplied to government agencies for the purposes of those agencies are there restrictions, undertakings or agreements that those mailing lists are not to be re-released for private commercial purposes?
606

March 18, 1974
Oral Questions


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, the Department of National Revenue exchanges information with other departments in accordance with a particular section of the Income Tax Act. I believe there is a section in the Statistics Act and sections in the Canada Pension Plan and other legislation. I would have to know the particular case the hon. member has in mind, but if he will look at those sections of the acts he will see the limitations that are placed on the use of that information.


STATISTICS CANADA
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the minister confirm whether it is government policy that enables Statistics Canada, for instance, to release confidential mailing lists, which were supplied originally by the Income Tax Department, to private business which then uses those lists to send out advertising and junk mail circulars?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the agency, Statistics Canada, operates under the Statistics Act. It does not receive direction from me or the government concerning its policies. It is governed by the act itself. As to the particular practice the hon. member has raised, I believe the agency has in the past engaged in such commercial services. I have made inquiries and have found out that this is a perfectly legal practice under the act. I have reviewed the situation with them have asked them to reconsider the practice, and they have undertaken to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period. If the hon. member asks a second supplementary that will have to be the end of the question period.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, obviously other people share the minister's doubts. Will the minister, therefore, if he has conducted an inquiry into this matter through his department, please table the results of that investigation for us or, if he has not conducted an inquiry, will he please do so?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased at some later date to indicate to the House, after the matter is fully considered, what the decision of Statistics Canada is.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I brought to the attention of hon. members a moment ago that we have gone beyond the time allotted for the question period. The hon. member for Hastings has a supplementary and will be recognized, after which I will have to call orders of the day.


ALLEGED ERROR IN REPORTING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DEFICIT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who reports for Statistics Canada. In one of their bulletins they report that the annual deficit for unemployment insurance last year was slightly over $2 million. I want to know whether there is a mistake there or whether the government does not know the difference between $1 million and $1 billion?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I would be very pleased to discuss this question with the hon. member and draw it to the attention of the agency.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that Bill C-9, to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Canada Elections Act be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development:
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is the second time I have had the pleasure of bringing a proposal before this House to amend the Yukon and Northwest Territories Acts and to give the people of the Yukon and Northwest Territories more control of government there. In 1970, you will recall, this House approved measures to increase the lifespan of territorial councils to four years, to enable the councils to prescribe the qualifications of voters and candidates in the territorial elections and establish their own indemnities, and to give the territorial governments authority over the administration of justice. This House also increased the size of the Northwest Territories Council to 14, and reduced the number of appointed members from five to four.
These measures represented an important advance in the constitutional growth of the territorial governments. Only four years have passed since we approved these changes-a very short time when you consider the historical evolution of government in Canada. But these have been years of unprecedented development in the north, of economic growth and social advance. Let me take a moment to give you some examples: the rate of population growth in the territories is about twice the national average; the Yukon population is estimated at 21,000 and the Northwest Territories at 39,000. The gross product for both territories, an indication roughly equivalent to the national gross national product, stands at approximately $275
March 18, 1974

million, close to 50 per cent more than the corresponding figure for 1970. The value of loans to northern businesses under the Small Business Loan Funds has increased from $375,000 in 1970-71 to over $800,000 in 1972-73.
Mineral production in the territories rose from $211 million in 1970 to an estimated $316 million last year. The number of tourists visiting both territories has increased from 80,000 to 300,000 in the past ten years. Oil and gas exploration expenditures rose from $122 million in 1970 to an estimated $250 million last year. The wholesale value of eskimo arts and crafts is estimated at over $3 million for 1973.
This record of economic growth is impressive, but so are the advances that have been made in regard to social improvements in the territories. One measure of this is the growth in the provision of government services. For example in 1970-71 the government of the Northwest Territories had a budget of about $72 million. In 1973-74, the budget had increased to more than $120 million. In the Yukon, a similar comparison shows a budget of about $25 million in 1970-71, which increased to more than $49 million in 1973-74.
These figures reflect real progress in social development over the last four years. For example, a northern rental housing program for Indians and Eskimos of the NWT expanded by 350 housing units, and low income housing in both territories increased by 875 units; significant growth in the number of employment opportunities for native people in the government service on such projects as the Higher North Program for clearing the right of way for the Mackenzie highway, in private industry, in mining and oil and gas exploration activities, and in training programs for teacher's aids, dental assistants, and interpreters in native languages; construction of some 300 miles of new roads at a cost of $63 million since 1970; the construction of four remote airstrips, 14 resource airstrips, and numerous emergency airstrips; the creation of 11 new municipalities, including one city, two towns and eight hamlets in the Northwest Territories, and the expansion of the city of Whitehorse to a community of more than 11,000 people. These figures on government expenditures of course also relate to the provision of basic services, such as municipal infra structure, to the growth and expansion of educational services, and to social assistance and community development.
All of this gives you some idea of the scope of change that has taken place in the territories in the past four years. It strongly reinforces the case for the introduction of further steps toward the assumption of greater responsibilities by the people of both territories. The case for giving the people of the territories more control over their affairs is also strengthened by our experience with operation of the changes which this House approved four years ago and with the arrangement we introduced then to give the elected representatives a voice on the executive side of government.
As you know, I undertook to have elected councillors in the Yukon participate directly in the administration of the territorial government. I arranged with the commissioner of the Yukon to establish an executive committee to
Yukon and Northwest Territories advise him in his duties and, on the recommendation of the whole legislative council, to appoint two elected councillors to serve full time and for each to assume responsibility for the direction of one or more departments of territorial government.
In my view, this joining of the executive and legislative sides of territorial government has worked well. The legislative council has responded positively to this initiative and the elected executive committee members have done an admirable job of discharging their important responsibilities. The commissioner has routinely sought the advice of the executive committee on all major matters under his administration.
The changes I am proposing today to the Yukon and Northwest Territories Act are intended to build upon this tradition; to fulfill my government's commitment to provide for the further evolution of self-government in the territories and to meet the needs of the people of the territories for more control over their affairs, to have more say in the decisions that affect them. I should mention that I have discussed these proposals in the past two months in Yellowknife and Whitehorse with members of both territorial councils. We have had a free exchange of views, and their ideas have been a great help to me in formulating these proposals.
Let me deal with the changes that affect the Yukon Act first. This bill proposes a substantial expansion in the membership of the Yukon Council from the present seven to a total of 12 elected members. This measure is designed to reflect the increased population of the Yukon and its geographical diversity. This expansion of council is strongly recommended by both the commissioner and the present Yukon Council. The most recent council asked for a substantial increase in council membership and the appointment of a third councillor to the executive committee.
It is my intention to complement the larger council by increasing the number of elected councillors on the executive committee from two to three. Under such an arrangement the commissioner would remain chairman, but during the life of the next council it may be desirable to reduce the number of appointed members of the executive committee, and I will consult the council about this. Any reduction in the number of appointed members on the executive committee would leave the elected members in a majority position.
The bill also provides for increases or decreases in the size of the council in line with future changes in the Yukon's population. This is a new approach and I believe an important provision, especially since significant population fluctuations may occur as a result of changes in the largely resource based territorial economy.
The other proposed amendments to the Yukon Act are designed to clarify existing provisions or practices. They have no policy implications and are adequately described in the bill.
The changes I am proposing to the Northwest Territories Act are necessarily different from those to the Yukon Act. As you know, the Yukon Territory has had a fully elected legislative council since the turn of the century. The most important change to the Northwest Terri-
27398-39J

March 18, 1974
Yukon and Northwest Territories
tories Act is to establish a fully elected territorial council by replacing the four appointed members with four elected members. It is also proposed to increase the size of the council to 15 members, all elected. The council has advised me that this will ensure balanced representation in the territories. The appointed members of the Northwest Territories Council have, over the years, contributed greatly of their time and experience to the work of the council, and we are grateful to them. However, the course of northern development which I have already described persuades me that there are capable northern residents now who can and should represent the people of the north in the operation of their government.

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the institution of a fully elective board, I suggest that one of the members act as chairman and that he sit in the chair instead of the commissioner during the sittings of the council.
The present provisions have met a practical need, but it now seems more appropriate to adopt the practice used in other legislative bodies which follow the British parliamentary tradition.
For similar reasons, we must redefine the quorum of the Council for voting purposes. Moreover, I intend increasing further the authority of the Territorial Council by agreeing with the Northwest Territories Commissioner that two elected members of the council be appointed to the Territorial Executive Council.
Each member of the executive council will be responsible for managing one or more departments of the territorial government. Hon. members will note that we do not plan to interfere with the freedom of that important executive committee through rigid legislative measures. On the contrary, we want it to grow and mature within the unwritten constitution of the Territories much as the cabinet and political parties developed in England, and the legislative bodies, federal and provincial, did in Canada. The BNA Act does not allude to the cabinet; similarly, the executive committees of the two Territories are not mentioned in the Yukon Act or the Northwest Territories Act.
As we know, Mr. Speaker, tradition and usage are as important as written law in the formulation of efficient government practices.
Mr. Speaker, the other amendments proposed are the logical result of the institution of a council that is elected exclusively; they are necessary to clarify some present provisions of the act, but they do not alter its purpose. Those amendments are explained in the bill.
I want to underline the fact that basically those amendments are an important step in the progress of the evolution of the governments of the Territories, and that this new step corresponds to the wishes of the councillors. To my mind, those amendments go much further than most would think in the process of handing to the peoples of the Territories control of their administration.
For instance, the councils have as much power and latitude in the study of their estimates as any legislative body in Canada, and its members have similar power to those of the provincial members to influence the orientation of the planned expenditures or to change them. Indeed the two constituent statutes of the Territories

provide that the Commissioner must administer the Territories according to the instructions given if necessary by the Governor in Council or myself which is, in my opinion, advisable at that stage of the constitutional development of the Territories; however, that discretionary power is very seldom used.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, during my last visit in the Yukon, some advisers took me to task for not intervening often enough in the administration of the affairs of the Yukon and I answered that I would rather follow the present system than interfering as I saw fit, unless a serious situation would require an intervention of the federal government.
In Yukon, the two advisers who are members of the executive committee play a very important role, not only in reviewing estimates but also in explaining them to their council colleagues. As I already stated, it is understood that the Northwest Territories will have a similar system which will provide the elected members and through them, the people of the Territories, a greater control over their administration and a more realistic participation in their financial affairs.
Some advisers questioned the relevance of the provisions concerning the appropriation of public funds contained both in the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act. Here is this provision:
It is not lawful for the Council to adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue of the Territories, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the Council by message of the Commissioner in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.
Mr. Speaker, hon. members are aware that this principle is expressed in almost identical terms in the British North America Act. This principle applies to both Parliament and provincial legislative assemblies.

I have consistently tried to ensure that the Territorial Councils have as much authority and autonomy as possible. I believe both councils have considerably more power than they are given credit for, and I believe that these amendments significantly increase their responsibilities.
In conclusion, I want to say I am hopeful that the increases in the number of elected members will encourage more native people to seek to participate in the government of the territories. The evolution of territorial government is taking place in the context of important developments in the affairs of native northerners. We have seen remarkable growth in the native associations, and in the capabilities of their leaders. Currently, we are dealing with the difficult problems of native land claims. I hope these amendments will encourage the native people and all northerners to take an active role in territorial affairs. In this connection I should mention Bill C-ll, which my colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), introduced. It proposes to amend the British North America Act to provide for one senator for each territory.
These are exciting times in Canada's north, with great potential for both economic development and social
March 18, 1974

improvement. Canadians across the land are increasingly aware of this potential, of the north's importance for Canada's future energy supplies, of the need to protect the northern environment, and of the cultural aspirations of the native people. This national interest in the north is healthy and encouraging. But more important yet is the interest of all northerners in their own affairs.
The bill which is now before the House, Mr. Speaker, is introduced in recognition of the aspirations of the populations of both northern territories for further steps in the evolution of self-government. We are building on the progress which this House legislated a short four years ago. As the population of each territory grows, and as the economy of each territory strengthens, I am confident that further steps will be necessary. I hope that the members of the House will agree that the substantial constitutional advances proposed in this bill are necessary and are worthy of the support of the House.


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, while listening to the minister's opening remarks I thought he was going to treat us to a reading of the annual report. His recital of the recent growth in the industrial and social sectors of the north mystified me because, in spite of his recognition, that development surely merits a much more substantial bill than the one which we have before us today.
We in this party are glad to see the measures in Bill C-9 finally brought before the House, even though it took the government a long time to get around to these few faltering steps toward more autonomy for the northern territories. Within a month after this 29th parliament first sat, now well over a year ago, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) pointed out to the minister the necessity for a prompt revision of the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act if the changes which are envisaged in Bill C-9 were to be in effect for the territorial council elections scheduled for 1974. That plea fell on unreceptive ears for well over a year, and now we approach the election deadline, making allowance for the six months which the Chief Electoral Officer must have to make the necessary boundary changes and other revisions.
With this deadline upon us we belatedly have Bill C-9 introduced. Because of these limitations in time we will be supporting the amendments in principle. We know they must be enacted speedily, if they are to take effect for the forthcoming elections, and we want to see them implemented as far in advance of that event as is possible. That is not to say, however, that we will not endeavour to have Bill C-9 amended and strengthened at committee stage, but we are cognizant of the deadline situation in which the minister has placed this House and the people of the north by his procrastination which leaves us no choice but to accept the major provisions of this bill.
I hope the minister is equally ardent in his wish for speedy passage of Bill C-6 regarding the national parks and that he will work with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) to have that bill reintroduced at report stage at the earliest possible date. We have given our assurance on a number of occasions that we would welcome the speedy completion of deliberation on the
Yukon and Northwest Territories parks bill. We want to see the new parks formally established, and I would encourage the minister to have that bill brought forward immediately and passed. Certainly, that is the wish of members in this party.
Having said that we will support the provisions of Bill C-9, an act to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Canada Elections Act, in principle, I wish to make it very clear to the minister that we are in no way satisfied with this simplistic piece of legislation which he has laboured so long and hard to produce. Speaking in the throne speech debate, I emphasized that this party would look for something more than mere thinker-ing with the political structures in the Territories when the amendments to the Yukon Act and the Northwest Territories Act were introduced.
The concession before us to allow for a fully elected council in the Northwest Territories is important. The addition of five members to the Yukon Council will provide more adequate representation, but surely the minister is not trying to make us believe that by merely playing a numbers game he is removing the stigma of colonialism which permeates the north. Numbers of elected representatives can fluctuate, appointed councillors can come and go, but until real authority, fiscal authority, is handed over to the elected councils, parliamentary democracy in the north remains a sham and a facade.


Erik Nielsen: Hear, hear! Amen!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, basic to parliamentary democracy is the right of elected representatives to influence decisions regarding expenditure of public moneys. Where that right does not exist, democracy does not exist. Our parliamentary traditions are based upon British democratic practice going back for hundreds of years to Magna Carta. These practices and rights were demanded by the 13 colonies which later formed the United States. We still deny these practices and rights to our northern territories. The minister skirted around this situation this afternoon. He has toyed with it, but he has not committed himself to the objective of fiscal responsibility for the Northwest Territories. He has in no way dealt with section 24 of the Yukon Act or section 21 of the Northwest Territories Act, sections which deny rights, privileges and fiscal responsibility to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. These sections state in part that it is not lawful for the council to adopt, pass or vote upon a resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenues to the territories that has not been first recommended to the council by message of the commissioner-in other words, of the government of Canada. The budgets of the territorial councils are determined by an interdepartmental committee in Ottawa, not by the people of the north through their elected council representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I would advise the minister that at committee stage it will be our intention to present amendments which would have the effect of eliminating these sections from the Yukon and Northwest Territories Acts. I state that intention, Mr. Speaker, not knowing at this point whether such a motion will be considered in order. But if these sections were to be removed, the elected representatives on the territorial councils could then be

March 18, 1974
Yukon and Northwest Territories given the fiscal authority to legislate in those areas which are already administered by the territorial civil services, local government, social development, economic development, education, administration and so on.
The minister has described the amendments in this bill as important steps along the road to greater responsibility for both councils.


Erik Nielsen: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: But
really meaningful responsibility, Mr. Speaker? Not without fiscal responsibility. Can we really expect Canadian citizens north of 60 to be satisfied with anything else, that is anything less than fiscal responsibility? The minister said this afternoon that he consulted with both councils and, obviously, the bill we have before us today is his interpretation of what the councils want. But I cannot believe his interpretation of the wishes of the councils, if this bill is an indication of it; I cannot believe his interpretation is correct, or legitimate or perceptive.
Recently the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development was in the Yukon and heard a very eloquent and convincing presentation on this very subject made by a member of the council on behalf of the entire council. He said:
We are, quite simply, Mr. Chairman, sick and tired of living under a stultifying and suffocating colonial blanket. We demand the right to live and raise our families under laws that Yukoners make for Yukoners.
We demand the right to say how the tax dollar, which we contribute to on a greater level per capita than any other Canadian, will be spent in the Yukon. We refuse to let the government of Canada, through its bureaucracy, make those decisions that the people of the Yukon must suffer under. We demand the right of Yukoners to make our own mistakes.
The councillor was not asking for full provincial status, Mr. Speaker, and he made that point quite clear, but he was asking for the right of the councils to more responsibility so that they could prove to the rest of Canada their capability to handle provincial status when that time arrives. He went on to say:
So what we are saying is that in essence we would have all the legislative and administrative prerogatives, if those resolutions were followed-
And he was referring to certain resolutions passed by the Yukon Council.
-that would make us in essence the same, analogous to a provincial legislature, without the immediate control of natural resources, the reason being that we think we have to prove to the people of Canada and to the government of Canada that we are as capable of dealing with the resources of the province as any other area in Canada.
Not only did the committee accept the presentation of the council, but individual members in the committee spoke strongly in favour of it. Approval for that territorial view, one which is held by members of the Yukon Council and the Northwest Territories Council alike, approval was very succinctly expressed by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier), who said:
Well you can be sure that you have at least one person in Quebec who would subscribe to your idea.
I know we in this party will look forward to the support of the member for Sherbrooke when we move amendments which will make his expressed support possible.

In this bill the minister has repealed section 46 of both acts dealing with lands for the purpose of deleting the word "territory or territories" as the entity to which administration and financial use of lands were formerly transferred and substituting, therefore, the word "commissioner". In other words the minister has taken away certain powers from what, under this section, had been an inoperative entity and handed them over to the commission, that is, to the minister's representative in the territories. I find this most difficult to comprehend. If the minister is really serious about providing, as he states, "important steps along the road to greater responsibility to both councils," why did he not delegate this responsibility to the commissioner in council, that is, to the elected representatives of the people. He has delegated more ultimate authority to himself, rather than to the people of the north. I hope that at committee stage this section can be amended so that the intent of the minister's statement for greater responsibility can be given effect, for we want to see action rather than empty rhetoric.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the minister indicated today that he will take measures to strengthen the executive committee of the Yukon and to establish an executive committee in the Northwest Territories. The hon. member for Yukon pointed out to the minister well in advance of the setting up of the executive committee in the Yukon that such a committee would be an unworkable vehicle. Unfortunately, his predictions proved to be only too true. I know the hon. member for Yukon will wish to comment on this himself. Let me say this to the minister: The people of the Northwest Territories, having been exposed to the track record of the executive committee in the Yukon, want no part of any such political structure. They see it as divisive and ineffective, and I urge the minister to reconsider whatever action he proposes to take in this regard.
All the people north of 60 degrees are Canadian citizens, Mr. Speaker, not colonials. It is time Ottawa recognized that fact. The minister is fond of saying that he does not wish to be paternalistic. He has said so many times in this House. Let him prove his words by cutting out Ottawa's paternal attitude to our northern territories. The government in Ottawa stands accused by northerners of impeding progress rather than encouraging it. There are indicators of political progress in the north, such as the building up of a head of steam which can lead the people concerned to gain control over their own affairs, if this government will but recognize the fact and search for means as to how best to implement it. I hope that in committee the minister will be receptive to such innovative and progressive measures as we shall propose, measures which, I am sure, more adequately reflect the tone, temper and times of the north.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House, the bill to amend the Yukon Act, the Northwest Territories Act and the Canada Elections Act, is an important bill and one in which I, certainly, as well as the people of the Northwest Territories are most interested. I am referring, of course, to Bill C-9. This bill I support. I support this bit of legislation, although it is only a small step forward to the political development of the Northwest Territories, the largest federal constituency in
March 18, 1974

Canada stretching from James Bay in the south to the North Pole, and from the Richardson Mountains in the west to Cape Chidley in the east, near Port Burwell. It encompasses 1,350,000 square miles.
While the election of the territorial council and the provision whereby the council will select a Speaker can be considered as a small gain, the fact that the commissioner of the Northwest Territories is still all-powerful and that this bill does nothing to change that remains one of the major problems in this area. The provision for the formation of an executive committee is a step forward; having these elected members responsible for various government departments is basically a good and sound idea.
Although this measure will make for pretty good reading and will look good on paper, is it really a positive step forward? Is it not true that the real stress lies not with the fully elected council, but with the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien)? That situation should be changed, and changed soon.
Where else in Canada does an appointed civil servant decide which departments elected representatives will control? Does an Ottawa civil servant, in particular a deputy minister, decide who shall become the minister of a department? I should hope not. Although the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories said that no departments have officially been declared as having been set aside for elected members to run, he did say, "To begin with they will probably get a couple of easy ones." Who is this appointed civil servant to make such condescending statements to the people of my constituency? Perhaps the Commissioner is afraid that the elected people may, just may, show up some of the shortcomings of his administration. So, they must be put in charge of less important departments.
In a statement to CBC Radio News two weeks ago, the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories said, in referring to the executive committee idea, "The whole objective here is to give them responsibility and give them the feeling that they are, in fact, running it." That shows a very, very bad attitude, I must say. One would assume from such a statement that although the elected representatives of the people of the Northwest Territories are given the feeling that they are running their government, they are still, in fact, not running it. That government will still be under the thumb of the Commissioner and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I suggest that there is a big difference between feeling that you are running a government and actually running it. Treat adults like children, and they will act like children. It becomes very obvious that the colonial status of the Northwest Territories is to continue. That, as I have said publicly many times before, is not a healthy situation to be in, politically.
If we look at the idea of the executive committee, with department heads to be chosen from elected representatives, it would appear that all these department heads will be in a dangerous position. The elected people will be responsible to those who elected them, but the Commissioner and his staff will be in the position to undermine the elected representative, if they should so choose. For example, if the Commissioner and his staff decide they do
Yukon and Northwest Territories not like a certain person in charge of a department, they could have that person removed by seeing to it that the department concerned does not produce to its full capability. That is not to say that this happens now. On the other hand, if that were to happen, the government could turn round and say, "We told you so," or, "This person cannot run the department." Then, what would happen? In the next election the representative would be out on his ear. This kind of situation simply is not good enough for the people of the Northwest Territories.
Where else in a democracy, Mr. Speaker, does a middle level appointed civil servant have absolute power over elected representatives of the people? Where else in the free world does the civil servant have the right to say to another group of people, "Thou shalt not drink; thou shalt not even buy liquor or beer." That is what the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories told the people of Pond Inlet just a few weeks ago. Where else in Canada does an appointed civil servant have his own private "Air Force One" standing by, ready to fly on short notice? Mr. Speaker, I often wonder how much that aircraft is costing the taxpayer. I also wonder if this is a legal operation. Where else in a democracy does a civil servant have the power to prorogue a parliamentary session, as happened last year at a territorial council sitting at Yellowknife? Mr. Speaker, there is simply too much power invested in one man when he is not a representative of the people; I repeat, not a representative of the people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter (Wally) Firth: He is responsible for the people of the Northwest Territories in the worst possible paternalistic sense, but not responsible to the people. There is really no such thing, in the true sense of the word, as government of the Northwest Territories, with or without elected representatives, with or without a Speaker and with or without the executive. It is simply a colonial administration. I truly hope, Mr. Speaker, that the people of the Northwest Territories elected in the future will try to do something to change this situation, and change it soon. Also, I hope that hon. members of this House will do something to help make this change possible.
One solution to this problem that should be considered, and considered seriously, is to have an elected person replace the commissioner, something like the mayor and town council system. The head of the administration would then be answerable to the fully-elected body. This council would be answerable to the people and have the power to fire, if need be, the head of the administration. In this way, at least, the man at the top would be responsible to the people of the Northwest Territories.
Until the present position of commissioner comes under the influence of the electorate, the stigma of colonialism will continue. This does not mean that we are asking for, or are ready for, full provincial status, but it would be a big step forward in the development of self-government for the Northwest Territories. It would mean that the entire administration of the north would be responsible to the people they are supposed to serve. Through the elected body they could finally get rid of the title "commissioner" with its connotations of paternalism, colonialism and a

March 18, 1974
Yukon and Northwest Territories
civil servant running our affairs for us. I think that situation has been going on for much too long.
I wish to point out that I believe these suggested changes would improve the situation. I hope that the new, fully elected council will act to implement some of these suggestions to help us move toward a more responsible and provincial type of government for the Northwest Territories.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth). I did not hear him say he had the support of his party for the views he expressed concerning the development of government reforms in the Northwest Territories.


Mr. Lewis:: He has.


Erik Nielsen: I am glad to hear the leader of the New Democratic Party say that the member has that support. I am delighted to hear that.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: What about you?


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett) does not have to ask about me. He has been sitting in this House long enough to hear me make appeal after appeal for governmental reform to be brought about. A motion for non-confidence was moved in this House three years ago, a time when the government had a majority. There was no problem about voting to keep the government in office in those days. The leader of this party, seconded by myself, moved a motion of non-confidence because the government had failed to take meaningful steps toward achieving responsible government for the area. The leader of the New Democratic Party and his followers, including the hon. member for Comox-Alberni, voted against that motion.
The hon. member for Northwest Territories was not here at that time. I am sorry he was not here. Had he been, 1 am sure he could have educated his colleagues and we would have moved somewhat faster toward the day when governmental reform is going to be completed in the north. I could not agree more with the remarks of the hon. member for Northwest Territories with regard to the executive committee, save in one respect. He, his constituents in the Northwest Territories and anyone who is eager to achieve meaningful reform there, are taking on a device that simply will not work. The experiment, the tinkering of the minister in the Yukon over the past three and a half years, has proved that in spades.
I think the hon. member for Northwest Territories has been in the Yukon often enough and steadily enough to know that that tinkering of the minister has caused strife and difficulty, not only with regard to the administration of our affairs in the Yukon, but in the setting back of the day when full responsible government will be accorded to the two northern territories.
At the time the minister introduced that concept in the Commons in 1970, I said it was unconstitutional. I still maintain that stand. The hon. member for Northwest Territories pointed out one or two details which go to the constitutionality of the course that is being followed by the government. One of those is the absolutely unacceptable and repugnant idea that there is anything responsible

about a government where there is a bureaucratic majority sitting on what has been called in the past a mini-cabinet.
I say it is unconstitutional for more fundamental reasons than that. A proposal is being put forward by a minister for expansion of the executive committee in the Yukon and for the establishment of an executive committee in the Northwest Territories. The members of that committee are first going to be allowed what the minister is pleased to call certain responsibilities, but which really are not. Second, there must be monies paid to those members of the executive committee in that capacity from the public treasury. When any such changes are made, the legislation must be accompanied by a message from His Excellency. The minister again is going to smuggle into the governmental structure in both territories, not only an unacceptable concept, but an unconstitutional one. If the concept is valid at all, it can only be valid when it is comprised of wholly elected members in its entirety without civil servants sitting on the executive committee participating in the law making process.
The minister and the government have distorted the whole concept of the separation of the legislative and executive functions of government. The minister seems to be blind to the effect of what he is doing. He is either stubborn or blind because he thinks it is proper to join the executive and legislation functions. Surely, that is farthest from the basis upon which the concept was evolved. The whole idea, and I have thought this to be legitimate over the years, is that the legislative will be separate from the executive functions of government, as will be the judiciary. For the minister to not only endorse, but to present the idea that the legislative and executive functions should be joined is simply a distortion of the principle as it should be. Until this separation is brought about there will be no meaningful responsibility.
In the Yukon, up to the present the executive committee has consisted of the Commissioner and his two assistants, one of them a federal civil servant and one a territorial civil servant, sitting on the executive committee with two elected members, a total of five. At the time this odd concept was proposed, I said all the minister was doing was dividing the Council. Perhaps, because the heat was on, asking for reform. Perhaps that is what he intended to do-I am not saying he did. I could say that but I won't. He may have welcomed the idea because it certainly took the heat off. In any event, what he succeeded in doing was dividing a Council, which had been united during the previous successive nine years. Members of the Council of all political views were united on the one question of reform. So, two of the councillors were extracted; they were smuggled on to what became a bureaucratic executive-controlled committee, and the spirit of unity was broken. Immediately, there was that division of two-five.
Then, of course, there was a further divisive factor and that was the decision by the Yukon Liberal Party to run a partisan slate. No other party did that. This gave rise to'a political difference on the question of government reform in addition to the difference which the minister had artificially created. Again, unity was destroyed. The minister has told us he has spoken to the members of council in
March 18, 1974

both the Northwest Territories and in the Yukon. So have I, and I believe I am expressing their view when I say that what we have before us is certainly not what the Council in the Yukon asked the minister to produce. They certainly welcome, as I do, the increase in numbers, but no amount of increase in numbers can solve the problem. If the minister, in his legislation today, were to introduce a measure to increase the number on the Council, not from seven to 12, but from seven to 100, or, indeed, to the whole of the population of the two territories, it would still not solve the problem.
As the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) has said, the heart of the whole matter lies in the inability of the elected members of the councils, the representatives of the people, to have any effective say whatsoever in the decision-making process or in the spending of their money. I am sure the minister would understand the situation if I put it in simple terms by saying that a town council or a municipal council has more power than that which resides in the councils of the two northern territories. Municipal councils are free to impose taxes upon property situated within municipal boundaries. Once this revenue has been raised they have full authority to spend that money.
What is the situation in the two northern territories? The minister says to them: This is the amount of money I want you to raise this year in order to meet budget commitments prepared by my officials. You are to impose these taxes upon yourselves, but you will not have anything to say as to the direction in which the funds will be spent, except to deny supply. This is the situation as it exists today.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Just as it does here.


Erik Nielsen: We tried that, as did the council which was led by Frederick Haultain in Manitoba in 1879 when that District of Assiniboia became a part of the now greatly extended Province of Manitoba. They refused supply, with the result that government employees had to go out and chop wood in order to earn enough to survive. We tried to use this weapon, the only weapon we had in the Yukon, by denying supply on a vote concerning the administration of justice. We were told by the minister's predecessor-a Liberal government was in office-that if this vote was not passed the Council would get no other moneys, even if it wished to vote them. What kind of attitude is that, in terms of responsible government? The council in the Yukon and in the Northwest Territories is a rubber stamp, and this measure represents what the minister is pleased to called progress toward responsible government, to use the terms of the press release put out under his authority. The title was "Greater self-government for the Yukon and N.W.T.". The Minister knows that this is grossly misleading. All he has done has been to increase the numbers and play around in the territories with an experiment which has already failed in the Yukon.
It is true there have been significant changes in the Northwest Territories Act, changes which should have been made long ago. I refer, for instance, to the Commissioner sitting as Speaker of the Council. As was pointed out by the hon. member for Northwest Territories, this same Commissioner decided only last year that the elected
Yukon and Northwest Territories representatives should be dismissed. He said: The Council is dissolved, and that's that. In other words, a government employee directly responsible to the minister possesses this exorbitant power over what is described by the minister as a representative form of government.
There is another reason why this creature, this executive committee, is unconstitutional. I would draw the attention of the minister to the sections of the Yukon Act which stipulate that the Governor-in-Council, in effect, the minister may appoint a Chief Executive Officer who shall administer the government of the territory under instructions given to him from time to time by the Governor in Council or the Minister. It is the same for the Northwest Territories. This is a mandatory obligation.
The minister is the person responsible for administering the government of the Yukon and of the Northwest Territories. The legislation gives him no power to delegate this authority, no power other than to appoint a Commissioner who will take instructions from him. It gives the minister no power to set up an executive committee for the purpose of further delegating this authority. This is a third constitutional argument in support of the proposition I advanced almost four years ago. If the minister thinks the concept of an executive council is a valid one, it should be built into the act.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: There is no mention of the cabinet in any act.


Erik Nielsen: All right, I was coming to that. What the minister has just said is precisely the manner in which the responsible form of government exists and functions in every province as well as at the federal level. It is the majority of elected representatives and their supporters who form the government. It is the leader of that majority who selects the cabinet. What is so wrong with extending the same kind of principle to the northern territories? That was impossible with five on the council as it was impossible with seven on the council, but when this legislation passes, there will be 12 on that council and the selection of wholly elected members to the executive council in the Northwest Territories could easily be made. What could be so wrong with carrying over the principle that now exists at the provincial and federal level, so that from these two councils a majority emerges. The leader of that majority then would be selected and would form the cabinet or executive committee of five wholly elected representatives? That is the way a democratic form of responsible government is supposed to operate as we know it, certainly in the free world.
Not only is the minister perpetuating a colonial system of government in the two territories by not going to the extent he should, but he is flying in the teeth of world policy, particularly in respect of all the emerging countries of the world. What he is saying to us in the Yukon, and what he is saying to our neighbours in the Northwest Territories is that we do not have the intelligence to look after our own affairs. He is saying that there are not men of ability, capacity and intelligence to govern themselves.


An hon. Member:: How about women?
614

March 18, 1974
Yukon and Northwest Territories


Erik Nielsen: And women, yes. We have one woman on the council of the Yukon territory now, and I believe there is also one on the council of the Northwest Territories.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Yes, there is.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, there is one now I am informed by my colleague. My point is that there are people there who are capable of exercising the same kind of legislative function we exercise in this chamber. Indeed, there may be some who are better able to perform that function who live in the north. The minister is saying that he and the government of Canada know best; they are the great white fathers and therefore they are going to tell the people what is best for them because they really do not know themselves. He is saying, we have only lived there for a quarter of a century or so, so we cannot be expected to know what is best, but the people some 4,000 miles away are better able to decide what is best for the north. That is what the minister is saying.
I am glad to see that the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) is in the chamber because I had the distinct pleasure of serving with him on the standing committee when that committee visited the Yukon territory last December. To my amazement, the hon. member for Sherbrooke was one of the most vociferous proponents for the immediate granting of fully responsible government to the Yukon, and he was applauded for taking that view. This bill will certainly face no difficulty on second reading, as I will be the last speaker from this side and the same restriction is being imposed through self-discipline in the New Democratic Party. We might even get second reading of this legislation by five o'clock. In any event, I do not expect to have any difficulty in listing that hon. member's support at this stage, but when it comes to amendments in the committee I will look forward to the same kind of vigorous support, and I hope that hon. member will try to get on the committee again.


Mr. Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: I am.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member says he is a member of that committee, and I think we had better quickly record that fact. I am glad to know that and hope we can count on his support when we are discussing these amendments again.
Let me read from page 29:6 of the proceedings of that committee on December 12. At that time a motion had been put which adopted in detail all of the proposals put forward by the council of the Yukon territory, and I say in detail because they cover most of pages 29:5 and 29:6. Toward the end of the page we find these words:
After debate on the said motion, the question being put, it was agreed to unanimously.
Apart from the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand), who was called away on urgent parliamentary business, all the members of the committee were present, including seven members of the Liberal party supporting the government. I, therefore, look forward to that same kind of support. Incidentally, this proceeding was reported to the House before we rose for the recess last session, so it was a recommendation to the government. I know the

minister has a very high regard for committee reports and listens to their suggestions very carefully.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for York West is rising on a question of privilege.


Mr. Fleming:: Mr. Speaker, I, too, was away for personal reasons for about 25 minutes during which time that vote was taken. Just to clear the record, I wanted to indicate I was not there when unanimous approval was given. To the best of my knowledge, that was a vote taken on a Friday night.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for York West for that explanation. I am sure had he been there he would have gone along with his colleagues. I am sure he is just as strong a proponent of the democratic form of government in our country as are all of us, and I am sure it is just as difficult for him to understand why the government does not go the whole way in this process. He heard the very appealing briefs by Yukoners for governmental reform when he was there, although the minister continues to disregard this, and he heard also those same people say they did not want provincial status now but want the changes to stop short of that, since surely in the fulness of time that will come about.
Let me quote for a moment from the words of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), because he, too, believes in this concept, or at least I am told that he does. I sometimes have my doubts, but his words certainly suggest this. Let me quote this excerpt from the opening speech of the Prime Minister at the constitutional conference held in Ottawa, the second meeting, on February 10, 1969, as follows:
The federal government insists that a charter of human rights should be an integral part of the Constitution, because it believes that those rights are equally important for all Canadians.
He did not say all Canadians south of the 60th parallel, he said "all Canadians". He went on to state:
Whether he be from Churchill, Trois Rivieres, Kamloops, Medicine Hat, Richibucto, or Port aux Basques, the Canadian citizen must be assured everywhere of the free exercise of his basic rights.
We call upon all Canadians south of the 60th parallel to recognize that, as a basic right, we have the right to govern ourselves. We are not being given that right by this legislation. When the Prime Minister was speaking about the same basic rights for all Canadians he went on to say: And why should this not be so? Are those not values common to all, and in which we all believe? Of course. And so, I ask you, gentlemen, why do we hesitate? Why are we reluctant to joint together in guaranteeing to the citizen, whom we all serve and represent, his most essential rights?
That is a very noble sentiment, but I wonder how many members realize that the two northern territories were not only not represented at that conference but not represented at any federal-provincial conference, so that the only input to these conferences from the north comes from the minister or from persons sitting in this chamber on the treasury benches, or from observers whose lips are sealed because they are prevented from giving the northern point of view. That is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) referred to as basic rights. I shall not be much longer.
March 18, 1974

I hoped that the minister would have acceded to the wishes of the Yukon Council to increase the number to 15. He says he consults. He knows that is the number they want. Since he says he consults, he knows they do not want that complicated formula which imposes a ceiling of two increments every 5,000 increase in population. He knows the population does not want that at all. They feel they are responsible and can decide when their council should be increased. What is the matter with that? We follow that procedure here and in our provincial legislatures. There is nothing wrong with it. The minister did go so far as to include some input in respect of setting indemnities by council, but before that 1970 amendment they had to come to Ottawa with cap in hand and say that they could not get along on the indemnity of $1,500 a year. That was conceded and the change was made. Now, they have some input. Why cannot there be the same kind of input in respect of numbers? That is what they requested.
We have the recommendations of the Yukon Liberal Association. I do not know if the minister has been closely informed by one of those closest to him now. I note that he has. That is nice. I shall read the operative part of the Yukon Liberal Association resolution which was passed in 1967 because I read it into Hansard in 1970 when this legislation was before the House. It reads:
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT:
1.	The membership of the Council of the Yukon Territory be increased to 15.
If the minister is so effective in getting so many things corrected in such a short time, then surely this should have been brought to the attention of the minister and we would have seen it in the bill. We do not want anything to be a little dubious about this political party representation the minister speaks of in Ottawa.
The second portion of that resolution reads:
2.	That the Governor in Council appoint on the recommendation of a majority of the members of the Territorial Council of the Yukon Territory, a member of the said Council to be Chief Executive of the Territory and who will hold and discharge all the present responsibilities and duties of the Commissioner of the Yukon Territory.
In addition, what that resolution was calling for was the dismissal of the Commissioner as being an appointee of the minister and instead that the elected representatives be empowered to select from one of their own number a representative to hold office. I might say I do not agree with that assertion because all this would do would be to take away one elected member from the council and have him appointed as a bureaucratic representative. The third recommendation reads:
3.	That four members of the Territorial Council of the Yukon Territory be elected by a majority of the said Council to assist the Chief Executive and to be responsible for the administration of the various departments of Government of the Yukon Territory.
I must assume they were serious when they advanced these resolutions. In other words, what the Yukon Liberal Association wanted-and they had a little difficulty appreciating the fact that they were not getting it if these resolutions were adopted-was an executive committee of five members, and also all portfolio responsibility to reside in that executive committee. Instead, we got from the minister three years after that legislation was passed an
Yukon and Northwest Territories executive committee dominated by three civil servants. Now, he is pretending to induct more input by making it three elected and three appointed, but still with the Commissioner and the minister's over-all veto.
The fouth resolution reads:
4.	That the necessary amendments to the Yukon Act and all other affected legislation be introduced forthwith to accomplish these aims.
Where is the effectiveness of this input by the Yukon Liberals? Obviously, they are thinking the same way, albeit ten years late. They are now enlightened and realize that what we are proposing is reasonable change. It would not create a province. It would create a recognized form of responsible government, stopping short of provincial status. The minister knows we look to the very near future when we will achieve provincial status.
I want to take a moment or two to place on the record, because everybody thinks these reforms started in 1970 with the Liberal Government, the words of the head of the government in 1958, the first Prime Minister to visit the Yukon Territory, the first Prime Minister to set foot above the 60th Parallel. He repeated that visit two years later. In September, 1958, he said it was his hope that, by the time of Canada's centennial in 1967, the Yukon and Mackenzie will have gone a long way, if not all the way, toward self-government. That hope was expressed on the basis of a policy which I and other delegates from the Yukon had succeeded, during our annual meeting and conventions, in convincing the government of that day to adopt. It was that which brought about the first meaningful changes to the Yukon Act, amendments which established the advisory committee on finance and amendments which increased the size of the council to seven, as the first step in a gradual increase by two's to 21 at which time we will be calling for provincial status.
We were the ones who developed that formula. The formula at that time-and it is outdated now I might add-was that there be an increase of one additional member for every 2,000 increase in population. Had that procedure been based on a population of 21,000, as the minister stated-he has a great way with population statistics. Whenever it pleases him to describe the tremendous value there may be in the Yukon, he uses inflated population statistics and inflated monetary statistics. However, whenever we come to him and make representations, he says that there really are not enough people in the Yukon, that he does not think there will be enough revenue from the Yukon to justify any remedies in respect of reform. So, he uses these statistics as he sees fit when he plays with the destiny of the people. He does not endear himself to the hearts of most northerners.
My colleague, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), said that in the committee stage it will be our intention to move amendments in respect of both sides of the Richardson Mountains, the Yukon Territory Act and the Northwest Territories Act. It is hoped it will be possible to move amendments to increase the number in keeping with the wishes not only of myself and this party, but also the wishes of the minister's followers in the Yukon. I hope they will be acceptable to him. The minister smiles. Perhaps there may be a doubt about that in the sense that he will not even have to speak
616

March 18, 1974
Yukon and Northwest Territories
about it because of the procedural difficulty with which he will be confronted in making that attempt.
One thing we will be doing is we will be making every effort to wipe out the formula that is imposed upon the council by the legislation. I think the minister will agree with me, after having stated he spoke with members of the Council of the Yukon, that they do not want it. They want to be free to make that increase or decrease on their own. They feel that they are responsible enough to make those decisions, and I agree with them. They feel that they are intelligent enough to make those decisions, and I agree with them. I am sure that my friend, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) would agree with them, and I am sure the Yukon Liberal Association would agree with them. I point out to the minister, in case he has forgotten, that while there may be some lack of admission in this regard on the part of the council, there are four Liberals on a council consisting of seven members so that there is a majority of the minister's followers on that council. They have said to him: "We believe we are responsible enough to set our own numbers" and that is what they have asked the minister to do. That is precisely what the minister has not done. So we will vote those amendments again in committee and perhaps even before that stage the minister might make it known to his members on that committee that he intends to accept that kind of amendment.
The minister has said nothing with respect to two other important amendments in the bill. My colleague, the hon. member for Kingston-and-The Islands (Miss MacDonald) has mentioned one of them so I will not waste the time of the House dwelling on that, but I do call his attention to the other one dealing with the increase in the legislative jurisdiction under section 16 (j) of the Yukon Act where certain greatly enlarged powers are given to the council with respect to legislation concerning prisons, reformatories, jails, lockups and the like. I draw his attention to the fact that no mention is made of institutions for the confinement of young offenders. It may well be that some thought should be given either to making absolutely certain that this jurisdiction is given to the council under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, as it stands now or under this legislation. I do not think we can continue to rely on the provisions of the Interpretation Act for our legislative jurisdiction in this matter.
Now, I wish to complete my remarks by saying the following. I was glad to see the NDP, at their annual meeting in Vancouver last September, adopt a resolution in favour of provincial status for the Yukon. That resolution said nothing more than that, so that there was no time limit placed on it. It is completely open ended. It is like being in favour of motherhood. I urge them to agree-and the hon. member for Northwest Territories will probably see to it that his colleagues understand-that there be a time limit on that resolution. The time to start toward provincial status by meaningful reform is now, but let them not leave it open ended. Let them say that the NDP is in favour of a resolution passed by the elected representatives of the people of the Yukon territory over nine years and three successive councils. It is all spelled out there, and there is nothing repugnant in it at all. When we

reach that common ground, we will all be in agreement because the Yukon Liberal Association-even if its minister is reluctant to follow its resolutions-and recommendations and even if its government is loth to do so-is in accord with the feeling in the Yukon on this question and at least two political parties are almost in accord on this now.
As my last word I want to say that the national Progressive Conservative Party is the only national political party on record as including this principle of democracy in its national policy expressed by the leader of the party, and adopting verbatim the expression of the legitimate desires of the people of the Yukon as contained in their resolution 40, which is so familiar to the minister, wholeheartedly and 100 per cent. When our leader becomes prime minister this principle will not be adopted in the halfhearted way in which the minister has tried to do but will be done at once.


David Lewis: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, arising out of something that the hon. member for Yukon said. He informed the House that about three years ago a non-confidence motion was moved by, I think he said, the leader of his party with respect to the north and that we voted against it. I have before me the Hansard issues of May 11 and May 12, 1971. Unless the hon. member was speaking about two non-confidence motions on the same subject in that session, which seems to be very unlikely, there was a motion moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) I led off on behalf of my party and moved an amendment to it. If the hon. member would refer to pages 5761 and 5762 of Hansard of May 12, 1971, he would find that all NDP members voted of course for our amendment, which the Tories supported, and voted for the Tory motion.
I am sure the hon. member for Yukon would not want to mislead the House deliberately or otherwise. I am merely drawing it to his attention. He is always such a merciful fellow, and so anxious to be correct and accurate, that I hope this correction will make him feel somewhat ashamed of his allegation which is so totally inaccurate.


Erik Nielsen: It is one of the rare occasions when I have come to a debate without having the verbatim record before me. I am not ashamed of what I said. That was my recollection, which was obviously inaccurate, and for that the leader of the NDP and his colleagues have my full, unqualified and unequivocal apology.


David Lewis: I knew it would come.


Erik Nielsen: But my recollection was obviously based on something, and I am not so inaccurate in that, may I say with respect. I am not questioning the vote that he cited as recorded at the pages in Hansard to which he referred, but it must have arisen because of the manner in which his colleagues dealt with the subject matter in the debate and the reluctance with which they spoke on the matter. In any event, I am glad that the hon. member has pointed it out to me because this session still affords an opportunity to bring in a similar motion on another opposition day, and I wonder if he will be so eager then to vote for it.
March 18, 1974


David Lewis: Just wait and see. The hon. member's apology is so qualified that he never ceases to astound me by his generosity, as he did again today. If he is unaware of the source of his statement earlier, I have no difficulty with it. I have known the hon. gentleman to have been a very imaginative fiction writer on other occasions.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I rise on the same question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. If I were to rise each time I felt that the hon. member is inaccurate, I would be on my feet all the time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If generosity is to be attributed to anyone it should be attributed to the Chair. I now recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) already indicated, it is our intention to vote in support of this bill. Having said that, I want to say to the minister that we do not consider this bill to be nearly as important as he does. I look on it as being no more than minor cosmetic surgery. It will make the situation north of the 60th parallel look a little better but it will not really change the very difficult and serious situation which exists up there. What is the situation?
I do not intend to deal in any detail with the social and economic problems of the northern half of this country today, but the situation is a depressing one. Of the 35,000 people who live in the NWT more than half are of Indian, Eskimo and Metis origin. Studies done in the Mackenzie district recently show that the per capita family income of the white people living in the NWT is almost $10,000 a year, while the per capita income of the Eskimos is less than half of that and of the Indians is not much more than a quarter of that. That is the situation to which we must address ourselves.
One of the ways in which it can be changed is to give the people of the Northwest Territories and of the Yukon more authority in decision making than they have had up until now, and even more than they will have after we pass this bill which the minister commends to us today. I can only assume from the actions of the minister, of his office, and of the Commissioners that not only do they not believe in provincial status for the two territories-incidentally I myself do not believe that the time for that kind of status has arrived yet-but they really do not believe in democracy or responsible government at all. Let me begin with the minister's office.
I am sure there has been a great deal of discussion in the cabinet, and between the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien), the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson), and the Commissioners of the Yukon and of the Northwest Territories about whether the benefits of DREE programs should be made available to the two territories. I am sure I can make the statement without being contradicted that the minister must have received representations from both Commissioners urging that their territories be included in those areas which can avail themselves of DREE grants. If the Commissioners did not make that kind of proposal, then I submit they would be derelict in the discharge of their duties.
Yukon and Northwest Territories
I point out that in the Whitehorse Star of March 1 there was a report of an announcement by the special assistant to the minister that Department of Regional Economic Expansion funds will soon be available in the Yukon. I am sure the special assistant has some faults, just as we all have, but I doubt that he would lie so brazenly, and therefore he must have been telling the truth. I suggest to the minister that if he believes in the rights of northerners, and in the administrations that he has set up to give them some input into what goes on in their areas, it would not be his special assistant, speaking at a political meeting, who would make that kind of announcement.
That kind of carry-on is a downgrading of the member of parliament for the Yukon, of the member of parliament for the Northwest Territories, and of the Commissioners and councils of both those areas. If the minister does not see that, then he does not have the slightest idea about participatory democracy. My colleague from Assiniboia calls it 19th century politics. It is Tammany Hall politics of the worst kind. Mr. Speaker, I did not think that in Canada in 1974 we would see that, under a supposedly progressive minister such as the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The minister tells us that this bill will increase the number of elected councillors in both territories, and will eliminate the hitherto appointed councillors in the Northwest Territories. That is a step in the right direction, but he went on to imply that elected members of both councils would have more authority to direct the expenditures and the operations of the territorial governments. Where is that spelled out in the bill? Where is the legislative authority for that kind of statement?
As I understand the present situation, what happens is that the individual commissioner brings down a budget. I presume he has discussed it with the minister. I say I presume, because I really wonder if the minister has approved everything that the Commissioner of the Northwest Territories does. Not today, but some time when we are dealing with expenditures for the Northwest Territories, I would like to ascertain-and I am sure I am not the only one-the arrangements under which the Commissioner operates what my colleague from the Northwest Territories calls "Airforce I". Does that aircraft belong to the government of Canada, or is it leased? Is there an amount in the estimates for the rental of the plane, if it is rented? Is there a limit on what the Commissioner can spend? Does anybody but the Commissioner decide when, where, and how often he will fly?
Did the minister ever approve the large amount of money which is spent each year on the Commissioner's Ball, a very lavish affair? It may not be very much money in terms of the total expenditures of the Northwest Territories, but I think it would be sufficient to build a dozen or more homes for native people who now live under pretty awful conditions.
What about the executive suites in Yellowknife and Frobisher Bay, which I have not seen but which I have heard about from many sources? How much do they cost a year? Who authorized the rents for them? How often are they occupied, and by whom? These are the kinds of questions which any responsible government representative should be asked, and yet these are questions that are

March 18, 1974
Yukon and Northwest Territories
decided by one person, the Commissioner. Mr. Speaker, I should amend that and say they are decided probably by two people, because I assume the minister has the final say on that kind of expenditure.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not think the hon. member would want to mislead the House. All the questions he is putting to the House today concerning Northern Affairs can be asked in a committee of the House when dealing with the estimates of the department. The same questions could be asked by all elected members of the council when they are studying the estimates of the different departments in the Northwest Territories. The elected representatives of the Northwest Territories, both in the Council and in the House of Commons, have plenty of opportunities to ask the same questions. I know the hon. member does not want to create the impression that nobody knows about these things, or that there is some mystery about those expenditures.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Obviously, this is a question that could be dealt with by the minister if he wishes to speak when concluding second reading. It is not really a question on which to interrupt another hon. member's speech.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, of course they can ask questions, and I presume they will get information. The important thing to me is not whether they can ask questions about it, but whether they can do anything about it. For example, can they say to the Commissioner, "You cannot spend $100,000, or whatever it is, for the Commissioner's Ball. We think it should be spent somewhere else." The minister shakes his head, but to my knowledge they have never done that, and have never attempted to do it. The minister says that we can get the answers to questions. I am glad he said that, because he anticipated a question I am now going to raise. I talked about the difference between the standard of living of the white people in the Northwest Territories and the standard of living of the native population. I gave a few figures. One of the largest employers, in fact the largest in the Northwest Territories, is government, both the government of Canada through its various departments, and the territorial government. I am told that in the past ten years the number of public servants working in the Northwest Territories has almost tripled.
My colleague, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), put some questions on the order paper last session. The hon. member put the questions on the order paper when this session began. He wanted to know then, and still wants to know, how many people work for the territorial government and for the federal government in the Northwest Territories in each of a number of categories, and of that number how many are native people? The minister's department has that information but has not answered the questions. Why? Probably it is because the minister would be embarrassed to tell this House and the country how small the number of native people is who work for the government of Canada and for the territorial council, and how poor the jobs are in terms of status and salary.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: This information has been given in committees.


David Orlikow: That may be true, but not to my knowledge. I wonder why there should be a delay of almost five months in getting answers to questions put on the order paper by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories? If the minister has the information why does he not give it in the regular way?
Mr. Speaker, the best jobs have been reserved for white people, most of whom come from southern Canada. That is equally true or even more so, of housing. It is difficult to get people to work in the high Arctic, so the government of Canada has provided a special program of housing for federal civil servants who work in the north. People who come from southern Canada are provided with rental housing, with electric power, with running water and so on, where it is possible, at a subsidized rate. All housing in the high Arctic, of course, is subsidized. There are practically no native people, even those working for the government of Canada or the territorial government, living in that kind of housing. Why is that? It is because the regulation only provides for that kind of housing for people not living in their home community.


An hon. Member:: Where is the hon. member for the Northwest Territories?


David Orlikow: He is right here. If you get a job with the federal government in your own community, you do not qualify for housing. I cannot think of anything, either by accident or by deliberate policy, which would discourage the native people from working for the federal government more than that kind of provision. Native people are simply not permitted to work for the government.
I want to deal for a few moments with the basic issue as I see it. That is, despite the complete election of the territorial councils by the people who are eligible to vote, the real power will still rest with two people, the commissioner of each territory and the minister. The commissioner, I presume with the approval of the minister, makes every decision that is important. Speaking for myself, I do not believe that the two territories are ready for provincial status at this time in any case. Certainly, not in their ability to finance their own necessary government operations.


Erik Nielsen: What government does?


David Orlikow: Very few, that is true. I do not believe that the time has yet come when either territory is ready for provincial status. That may be true-


Erik Nielsen: Why not?


David Orlikow: -and it may be true that the final authority on budget and expenditures must still be this parliament on the recommendation of the minister. It may still be true that this parliament and the government, through the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development must decide how much money will be allocated for housing, for the building of roads, for education and so on. I want to say to the Minister that in my time in public life I
March 18, 1974

have seen nothing as depressing as the Innuit Monthly which I get almost every month. This is not the only document that I read-


Erik Nielsen: Would the hon. member permit a question?


David Orlikow: Certainly.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member has said that he does not believe the two territories are ready for provincial status now. As the leader of his party properly pointed out to me a moment ago, there was a non-confidence motion on that very issue on May 12, 1970 when his party voted in support of what he says now he is not supporting. I wonder if he has changed his mind in the meantime?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, that motion did not call for provincial status immediately. I do not think it did but I have not got it in front of me. I do not say, and I did not say, that I do not believe in eventual provincial status for the territory I have not said that, and I will not say it today. I have said, and I will content myself with that, that I do not believe either territory is ready for provincial status yet. Let me say, however, that I do not believe in feudalism. It did not work in Europe centuries ago and will not work in the Northwest Territories or the Yukon today.
When a commissioner visits a community in the Northwest Territories and meets with the residents-I will give the minister an illustration and I can document this-who say to him they need 25 or 35 new houses to look after the unfilled needs for housing in the community, and when the Commissioner can say to them right then and there that they cannot have 25 or 35 houses but can have five or ten, then I say that no person, a commissioner or any other, should have that kind of power. It could be, in any kind of system, that the number of houses needed in any year would be much greater than would be possible under the allocation for housing. It seems to me wrong that a commissioner, by himself, should be able to say to any community, this is what you can have. Surely, in any community in which the needs of the residents are taken into account, the commissioner should have to consult-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it was agreed that the hon. member was to be the last speaker. Perhaps, with unanimous consent, we could pass second reading right now.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: On the point raised by the hon. minister, I understand from the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) that he could conclude his remarks in about four or five minutes. If there is a disposition of the House to allow him to finish, I believe he would be the last speaker from this corner of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the suggestion of the hon. minister and the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Barnett). Perhaps we might hear another suggestion.
Yukon and Northwest Territories


Mr. Stackhouse:: Mr. Speaker, a private member's motion is to be dealt with at five o'clock and I know that several hon. members want to speak on it. I do not think the private member's hour should be shortened more than necessary. I think we would all agree to taking the vote now. However, on behalf of those who want to debate the private member's motion, I suggest that we should reach private members' business as expeditiously as possible.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should not see the clock and, at six o'clock, extend private members' hour, to make up for the time taken by the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Am I to understand that it is agreed that private members' hour is to be extended after six o'clock by an amount equivalent to that taken by the hon. member?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it also agreed that we shall not see the clock at this time, in order to allow the hon. member for Winnipeg North to complete his remarks, and that we shall then proceed to private members' business?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I will not take very much longer. The point I am trying to make, which I could illustrate with many examples if I had the time, is that the present system, under which the commissioner makes unilateral decisions in the field of education, the environment, the use of resources and any other field, is wrong. That is the system under which the people of the Northwest Territories and of the Yukon live with at present. That system I consider to be wrong in principle, as under it we do not utilize the knowledge and experience of the people living in the Territories. It is a system from which we should move as quickly as possible.
I said a few moments ago that I am not convinced that the time has come for giving provincial status to the Territories. I am not at all convinced that they should make their own decisions, as the provinces now do. On the other hand, they will never reach that point if we do not allow some movement in that direction. We must allow them at some time to make meaningful decisions on matters which affect them. I suggest to the minister that he is proposing such a small step forward as will have little if any effect.
Although we support this bill, I urge the minister to give serious consideration to further clarifying the question of governmental decision making in the territories. He can do that either by further legislation or order in council. He can decide which is required and which is necessary, so that territorial councils will be more than figure heads. Such action will enable the councils to make decisions, and will mean that they have more than the patina of authority for democratic decision making. Although they would not have the right to say to the commissioners of each of the territories that they want to spend more

March 18, 1974
Yukon and Northwest Territories money than is proposed for spending, or to increase or decrease taxes, they would have the right, within the limits of proposed expenditures, to say to the commissioner and the rest of the bureaucracy that they want certain things done.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


[Stage Direction]
For instance, they could say they do not agree with the way in which money is being spent, that they want it spent in other ways, to meet other desires and other, more important needs. For instance, they could say that they want to spend more money on education and less on road building; more on housing and less on the Commissioner's Ball; more on health, and less for travel on the part of some high ranking civil servant working for the territorial council. If the minister were to make that kind of decision and bring in that kind of proposal, he would have the support of my party and not hear the kinds of criticisms which we have had to make today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the House ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-Social security-Old Age Security and Canada Pension Plan payments-Possibility of reduction of age of eligibility to 60; the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight)-Transport-Shortage of railway cars to move grain and lumber-Return of Canadian cars from United States-Repair of rolling stock; the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Transport- Railway freight rates-Provision of information to western premiers.

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions and public bills.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should act, by legislative or other means, to take over immediate and direct control of the so-called Rochdale College building in Toronto, and thereupon evict the present occupants and arrange for a socially-constructive use of the building.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on this particular motion may I point out that, often, this House follows the adversary system, which works well. Often a matter is well resolved after being condemned from one side and defended from the other. May I point out, however, that with respect to this motion we all have something to gain. It gives all members of the House, regardless of party, an opportunity to declare themselves about an issue of deep concern to the people of this country, particularly in the Toronto area. As well, it will provide the government with an opportunity to gain support for action that it may find is needed. So, I hope we can all take part in the discussion on this motion with that in mind, remembering that this is not primarily a subject of party concern so much as of social concern, a subject on which we can unite and, by debating this motion, declare ourselves and support the government on action which may be required.
We must remember that our primary concern is not so much to attribute responsibility or guilt as to seek a solution. We must consider, together, how we are to arrive at that solution. Certainly, the government made a mistake when it agreed to finance the building of Rochdale College with a CMHC mortgage. The record of Rochdale shows this to have been a mistake. Mistakes can be corrected; that is the point. Rochdale has come; but Rochdale must go. In view of its major involvement originally, the government ought to be determined to see Rochdale College go. If one method fails, the government must try another.
Recently it has been trying one method, the judicial method. News reports of the past weekend say that the receivers in charge of the building, who represent various creditors, are seeking authority to evict the tenants. That action, if successful, would certainly meet one of the objectives of the motion. That application which is to be heard on Wednesday, according to news reports, may fail. In that case I hope that the various authorities concerned, with the government behind them, will try another method. I hope they will keep trying until the ultimate objective of cleansing this building and turning it over for a legitimate social purpose has been achieved.
The need for this determination should be clear to us all. One reason is the contemptible condition of Rochdale itself. It has sickened people across this country. The government must show the people that it is determined to act and achieve the objectives referred to. The second reason is the amazing survival power that Rochdale seems to have had. From its beginning until now, it has demonstrated an incredible capacity for withstanding governments, courts, police, the media and public opinion. This
March 18, 1974

motion offers an opportunity to parliament to see that Rochdale is not going to go on thumbing its nose at the people of Canada.
Rochdale has become more than a building, more than an institution. It has become a symbol. It symbolizes the failure of permissiveness. What began as a visible defiance of an established organized society has become itself an ironic vindication of that society. Rochdale shows what happens when people renounce the basic values that hold society together. Rochdale shows the social necessity for the much despised so-called middle class principles of going to work, meeting your mortgage, paying your taxes, paying your rent, staying off drugs and living with your family. For that reason, we have found in recent times a growing recognition by the media just what this place represents.
Time magazine called it "a highrise symbol of a noble experiment that went horribly awry". The Toronto Star called it "a degeneration of an educational experiment into a community menace." The Globe and Mail has said, "its name has been linked with suicide, perversion of the young, defiance of the law and destruction of property." Since this so-called college opened as an experiment in co-operative student housing and more unstructured education, it has been continuously at the centre of controversy. One reason has been its failure to pay either mortgage or taxes. Rents have been collected, but where has the money gone? One news report claims that according to the receivers, perhaps $150,000 in rent money is missing. Where has the money gone? It certainly has not gone to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and certainly not to the city of Toronto.
Since 1968, Rochdale has accumulated arrears in mortgage and tax payments in excess of $1,800,000. That is serious enough. It is serious enough for government action. However, the real reason for people's abhorrence has been the way this place has become a centre for drugs and depravity. It has been condemned by the metro Toronto police as a supermarket for drugs. Chief Harold Adamson claims it is the only centre for an organized drug traffic in Ontario. In the first three months of 1973, police seized almost $250,000 worth of drugs. Fraser Kelly, a respected commentator, referred to it "as the largest soft-drug distributing centre in North America." In one three month period, police made 795 drug charges.
As Richard J. Needham said in the Globe and Mail:
It is a hotbed of drug use, drug traffic, of general filth and disorder.
A year ago the then coroner of Peel county, Dr. Martin Dobkin, was quoted by the Toronto Sun as saying Rochdale is "a festering abscess". A police report of the metro Toronto police commissioners showed that this had been the character of Rochdale from 1969. This report described offence after offence. I will take the time of the House to cite only one, a typical one.
On August 12, 1970, when police officers were executing an order for search of an apartment at Rochdale College, they were hindered by the actions of a security guard. The fire alarm sounded and about 75 persons gathered calling the police "pigs" and spitting at them. Upon reaching the elevator with the security guard the lights went out. After some difficulty the officers reached the apartment and found it empty.
Rochdale College
A piece of paper stating the price and weights of hashish was found. The apartment smelled highly of unsanitary conditions.
The report describes other incidents of the seduction of minors, rape of women, theft, assault, possession of weapons and homicide. Since Rochdale opened, there have been several meet their death by falling from windows of the building. One was a young man from my own constituency.
Some news reports have claimed that Rochdale is having a change of heart. We have been impressed by the prospect that under pressure, persuasion or whatever reason, there may be a new outlook developing in that institution. However, we have been fooled in the past. For example, if we go back a year to May 1973, we find a news report in the Globe and Mail headed "Rochdale and receiver say struggle is over". That was a year ago. They were both saying then that there was a new spirit of co-operation. They had a new policy and a new willingness to make the thing work. We hear these reports again. We hear that the college is ridding itself of the drug pushers. I notice these claims are more often made by spokesmen for Rochdale than authorities fighting the drug traffic.
If we think Rochdale is no longer what it used to be back in the bad old days of 1973, let us see how a coroner's jury in January, 1974, after another 18 year old fell to his death, recommended that all Rochdale tenants be evicted as the only way of getting rid of drug users. Coroner K. R. Baxter said it was "a festering cancer-dirty, disreputable, intolerable." Listen to what the grand jury of the country of York said as recently as last month:
Rochdale still carries on as an armed fortress of wholesale drug and narcotic receiving and distribution, the "Ontario food terminal" of the illicit drug business. There could be no real improvement and control of drug abuse in Ontario until this promotional centre is put out of business. What process of law or intestinal fortitude have been lacking in the past, must surely be evoked without further delay.
When Rochdale was opened, it was made possible largely through taxpayers money being loaned to them at a low interest rate. Maybe the objective of the authorities was understandable. Maybe it was acceptable. However, we have to recognize what has transpired since the time that decision was made.
The sponsors of this institution who came to the representatives of this so-called square, straight society to get their loan went away with the money in their pockets, all the while sneering at the society with a truly supercilious arrogance. They boasted they would give a new experience in education. All they have given Canada is an old experience in degradation. It is for that reason citizens throughout metro Toronto want Rochdale to go. You can see that any night by reading the letters to the editors of the newspapers.
One writes:
If any other operation owed Rochdale's back money, it would have been closed long ago.
Another writes:
I wonder how many young people must die before something is done about this incredible situation.

March 18, 1974
Rochdale College
A third writes:
Every level of government has deplored and condemned this festering blot on the landscape-Cannot some authority evacuate and fumigate this nest and put it to a useful purpose?
Prominent leaders have joined these ordinary citizens in expressing largely the same convictions. Ontario opposition leader Robert Nixon, Alderman George Ben and former executive Alderman Tony O'Donahue are three leading Toronto Liberals who have called for a change. This is not a party issue, it is one which challenges the conscience of every decent citizen.
An even greater challenge, of course, lay in doing something about the situation. Since 1969, when it was first reported that the mortgage on Rochdale College was in arrears, spokesmen for the government have been promising that something would be done. I recognize that since 1971 these spokesmen have been claiming, and with some justification, that they have been trying to get that certain something accomplished. They have, on more than one occasion, been halted by court action in efforts they have been attempting to make. That is one reason for the concern I feel this afternoon. Will the government be stopped again in following its judicial route? Will it run into a roadblock? The strange thing is that Rochdale College has greater survival power than has a cat with nine lives.
In 1970, the then minister in charge of housing, in the midst of the kind of criticism and comment with which we have become familiar with respect to Rochdale, made an announcement in the press that he would very soon be deciding the fate of Rochdale. So many allusions to the fate of Rochdale being decided and so many announcements respecting its pending demise went out from Ottawa that the Toronto Telegram actually believed something would happen.
In 1971, that newspaper published an editorial entitled "Farewell Rochdale". Since that occasion, the Toronto Telegram has gone, but Rochdale is still here. It is one thing to say that Rochdale is going, but quite another to report it has gone. There have been all kinds of promises, announcements and assurances, but what we would say to the government is this: if you have the willingness and the determination to carry out these threats, we shall be behind you. We want action. We are willing to support you in whatever action it is necessary to take, through legislation or any other means, to accomplish the objective we all desire. But let's have the action rather than the assurances. We have had enough promises, let's have some performance.
Just a few years ago a receivership was appointed on behalf of all creditors involved with Rochdale College. It has recently been said that some control is being gained. For example, Rochdale security guards have been replaced by a private protective agency and we understand why this was necessary. For some time the appointed receiver could not collect the rents. He could not deliver an eviction notice. He had to send such a notice through the mail, so afraid he was of being harassed as he went through the buildings. Now, it is understandable that when there has been so much resistance to normal authority many suspect that the objectives of CMHC, the objectives of the government, may somehow be thwarted again. It is possible, for

example, that the appeal being launched on behalf of the College may be upheld, and that the attempt by CMHC to foreclose may fail.
We should be concerned, therefore, by the possibility of such a failure occurring, or, perhaps, by the possibility of the government being talked into some new arrangement with the people who have sponsored Rochdale in the past-and they seem to have gained from it throughout the years. Hence the value of the motion before us. It gives the House the opportunity to say to the government that it must act through legislation or by some other available means. It gives the government the opportunity to gain the support of the House in taking action if it should prove necessary.
The government may say it has no option if its action of foreclosure does not succeed. What we are urging the minister to do, with his colleagues in the government, is to seek through legislation or other available means another route. The minister has from time to time insisted that he has done everything the law permits, and within certain terms of reference I agree with that. But that is not good enough when compared with the efforts made by the government in other circumstances in which it has been determined.
In 1963, for example, the government was challenged by the Seafarers' International Union. As a result of that situation the government passed legislation to put the maritime unions under trusteeship. When that bill was introduced, some members of the House suggested that parliament had no constitutional authority to pass it. But parliament did pass it. Some people claimed that there was no authority given to parliament under the British North America Act to place union property under trusteeship, since property rights were a matter for the provinces. Nevertheless, the authority of the trustees was upheld. So we see, from these proceedings and others, that where there is a will on the part of the government there is always a legislative way. This was true then, and it is true today. It is demonstrated by the government's determination to keep the WFL out of Canada, even if it means passing legislation under the terms of the British North America Act. Somehow or other, the government is willing to tell parliament that action of this kind is necessary to peace, order and good government of Canada. Maybe it is-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I regret having to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. Would the House allow him a few more minutes in which to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: I thank the House for its courtesy and I shall not trespass on its good will. The point I was making was this: if the government feels very strongly about the need to take a certain kind of action it can find the means of doing so. It claims that action in respect of the WFL is necessary for the peace, order and good government of Canada. If it can be taken seriously in this regard, how can one believe statements that it does not have the authority to deal with the situation at Rochdale?


An hon. Member:: They are bluffing on the other, too.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Is there one law for Toronto and another for Rochdale? What the hon. member says may be true in the instance of football. We shall see whether it is true with respect to Rochdale. Anyway, we can understand why the Globe and Mail writer asked this question: "What is there about Rochdale that makes politicians impotent?" That is not a word I would have used myself, but it is used in that editorial. It does raise a question with which we should all concern ourselves. We should seek to support the government in whatever action it may find necessary. We ought to say to the government: This responsibility is yours and we are looking to you to correct the mistake which was made.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to intervene in private members' hour, but I do so in this debate as the minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation simply to demonstrate the very deep concern and interest of the government and myself on this issue. I am under something of a handicap in that this matter, as the hon. member who has just spoken made clear, is the subject of foreclosure and is before the courts. I am under' some impediment as to precisely what I can say, but I will endeavour to manage with that impediment.
I was amused during the speech of the hon. member, who has made several speeches on the subject of Rochdale College, when he suggested that it must not be made into a partisan matter but should be dealt with as a non-partisan, non-political issue and then spent some time in his speech, as he has on previous occasions, using every possible means to turn it into a partisan political matter. I have made it clear on the record of this House before, and I do so again today, that the government is taking every possible legal means-I underline "legal" means-to gain possession of Rochdale College.


Mr. Hellyer:: Nonsense.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is my view that we are doing that simply because present conditions at Rochdale are intolerable and unacceptable. Unfortunately, it is not a simple matter to rectify the situation through the legal process. We shall hear from a learned law professor in a moment. Unfortunately, foreclosure is not a simple matter. But the proposals made by the hon. member would not get around the difficulties with which we are faced.
Let me outline the legal situation and describe what this government has done in an attempt to expedite the process. I shall not go into the history of this matter except to say that I was not the minister at the time. It seems to me, looking over the records, that at the time the Rochdale proposal was put forward, everyone in all parties in this House, in the city of Toronto and in the provincial government, including people from all walks of life, thought the idea as presented-I underline the word "presented"-was a good one. It was an attempt to meet the particular housing situation at the time. It was thought to be such a good idea that the loan was approved, and this is no reflection on him, by the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Hellyer), who was then the minister responsible for housing.
Rochdale College


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is not that I wish to interrupt the minister in presenting this apologia for the government's inaction, but I should like to set the record straight. I was not the minister at the time the loan was approved.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I stand corrected and I accept the hon. member's word on that.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I hope the rest of what you say is more accurate.


Stanley Ronald Basford: I will have to check the records, and I may have been confused, but I understand that in fact the hon. member approved the loans in respect of some of these co-operative colleges. My concern about what has happened at Rochdale is that it may unfortunately reflect upon the whole co-operative housing movement. Last session this House passed very good amendments to the National Housing Act relating to co-operative and nonprofit housing. These amendments are beginning to work in some parts of the country, and I should hope that the experience of Rochdale, which in fact is not a co-operative in any sense of the word, will not adversely affect the operation of the amendments approved by the House in the last session.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: The co-operatives will get you into trouble, too.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Going back to the legal situation, after the loan was made, default on the mortgage occurred on August 17, 1971. As a result of that substantial default in payments, CMHC proceeded on behalf of the government with a foreclosure action by writ of summons. That suit attempted to take possession of the building and to give CMHC, as the agency foreclosing, possession and management of the building. After several unsuccessful attempts in the court, CMHC attempted through the legal process to gain interim possession, interim receivership and interim management of the building but was refused by the court. In fact, the order of the court specifically excluded CMHC from taking over possession and management of the building.
At that point we instructed our solicitors to endeavour to commence an action, on behalf of all the creditors, for the appointment of a receiver or manager. Fortunately, that application was successful and by order of the court a receiver was put in possession of the building. The trial of that action commenced October 1, 1973. Our solicitors again took special action, and I wrote the attorney general of Ontario and asked that he use his good offices in this regard and the matter was referred to the court registrar to set an early trial date for the action. It was heard on October 1, 1973, and arguments were completed on October 4.
On the foreclosure action in the Ontario court judgment was reserved by Madame Justice Van Camp, who gave judgment on February 4, 1974. That judgment was totally in favour of the foreclosure action of CMHC. Everything that CMHC had asked for was granted. That decision was completely in our favour. I will not detail the precise nature of the order, as foreclosure actions are extremely complicated, but there was an order for a reference before

March 18, 1974
Rochdale College
a master for the taking of accounts, the taxation of costs, and redemption and possession, which was what we sought from the court.
The defendants in this case, Revenue Properties Central Developments Limited, and Rochdale College, filed a notice of appeal on February 4, 1974. We are still living with a judicial system in which parties to a lawsuit have the right to appeal, and these parties have exercised that right. By reason of the filing of the notice of appeal, CMHC is in exactly the same position it was in prior to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ontario. The receiver, Clarkson Gordon, therefore remains in possession of the land and premises to use and operate them, to receive rents and profits and to make all necessary expenditures until the trial or other disposition of the said action.
The motion before the House suggests that we should take further action. I think we have tried and I have documented that effort. We prosecuted a foreclosure action as expeditiously as the court rules allow. Following the judgment and the notice of appeal, which could for some years put off a final decision, I wrote the following letter to the receiver, who is acting not for CMHC but as a court appointed receiver on behalf of all creditors, in the following terms; it is addressed to J. L. Biddell and is dated March 1, 1974:
As the minister responsible for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation I have, since the foreclosure action was commenced, instructed that the proceedings on Rochdale College be proceeded with as quickly as the rules of court allow. This had been done and resulted in a judgment of the Ontario Supreme Court on February 4, 1974, in favour of CMHC. I am now advised by our solicitors that this decision has been appealed to the Ontario Court of Appeal and that in spite of my instructions, and an application to the Chief Justice for an early hearing date on the appeal, that the disposition of this appeal and a possible subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada could be a matter of years. To me it is intolerable and inexplicable that the present conditions in Rochdale should be permitted to continue throughout this further period of lengthy legal proceedings.
It is clear even from an economic point of view that the present type of operation is wasteful and will continue to be non-viable.
Every effort must be made at this time to change the type and character of the occupants of the said building.
I therefore formally request, and for CMHC concur, that you take forthwith all steps that are necessary to gain vacant possession of all of the residential accommodation at Rochdale College and when this has been accomplished, thought could be given to the making of needful repairs and improvement so as to attract a more conventional type of occupant thereby reducing to a minimum the high cost of maintenance and security.
In taking these necessary steps forthwith I trust that you will have the complete co-operation of the Attorney General of Ontario and the Chief of Police of the city of Toronto.
Mr. Speaker, I mentioned that last paragraph simply because I feel, acting on behalf of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, that I am the only one interested in prosecuting any action in respect of Rochdale. While we have the rights of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, those are the limits of our rights. Much has been said in this House and elsewhere about criminal conduct, alcoholism, drug activity, and so on. Those are activities clearly under the jurisdiction of the chief of police of the city of Toronto who, of course, would have our complete

co-operation. We are simply involved as a mortgage company.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Do you take that attitude toward slum lands?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the action I have just documented, on March 8 this year the receiver filed an application by way of notice of motion in the Supreme Court of Ontario for leave to terminate all existing residential tenancies in Rochdale College. The said notice of motion is returnable at Osgoode Hall, Toronto, on March 20, 1974. The day after tomorrow, therefore, I would hope to report-and I must be very careful in terms of parliamentary proceedings, as must other hon. members- that the court will adjudicate on the motion as expeditiously as possible. I have clearly stated my view that the tenancies should be terminated as soon as reasonably possible without prejudice to the parties in the action. I certainly will indicate, through the solicitors, that that is our view and that the general conditions in Rochdale College are intolerable and inexplicable and they should not be permitted to continue until the foreclosure action has been finally determined by the court.
The hon. member speaking for the motion said that we should take, in the terms of the motion, some other action. Within the laws of the land, we are taking the action which is appropriate and which we were advised is the best action. This was the advice by the law officers of the Crown and our retained solicitor. The hon. member, for example, as I understood him, suggested we could take expropriation proceedings in respect of Rochdale College. I am sure he makes that suggestion with the best of motives, wanting to be helpful in this suggestion.
I suggest-I think the lawyer-professor who will speak in a moment will support me in this-there is probably only one legal process that is more complicated than foreclosure, and that is expropriation. If one thinks foreclosure proceedings are complicated, expropriation proceedings are even more complicated. Under expropriation proceedings it takes even longer to get possession of a building and take action. Furthermore, it involves the real risk that in an expropriation proceeding we would have to spend additional moneys either to subsequent encumbrancers of revenue property or even, conceivably, to Rochdale College, the owners of the building.
As I say, I am sure the hon. member put forward his idea in good faith. I give him that credit, but I say that we have examined every possible legal avenue that we should follow. If we were to take expropriation proceedings, we would run the risk of having a court order and paying additional money to the very people we want to foreclose. From the beginning I have instructed everybody involved that although we could move very quickly by the payment of extra money by way of settlement or expropriation, and probably very quickly by the payment of extra money, surely enough of the taxpayers' money is already involved in this matter. The foreclosure action will protect the taxpayer. Surely we should not be taking legal proceedings which run the risk of our having to pay additional money. I have suggested that we should not pay one red cent by way-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The minister has been very concerned about rebutting a point which actually I did not make. I was interested to hear his representation in respect of this point to which I did not refer. He is correct in saying it was part of a speech I circulated, and I know he read a copy of it; but I did not make it in this debate. I stand by the representations and take seriously what he said about them, but it was not part of this debate. In respect of the remarks which I did circulate and which the minister has read, I suggest he should acknowledge that in those remarks I said that the money that would be spent on expropriation would return to the public purse, going from one agency to another.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member is becoming involved in debate. He can correct a statement made, but he should not go into the detail of the document to which he refers.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I draw the point simply to show we have considered, and do consider, all possible legal means in respect of Rochdale College by which the government can obtain vacant possession, as the lawyers would say. We are proceeding in a way in which we can do that pursuant to the law and as quickly as possible. We have examined it and are ready to examine all other suggestions concerning how that could be done more quickly. However, we are proceeding in accordance with the law as fast as we can. I very much resent implications from the opposition that somehow we are not doing that.
We live in a society which believes in the rule of law, and that is as binding on the minister and on Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as it is on anyone else in this society. We can only foreclose and gain vacant possession in accordance with the rule of law. That we are doing. The conditions at Rochdale College are intolerable and, to me, inexplicable. Vacant possession of the building should be granted as soon as the law allows. I hope that will be the result of our legal proceedings.


Mr. Ian Arrol (York East):: Mr. Speaker, one of the most popular statements that Charles Dickens had one of his characters make, a statement which has echoed down through the years since it was made as a response to the slow way in which the law may work in aid of justice, was "the law is a ass". This might be a response to statements such as "all that can be done is being done", "the situation is complex" and, as the minister just said, "the government is taking every legal means to obtain possession of Rochdale College" and also "foreclosure is not a simple matter". We also know that in the case of a clever lawyer who has a client who may be guilty of no matter what- absconding with funds, or committing murder-there may be a time when that lawyer would find a way in the interest of his client.
In the case of Rochdale College, the crime is not one committed by the public but against the public, and surely a way can be found to obtain redress for the innocent victim, in this case the people of Toronto. In response to
Rochdale College
the possible question, "What would you have us do; break the law to enforce the will of the people?" the answer must surely be that the government is not now serving the people of Toronto well until some way is found of serving the general will. "Close Rochdale" is the call of the people of Toronto.
It is with a great degree of satisfaction that we recognize that the letter which the minister wrote on March 8 resulted in the report in the Globe and Mail of March 16 headed "Receiver will attempt eviction of Rochdale". But if this fails, the government should not say, "We have tried everything possible and are not able to close down Rochdale," not until the federal government takes the initiative of saying, "This problem is big; this problem must be solved; this problem may be larger than the powers of the federal government to cure it." I suggest, then, the federal government should meet the minicipal and the provincial authorities and should not say, "It was your fault," or, "In the year such and such you said it was O.K."
Let us all admit, municipally, provincially and federally, that we now have a situation which must be cured, and where there is a will there must be found a way. It could involve the co-operation of the police department, the health department, the attorney general of the province, the Minister of Justice of Canada-but whatever is needed to close this mansion of ill-repute must be done before the people of Toronto feel and fear that the government cannot act on their behalf. The federal government cannot solve our national problems, we cannot solve all world problems; yet when in our midst there is a cancer, and when in our midst there are people who want action and when the federal government has the fundamental responsibility, let us act to say jointly to the municipality and to the province, "Let us find some way to close Rochdale".


Mr. Barnett J. Danson (York North):: Mr. Speaker, I see that other members from Toronto ridings wish to say something, so I shall try to be brief. I think this is a matter which concerns all of us who represent Toronto ridings and come from the Toronto region. I believe it is a silly argument to compare this matter with other legislative priorities. I do not think we gain any marks by comparing it with the World Football League.
This reminds me of a letter which I received from a friend and constituent today about the World Football League. He said that we have our priorities all wrong. I replied that it was him who had his priorities all wrong. He did not write to me about unemployment insurance, about capital punishment, about old age pensions or about veterans' allowances. I cannot buy those sorts of arguments any more than I can the argument that this is a great national issue and that the law should be pushed aside. It is a matter of intense concern to those responsible to the people of Toronto, but you do not push aside laws, which hon. members opposite have helped us to write, to cure situations such as this.
The most important interjection in the debate today was that of the minister when he quoted from the letter he sent to Mr. Biddell, the receiver. He wrote:
To me it is intolerable and inexplicable that the present conditions in Rochdale should be permitted to continue throughout this further period of lengthy legal proceedings.

March 18, 1974
Rochdale College
Obviously, the minister is doing all in his power. As a matter of fact, he did not say that Toronto government members met with him a long time ago on this issue and he is co-operating in every way to try to clear up this matter.


Mr. Paproski:: That is not true.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I have been accused of not telling the truth. I would like the hon. member to withdraw that remark.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I did not say you didn't say the truth. I said it was not true.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Fine. The hon. member is withdrawing his statement and I accept his withdrawal.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I do not withdraw anything.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Let us not take up any more time with these silly interjections.
This was an experiment that failed. It resulted in a cesspool, a morass of drugs and slothfulness which none of us can accept and which we want to see cleaned up. It is a black mark on the legitimate co-operative housing projects which we all support, and it is a black mark on the legitimate students who are trying to further their education in imaginative ways. It really sets their case back. I am very impressed by a similar project in Toronto about which we have not heard anything, namely, the Neil Wysick College at Ryerson. They have their problems, but the students have anticipated them and have approached many members with a reasonable solution for curing them. They are trying their best. I believe these people are paying $100,000 in municipal taxes a year, something which Rochdale is not doing at all.


An hon. Member:: What about the finance report on that one?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I think these people at Neil Wysick should be treated with sympathy and we should ensure that they can carry out the job which they are determined to do.
I suggest that we back up the minister in his efforts to get Rochdale cleaned up as quickly as possible under the law, and we should back up the efforts of the receiver. I should like to see an alternate use made of this building. It is a well constructed building which has been damaged badly, but it can be refurbished as the minister said when he was quoting from his own letter. I would like to see us carry on another type of experiment that has been highly successful, namely, the setting up of senior citizens' housing such as has been done in the central part of Toronto. We have excellent senior citizens' housing on Yonge Street downtown in the core of the city. The other day I met an old army friend who is living in one of these homes and he told me how delightful it was to be able to walk to the shops across the street, or down to the military institute to see his friends, and to be able to live in dignity at a nominal rent.
I should like to see Rochdale converted to housing for senior citizens. I know it can be refurbished. This would be a constructive use for it. Our experimentation in this area has paid off. I have not heard of any drug or sex

scandals in senior citizens' homes to date, and I think we should take our chances on that. We are deeply concerned and I know the minister is concerned. I hope we find a technique within the law to get this place cleaned out. It is a cancer on the whole student movement in Canada, and certainly in Toronto.
We will not eliminate all the problems. The drug problem will still exist; the slothfulness will still exist. It will not be institutionalized, and we will not be subsidizing it. Society will pay for it in other ways, but that is not the object of Rochdale College. It should not provide low-cost housing. I read a report in the newspaper that a woman said, "You cannot move us out, and I cannot afford to live anywhere else." That is a tragedy, I admit, but that is not the object of Rochdale College. I do not think there is a simple and easy way to solve this problem. It must be done forcefully and within the law. We must make proper, constructive use of this facility to which a large amount of federal funds has gone, and other funds as well.
In a sense, the city of Toronto has been forced to forgo taxation. I think the place should be put back on the road and put into constructive social use such as we have seen in the case of other senior citizens' homes of which we do not have nearly enough. I think we have an opportunity here to support the minister and the actions he takes to see that this place is cleaned up and is put to constructive use. The minister refers in his letter to "alternate use". I suggest that the best alternate use would be senior citizens' housing, for example of the type on Yonge Street opposite Eaton's College Street which is run almost like a private hotel for senior citizens at nominal rents, which gives them a new lease on life and allows them to live as complete human beings.
I believe this is what government encouragement and government loans are for. I do not think we should get out of co-operative housing for students when it is run responsibly. We have learnt a lesson, and if we experiment again in this area we should not leave ourselves open to the sort of abuse which has taken place in Rochdale College. It is a place that all the people I know in Toronto have condemned, and I think all the people of Toronto would support this clean-up and changeover.


Mr. Ron Atkey (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, I think the theme of today's debate should be, "Oh what a difference a private member's motion can make." The minister's letter of March 1 is an excellent one: it sets forth the points very clearly; it demonstrates the ability of the minister at long last to take some action. The tragedy of it all is that that letter could have been written in exactly the same terms a year and a half ago.
The parliamentary secretary to the minister, who is in the House at present, wrote a letter in which he said the interim receiver was appointed on September 14, 1972. At that time the Clarkson company was appointed interim receiver and manager. Notwithstanding the fact that the action was still proceeding and no foreclosure order had been made, it would have been entirely in order for the first mortgagee, in this case CMHC, to indicate its views to the interim receiver-those views which were indicated very clearly in the letter of March 1, 1974. I point out that
March 18, 1974

the original default by Rochdale College on the mortgage took place as of March 1, 1969. Again I ask, why was there the delay in the appointment of the interim receiver, which did not take place until 1972?
I wish to place on the record some comments by other members of the government about conditions at Rochdale College. I think we have had some candid comments today, not only by the minister but also by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Danson). What I think we should have listened to, and what I intend to read into the record, are comments of the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand) in response to a question I put to him in the House last July. I quote as follows from a letter which he wrote to me on July 17 last:
Since its inception in 1968, Rochdale has been a continual haven for drug traffickers and a source of concern to law enforcement agencies in the area. The RCMP has, among its major interests, the enforcement of drug laws. It has found that since Rochdale's very beginning drug trafficking has been prevalent within the college.
Initially, the RCMP conducted many investigations in Rochdale. However, because of the obstructionist tactics carried out by the residents, these investigations became costly in terms of time and manpower. Tactics such as clearing the building by pulling the fire alarms as the police enter the building, which prevents police from connecting the drugs found with the occupants, are designed to frustrate any police investigations aimed at the residents of the college. It became apparent that these searches were exercises in futility as the amount of energy expended did not justify the results.
In a following paragraph he wrote:
The Metropolitan Toronto Police Department established an eight-man section in January, 1973, to conduct investigations concerning Rochdale and in the first four months 700 persons were arrested regarding drug offences. Many of these arrests were for samll possession amounts. However, a considerable number involved large quantities. The continuing appearance of weapons and arms occurs more often when dealing with persons from Rochdale College than in any other investigations.
As the representative for the riding of St. Paul's, Which is just across Bloor Street from Rochdale College, I want to speak out on behalf of the residents living in the south end of St. Paul's who on a daily basis must put up with conditions described in this letter form the Solicitor General. This is a very real concern for residents whose neighbourhood has been infiltrated by people not only possessing and using drugs but trafficking in them in large amounts. It is a serious concern.
I appreciate that I do not have much time available, Mr. Speaker, but I do want to ask the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Basford), or in his absence his parliamentary secretary, to tell us where is the report of the financial investigation into co-op housing, namely, Rochdale College and Neil Wysick College. The parliamentary secretary will remember his comment on behalf of the government on July 23 last wherein, in response to a question from the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), he indicated that the report by CMHC, which had been in the making for four or five months, would be made available to members of the House. He went on to say that it was his understanding that when the inquiry, which was started in February, 1973, was completed, its report would be available to members of the House. Again I ask, where are those reports?
Again the minister has said today that they have done all within their power. I suggest that that is not true, because until we have seen the financial investigation
The Senate
reports we do not know what charges could possibly be laid under the appropriate criminal legislation. We do not know what disciplinary action could be taken against architects and engineers involved in collusion, in rigging of tenders and in fraudulent practices. We, representing the public of the Toronto area, have a right to see that information and we have a right to see it at this very time.
I want to say that I was disappointed-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' buisness having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At 6.08 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) moved: that Bill C-ll, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is easily stated: it is to increase the size of the Senate to permit the appointment of one senator for each of the territories which requires, as indicated, an amendment to the British North America Act. This increase in the representation of the territories in the Parliament of Canada will, hopefully, provide additional opportunities for the expression of a northern viewpoint in the Parliament of Canada.


Erik Nielsen: Hah!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: This will add to the northern viewpoint.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Is the minister keeping a straight face while he says that?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: While the two territories have a relatively small population-they comprise almost 40 per cent of the geographical area of Canada-the ratio of Indian and Eskimo people to the total population of the two territories is much greater than that of any of the provinces.
I would mention to members of the House that the appointment of territorial senators is not unprecedented. Senators were appointed to represent the Northwest Territories during the earlier years of settlement and they continued to sit for the territories until the provinces of

March 18, 1974
The Senate
Alberta and Saskatchewan were created. The question of territorial representation in the other place has been raised from time to time in this chamber. Private members' bills were introduced in the House of Commons in 1960 and in 1962, in 1972 Bill C-126, and in 1973 Bill C-12, to provide one senator from each territory. So the matter is not before the House for the first time; it has been brought to the attention of the House in the form of private members' bills.


Erik Nielsen: Many times.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The issue is clearcut and straightforward. It does not require any further explanation from me in speaking on second reading of the bill.
In conclusion, I might mention that the motion for second reading refers consideration of the bill to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I think, on reflection, that it might be better to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It is a constitutional amendment and it might be more appropriate for that standing committee to deal with this bill. However, the motion that was put down does refer to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and for that reason I am suggesting that the House might agree, with consent, to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I conclude by saying that the question of representation of the territories in the House of Commons is not touched on in this bill. That question can be, and will be, dealt with in the general consideration of the whole question of representation in the House of Commons which will be continued in the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. So I remind hon. members of the House that there is a separate opportunity for dealing with the question of the representation of the territories in this chamber. This bill deals with the Senate.


Erik Nielsen: What other business is listed for consideration, if we should finish this bill?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I respond to that question by saying that if we deal with this bill, we will call the competition bill tonight.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. May I ask hon. members whether they agree to referring this bill to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, this must be a night of great satisfaction for the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). He is a veteran member of the House of Commons and throughout much of his tenure here he has had a private member's bill standing on the order paper in his name entitled "An act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965". That is an amendment to provide for representation in the

Senate of Canada for the Yukon and Northwest Territories. Tonight we are dealing with a government measure bearing exactly the same title and designed to accomplish exactly the same thing. It just goes to show that if you have tenacity, endurance, stamina and perseverance you can eventually persuade even Liberals to see the light.
We in this party welcome Bill C-ll and hope that it will have quick passage through all stages of debate. Just over a year ago, on February 20, to be exact, we debated this very matter when the private member's bill of the hon. member for Yukon was before the House. Although there was the customary tendency on the part of government members to talk the bill out at that time rather than referring it to committee, there was some indication even then on the part of hon. members opposite that they supported the measure in a limited way. For instance, the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand) spoke in favour of it but made his support of it conditional upon there being over-all Senate reform. As he put it at that time, "I do not feel it gets to the root of the problem of Senate reform." So he hesitated in supporting it. Further, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGui-gan) said, when speaking about Senate representation from the northern territories, "This matter cannot be considered in isolation from other changes which should be made in respect of Senate representation."
There may be some justification for those views, Mr. Speaker, but better one small step at a time than no step at all. That is why I welcome the government's measure tonight. I know that this time the hon. member for Kamloops-Cariboo and the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville will give the bill their wholehearted support. If the government would only take the same approach to other problems, such as the high cost of living, it might be able to arrive at solutions step by step instead of remaining immobile. I am sure the government will appreciate that we in this party, as in the case of this bill and that of the hon. member for Yukon, will continue to suggest the route the government should take until such time as our party forms the government.
I hope this bill receives the unanimous support of all parties in the House of Commons so that we can indicate to Canadians living north of the sixtieth parallel that the Canadian parliament does not discriminate against northerners. It is fundamentally important for us to remember that the Parliament of Canada is composed of two chambers. In this House the Yukon and Northwest Territories have been accorded representation since 1903 and 1949 respectively. In the other place the territories have been denied representation. That has been a long-standing denial of justice and equality.
Some in this House advocate the abolition of the other place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Certainly, no one questions their right to put forward that proposition with whatever vigour they can muster. However, I would say to them that so long as there is another chamber which is part of the Canadian parliamentary system, the northern territories should not be denied access to it.
March 18, 1974

I hope that members of the party to my left, particularly the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), will see fit to endorse this particular measure despite their long-term goals, otherwise they will be grossly discriminatory against and unfair to Canadians who reside in the two-fifths of Canada north of 60. The north deserves additional representation in the Parliament of Canada.
Hopefully, when redistribution of the make-up of this House takes place some arrangement will be made to compensate for the tremendous geographical distances which must be covered. One way in which the northern territories can be assured wider representation in the near future is by way of appointment to the Parliament of Canada.
Many northerners could bring to parliament additional expertise in the social, economic and cultural problems of the north. It would be beneficial to us all if we were exposed more frequently and fully to the views of northerners. Someone like the late Knut Lang would have made a singular contribution. There are many others who could contribute. There is always some debate as to the population figures north of 60. We know that many northern residents are native, that is, Indian, Metis and Innuit. Last year, when speaking to a similar bill in the House, I stated that I felt it would be particularly fitting if a representative of the native peoples could sit in the other place as a representative of one or both of the territories. The problems of these people of the north are many, and they deserve our attention and concern.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this bill will receive early implementation and that the appointment of two northerners to the other place will be carried out without delay.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this bill, but was somewhat surprised to hear the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) give credit to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) for its underlying idea. It seems to me that it was considered in the joint Senate and House of Commons committee which looked at recommendations for constitutional change. I have spoken out in the House about the situation in the Senate and I will continue speaking out until such time as the situation changes.
I was happy to hear the remarks of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) regarding representation for the Northwest Territories. That, I think, is most important. In the last session I introduced bills which would have provided for more representation but certainly not for appointees. This afternoon we debated the bill which would abolish appointees to the Council of the Northwest Territories. This bill seems to be a step backward in that it provides for appointments to the Senate. I have very serious doubts whether any self-respecting northerner would accept the appointment of senator.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter (Wally) Firth: As a matter of fact, should this bill pass through the House and a northerner is appointed, it may be necessary to bring him here at gunpoint.
The Senate
The message I get from this bill with regard to further appointees seems to point to the fact that the Liberals have had some difficulty in electing members from the north. The situation seems to be: If we can't elect them, let's appoint them. We appoint members from the Northwest Territories administration to the information and liaison office in Ottawa. This costs more money than having another member. He does not have to do very much, but at least the government has him here. They want to appoint a chap from the Yukon who is not even able to win the nomination for the Liberal candidacy in the last election. They want to make another position and appoint him as a senator.
I repeat, I doubt very much whether any self-respecting northerner would accept that position. The fact is the Northwest Territories deserve more representation in this House. This bill is somewhat like a joke that is being played on the people of the Northwest Territories-and we do not think it is a very funny joke.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, the fact that I caught you in the act of rising tells me that you are an incurable optimist. I welcome this bill. The hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) referred to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) giving me credit for this idea, I think he called it. He left the inference with the House that the idea originated with the Joint Senate and House of Commons Committee on the Constitution which travelled to other parts of the country as well as the Yukon and Northwest Territories. They held hearings in Dawson City, Whitehorse and Watson Lake. Let me say to him through you, Mr. Speaker, that many years before the joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons started sitting on the question of the constitution of Canada, this bill of mine had been introduced and debated. Perhaps it is because the hon. member for Northwest Territories did not read Hansard, or was not here at the time, that he fails to recognize the fact that I have on an almost annual basis introduced a bill which would make the two northern territories truly representative in the Parliament of Canada.
As I understand it, the Parliament of Canada consists of two Houses. In each of those Houses, this place and the other place, every part of Canada has representation. Until the minister's very worth while bill was introduced this evening, the only exception has been Canadians living above the sixthieth parallel. Canadians of white origin, Canadians of Indian origin and Canadians of Inuit origin are all Canadians. I quote the remarks made earlier today by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in another debate espousing the principle that all Canadians should be treated equally. It is not equality of treatment to have lack of representation in both Houses of parliament for all Canadians. It is that simple and that logical. My only regret is that the matter had to wait so long and we had to be in a minority situation before the government was brought to the realization that the proper approach would be representation in both Houses.
As the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands said, at one time the north was represented by one member of parliament. I ask members here this evening to consider the fact that one member represented some 1,700,000

March 18, 1974
The Senate
square miles of Canada from 1903-one member was charged with that responsibility-until 1949. One member represented the Yukon and Northwest Territories. In 1949 the electoral boundaries were readjusted and the Yukon and Northwest Territories had one member each.
To put a fair connotation on history, the Liberal Party had no difficulty electing a member for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon prior to 1949. Certainly my predecessor had that party affiliation until 1953. When the Northwest Territories subsequently became entitled to a member, it too was represented by a Liberal member. Indeed, until the advent of the election of the present hon. member for Northwest Territories it had been represented solidly by a member of the Liberal Party save and except for one intervention by a member of this party from 1963 to 1968.
Now that those matters are set straight, with regard to the argument that the party in power has difficulty electing people and must therefore appoint someone, I do not think that is a fair observation. It certainly is not accurate. The minister introducing the bill-


Thomas Speakman Barnett: May I ask the hon. member whether the Liberals will try to do better in the Yukon next time around?


Erik Nielsen: As they say, Mr. Speaker, hope springs eternal. As another matter of historical observation, since 1903, some 71 years, we have had a representative in parliament. On the Yukon side, at any rate, the Liberal Party can claim possession to 13 of those 71 years. Therefore, they may have a little more difficulty because of the inbred spirit of independence, free enterprise and initiative that we in the Yukon give as our principal reason for being there.


Mr. Knight:: The Senate represents initiative?


Erik Nielsen: I know the hon. member to my left is expressing the views of the grey eminence of his party, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), when he puts down the Senate. This is where I think the hon. member for Northwest Territories has really been snowed by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and others who share his views. For the representative of Canadians in the Northwest Territories to stand in his place and tell us that his constituents do not want to be represented in the whole of parliament is beyond my comprehension.
We have a system. Some of us believe the Senate should remain as it is. Some of us believe that it should be abolished. I know the position that the NDP adopted as a party stance, but it ill behooves the hon. member for Northwest Territories to say that as long as we are saddled with the concept of two Houses in a federal system, we do not want any part of that full entitlement which all Canadians have. That is absolutely beyond comprehension. I think the chickens will come home to roost regarding that statement and the hon. member's stance, come the next election.

The minister has made a common error of lumping together the statistics of the two territories. He did not quote them separately. He lumped the economics together, too. That is the way the government treats them because it is unthinkable for those who live in ivory towers in Ottawa to accept anything less than standardization in this age to place everyone on a common, socialistic level. In other words, in spite of a history which goes back to 1896 and earlier, in spite of the growth of political institutions, in spite of independent economic growth, in spite of differing geographical considerations, the government insists on lumping together the two territories because, in its eyes, it is expedient to do so.
For example, the minister said the Indian and Innuit population of the two territories is higher, in relation to other inhabitants, than in the provinces. He might be close to being accurate had he referred only to the Northwest Territories, but his statement is far from accurate in the case of the Yukon. It would be truer to say that the ratio there is the same as it is in the provinces; or not very much higher, at the most. So I have very little sympathy with this argument which is constantly advanced by the government.
I turn now to another matter on which the minister might care to comment in his closing remarks. As I understand it the joint committee of the House and the Senate recommended that legislation be implemented to provide Senate representation for each of the territories. It is also my understanding-and this might well be inaccurate- that the BNA Act requires that representation in a province shall not fall below two members for each position in the Senate. I understand, too, that under the Interpretation Act the territories are interpreted as meaning provinces; they are included in the term "provinces". I am wondering whether constitutionally, if we pass this legislation, the government would be obliged to bring in a bill which would not only provide for increased membership in the Senate but also for increased membership in this chamber. This problem was raised during the sittings of the joint committee, but I thought the minister might cover the point in his closing remarks.
Before the present hon. member for Northwest Territories took his seat in this chamber, when that constituency was represented by Gene Rheaume, he and I vigorously asserted the need for two members in the House of Commons to represent the Northwest Territories. I am not advancing this view with respect to the Yukon, but I certainly do so with respect to the Northwest Territories where an extra seat is desperately needed. It is impossible to travel in the far north without appreciating the vastness of this land. Here is a constituency almost 1,300,000 square miles in extent. Do hon. members realize how long it would take to get around it? My own route takes me
26,000	linear miles and I estimate the hon. member for the Northwest Territories would have to travel between five and eight times that distance to visit the communities which I believe a member is obliged to visit at least once between elections.
I have heard arguments advanced in connection with possible changes to the Canada Elections Act and expense allowances made available to candidates. If anyone can
March 18, 1974

tell me how in a 60-day period the hon. member can be expected to travel through that vast expanse of 1,300,000 square miles without spending a good deal of money, far beyond what the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Harney) would spend, my understanding would be expanded. It is simply impossible. Thus, I was glad to hear the minister's, on introducing the bill, leave the inference that the government was at least giving favourable consideration to introducing legislation which would give the Northwest Territories an additional member.
The hon. member for Northwest Territories appears to be opposed to the principle of a senator being appointed from the Northwest Territories because, he says, he is opposed to appointing people to any legislative body. I admire that assertion as far as it applies to the Council of the Northwest Territories. I would accept nothing less myself.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But you would accept a seat in the Senate.


Erik Nielsen: I would not accept a seat in the Senate. I can tell the hon. member that immediately, unequivocally and without reservation. I am not so sure about the desires of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in that regard, because he has colleagues in the other place thanks to the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the previous one.


An hon. Member:: Who are they?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I think we are now getting away from the bill. The hon. member should address himself to the Chair, and if other hon. members wish to ask him questions, he should agree to give way or not.


Erik Nielsen: I said at the outset I would accept any or all questions-from the seat or from the feet, it makes no difference to me. We were discussing this bill and the question of Senate appointments. The question was asked, who were the colleagues of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I was about to reply when Your Honour intervened. I can recall a very vociferous member of this House during my early days here, in the form of the hon. member for Assiniboia. He was the leader of his party and he is now in the other place, thanks to the government on the benches opposite.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is no colleague of ours.


Erik Nielsen: Let me put it this way: he used to be a colleague and he used to be leader of that party. Perhaps that last remark of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre explains his demise.
What I was about to deal with was the rather fallacious argument of the hon. member for Northwest Territories. I agree that there should be a wholly-elected council in both territories and I agree that there should be a wholly-elected executive committee. But members of the other place are not elected. We have this system written into our constitution, whether we like it or want to change it, and
The Senate
the only way we can attain any northern representation in the other place so as to make the north wholly representative in this Parliament of Canada is by means of appointment.
I, for one, applaud the opportunity to double the representation from my constituency in the Parliament of Canada, and that is what it would mean. I should think the hon. member for Northwest Territories would also welcome eagerly the opportunity to double the representation of his constituency in the Parliament of Canada by adding a member to the other place, and that is exactly what this would mean.
While the minister said it much more briefly than I have, the truth of the situation as he has pointed it out is indisputable. I am wondering about the situation, though, as I have heard a number of rumours in the Yukon, although I do not know whether similar rumours have been making the rounds of the Northwest Territories. These rumours sometimes have a habit of coming close to the truth, and I wonder whether the minister has any knowledge that consideration has already been given to possible appointees from those territories in anticipation of the support this party will give this bill. Being a government bill, it is going to pass.
For instance, there might be an appointment of a native person from the Northwest Territories, or one of Inuit origin. There are rumours in the Yukon that perhaps one who has suddenly become closely associated with the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) might be considered. There is some small dissatisfaction with the commissioners in both the territories, and the rumour is abroad that perhaps the only way we can get rid of these unpopular people in the north is to shoot them off to the Senate.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Is that why the hon. member is supporting the bill?


Erik Nielsen: No, I support the bill because it means doubling representation from the north in this Canadian parliament and because while we have this system we should be represented in both Houses. Why in the world should Canadians living above the sixtieth parallel be left out? Other provinces are represented in the other place, so why should not the two northern territories have equal representation with other Canadians? The NDP may look at this as something less than a right, but my view is that if we are going to participate in parliament as we now have it, and participate fully-which means full representation-such full representation has been too long in coming.
I am not often known to compliment any minister, let alone a Liberal minister or anybody in the Liberal Party, but I am afraid I am weakening. I am afraid the urge is upon me to compliment the minister and his government for bringing in this measure tonight, and that is a rare thing for me to do. This is a final recognition they have come to. Perhaps they have been dragged, kicking and screaming, to the conclusion that there is something in the bill that has stood in my name for so many years in respect of full representation. That realization is upon them and they have at last placed before this House a measure which will accord true and full representation to all

March 18, 1974
The Senate
Canadians including those living above the sixtieth parallel.
I urge the hon. member for Northwest Territories to reconsider his position because I do not think the views expressed by him tonight are in any way shared by his constituents.


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) speak in favour of the bill to establish members in the Senate representing the Northwest Territories and the Yukon territory in the Parliament of Canada, I began to feel that the hon. member was preaching for a call. I wonder what makes this member so interested in creating two appointed positions in that archaic institution which has no real justification in respect of actions, policies and responsibilities of parliament. Surely when the hon. member for Yukon preaches for a call to the other place, as he has tonight, this government made up of Grits ought to consider withdrawing its bill. Surely the Indian and Eskimo people, as well as citizens who have left my area and other parts of the country, in a sense to take part in an adventure in the north, have the right to expect elected representatives in this parliament under our democratic system, rather than some kind of paternalistic appointment to the other place. What a preposterous suggestion!
The province of Saskatchewan has known the kind of discriminatory action that has taken place in the context of national policy since it became a province, yet surely it should expect six representatives in the other place to give them the logical representation about which the hon. member for Yukon has spoken tonight. Who are these representatives? I suggest they are a bunch of doddling fools who sit in the other place and collect pay cheques. They sit there regardless of their background and never represent the interests of Saskatchewan unless they do so in respect of some select corporate interest in that province.


An hon. Member:: Senator Argue will not like you.


William George Knight: The hon. member for Yukon can make his appeal for a call to the other place but I suggest to him that, in terms of his action in this chamber, he is a relatively active member and I would hate to see him go to heaven so early.


Erik Nielsen: I don't think I will ever make it there.


William George Knight: The question of redistribution was eloquently introduced to the committee on privileges and elections by the government House leader. The principle outlined by that hon. gentleman gives us the framework within which we can assure representation of rural and geographic areas whether they be of the magnitude of the constituency of the hon. member for Northwest Territories or of the magnitude of the constituency of Assiniboia. The people in those areas have the right to representation in parliament, particularly in this House where the decisions are made. This is the kind of representation they must have in order that their views can be expressed in this place and, perhaps more importantly, in order that their representative can communicate with them.

I suggest that if we send a man to the other place, we might as well be sending him to Florida. As a matter of fact, some of them spend three or four months a year there anyway. We might as well be sending a man to the Turks and Caicos Islands.


An hon. Member:: That is an unfortunate analogy.


William George Knight: I make that suggestion because this in no way gives representation to the people of the north. As a young man I used to listen to speeches made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when he came to our community. I am quite prepared to admit that I used to sit in the back rows and listen to him speak about his vision of the north. Maybe in the context of that time he was ahead of us in that regard, because now as we enter the latter part of the 1970s and the early 1980s we are in a period when a vision of the north is quite applicable. The people of these areas expect to have the kind of representation that can speak out and protect their interests. They do not want representing them people who have no legislative power. They want people who are in this House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, the Senate is defunct and will continue to be defunct even if the hon. member for Yukon should be in it. The people of the north, like the people of the west, the maritimes or smaller regions of this country, expect representation by voice in this House of Commons so that their representatives could be recalled should they disagree with the policies they espouse. Further, the hon. member said that there is a rumour that this Liberal government-surely he has been watching this Liberal government for a long time-might consider shooting the commissioners off to the Senate. I am sure the people of the Northwest Territories and the people of the Yukon are not interested in having a government, I do not care what kind of government or what party, with the power to pick two men who may by entirely unpopular in the hon. member's area and appoint them to the other place.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question?


William George Knight: If the hon. member wishes to ask a question later, I will certainly accept it. I believe there is a rumour that a certain individual has been going around parliament suggesting on behalf of the Liberal Party that the hon. member might be appointed to the other place. It is a possibility. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) espouses opinions like a Tory, but she also espouses the position of being some kind of progressive, or at least she leaves that impression, and then comes here tonight and in an utterly impossible turnabout position takes regressive action, after this afternoon supporting the idea of an elected council, and supports the idea of appointed senators from the Northwest Territories. The hon. member, in her progressiveness, suddenly found out she is not only progressive but conservative at the same time.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Indeed I am.
March 18, 1974


William George Knight: I ask the Conservative members in this minority parliament to stop this kind of bill. They call on us to support what they and the Liberal minority are going to support. In this position of balance of power they are going to wield the power to give two individuals authority over their people and appoint them to the other place, rather than as responsible elected representatives from the northern areas.
In my view, in this decade this northern area will become the focal point of almost all the political, economic and social controversy that there will be in this chamber. This will develop because of the potential mineral wealth and resource development in the area. With that in mind, and having in mind the interest of the people who live there, we cannot allow ourselves to be placed in the position where we appoint people who are not responsible to those who live in these areas to look after their interests. I say that in the next decade our northern area will be of such significance that in this chamber the hon. member for Yukon and the hon. member for Northwest Territories, or whoever may come after them, may well hear more debate in respect of their areas of the country than we today hear about boxcars. I believe that is the kind of discussion this nation will have. What the right hon. member for Prince Albert spoke of as a vision of the north will become more and more applicable in the next decade.
The people who live there now, those who have made it their way of life, and those whose way of life it always has been, should have responsible and elected representatives in this House who can be recalled, rather than two appointees sitting in Ottawa for six months, sitting in Florida for four months and then spending two months worrying about the people of the north.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, before the hon. member resumes his seat, may I ask him a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Does the hon. member agree?


William George Knight: I agree.


Erik Nielsen: Since, whether we like it or not, we have the other place, since other parts of Canada are represented in the other place and since it is not yet abolished and is part of the Parliament of Canada, would the hon. member deny the two northern territories representation in this part of the Parliament of Canada until such time as the other place is abolished?


William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member know that this party is not represented in the other place? Regardless of what he may think, the other place is not representative of the people as a whole, no matter whether they are appointed from the province of Saskatchewan, the Northwest Territories or the Yukon. The best thing we can do for the ordinary people of this country is to abolish that place once and for all.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, if this little debate we are having today does nothing else, at least it will put this chamber in its proper perspective because, very obviously, while the bill we have before us is in the name of a member of the government, its only
The Senate
defenders appear to be sitting in what are sometimes called the official opposition benches. I think that illustrates very well the point that when it comes right down to it, in parliament the Liberal-Conservative combination sits in one part of the House and those of us who sit over here really form the opposition.
Be that as it may, the bill was introduced by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), and in the few remarks he made when introducing the bill he referred to the fact that this was not the first time in the history of Canada when it had been proposed that there should be in the other place representatives from the Northwest Territories. That brought to my mind the fact that what is sometimes referred to as the queen city of the plains was once the capital of the Northwest Territories, and that my mother went to normal school there in those days in order to learn to be a teacher in the Northwest Territories. I suppose, although I do not remember her ever mentioning it to me, that she had the benefit of the representation at that time of a senator from the Northwest Territories.
In due course, not very long before I arrived to become a Canadian, the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan were born and the idea of having members from the Northwest Territories in the second chamber apparently disappeared at about that time. In my humble observation I have not noticed that either of the territories has suffered materially or spiritually in that interval through lack of an official voice in that place on the other side of this building.
The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) was making a great deal about the idea of a wholly representative Parliament of Canada and about full representation for the people of the territories. This brought to my mind the question or just what is representation in the other place. The province from which I come has six senators, so does Alberta, so does Saskatchewan and so does Manitoba. If one wants to suggest that British Columbia has full representation in the other place, I might be inclined to say that that was a satisfactory representation, but it is certainly not full representation on any geographical or population basis.
It strikes me as rather strange that in the approximately 20 years since I first came to this chamber, to the best of my recollection I have never heard one member of any party from British Columbia, from Alberta, from Saskatchewan or from Manitoba stand in the House and complain that the western provinces were not properly represented in the other place. To me, this gives a rather hollow ring to the eloquent plea of the hon. member for Yukon about full representation for the people of the territories, because obviously-and this should not be lost upon the House-the question of representation in the Senate is a small thing to the people of the four western provinces since not one member from any of those provinces, to the best of my recollection, has ever seen fit to rise and complain about any degree of underrepresentation in the other place.
I did a quick calculation out of curiosity and, based upon the fact that New Brunswick has ten honourable

March 18, 1974
The Senate
senators in the other place, I asked myself what full representation in that place would be for the western provinces. On a rough calculation, based on the 1971 census and on the same population ratio as New Brunswick, I found that British Columbia would have 34 senators, Alberta 25 senators, Saskatchewan 14 senators, and Manitoba 14 senators, making a total of 87. When I hear the hon. member for Yukon and his colleagues in the Conservative Party suggesting that there should be 87 senators from the four western provinces, then I will begin to think they are doing something more than speaking tongue in cheek about full representation.
I thought I would like to take part in this debate briefly to make clear that so far as I am concerned, the hon. member who tonight has shown the soundest common sense in stating the needs and the interests of the people of the Northwest Territories and the territory represented by the would-be senator for the Yukon is my colleague, the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth). He put this whole matter into perspective when he suggested that it is not wasting more than five minutes of the time of the House to say: a plague on the whole idea.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to some of the speeches that have been made this evening concerning the provision in this bill for senate representation for the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. I think that there is a fundamental point at issue here which members of the NDP who have spoken against the legislation do not seem to understand. If you wish to have a region which is as isolated as the Northwest Territories or the Yukon brought into the full stream of public politics of your country, it seems to me you must provide adequate access to all institutions of your government.
The Senate, whether or not the NDP likes to admit it, is part of the government of Canada. Senators are members of parliament. In spite of the fact that my friends are huffing and puffing and threatening to blow the house down, the Senate is there and is likely to outlast the NDP as a political force in this country. Furthermore, even when the House of Commons and the Senate had a joint special committee to look into the constitution of Canada, one of the things that was most surprising of all was that there was very little criticism of the Senate, and indeed there was a multitude of proposals not to weaken the Senate or do away with it but to strengthen it and make it a more powerful force in Canadian politics. As a result of some of the recommendations which were made by that committee and other hon. members who have put forward bills from time to time, the government has decided to implement the recommendation to provide Senate representation for the Yukon and Northwest Territories.
The first point I started out to make was that you have to provide adequate access to the instruments of government, the Senate being one of them. Far more important, or as important to me as the question of adequate representation, is presence by the residents of the north in ' the civil service of Canada. One of the things that concerns me is that if any particular region is to be properly represented at all levels of the decision-making process, it must have representatives in all the facets that go to

making decisions which affect the country. We just cannot have a system where the government is run by a particular group of people, where the civil service is not representative of the various groupings that make up our country-and this is only the beginning of a new thrust in government policy to bring the Northwest Territories and the Yukon more into the mainstream of Canadian life.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), who introduced the bill, made the point that the possibility of additional seats in the House of Commons for the Northwest Territories would be discussed during discussions on the redistribution of parliamentary seats, a matter which is about to be again before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I would think the representatives of those areas now in the House of Commons would attend those meetings and press their case as best they can. I am sympathetic to the idea of an additional seat for the Northwest Territories.


Erik Nielsen: Would you vote for it?


John Mercer Reid: I think I would vote for it, and I think there is a possibility of such a situation coming about. However, I think it is totally absurd that, while we are discussing improving the position of the north in the House of Commons, we do not take advantage of the same opportunity to improve its position in the other legislative institution of government, the Senate of Canada.
Whether the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Knight) likes to admit it or not, the Senate does have equal legislative power with the House of Commons except for the power to introduce money bills. That power belongs only to the House of Commons. But under our constitution the Senate can and has turned back money legislation that was introduced in this House. I refer the hon. member for Assiniboia, who is a young man, to the customs and excise measures turned down by the Senate in the Diefenbaker years.


Erik Nielsen: And the parks bill.


John Mercer Reid: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has properly mentioned the parks bill. The problem the NDP have with this piece of legislation is that it affects one of their weak points. That weak point is their commitment to the doctrine that the Senate does not serve any useful purpose. Sometimes the NDP are reasonably flexible, able to keep in touch with what is going on in Canadian society. But this is one of those items where they have no discretion, no ability to distinguish between what is in existence and what they would like things to be. Therefore, they are against this bill, not because it is a bad bill, not because it does not do what it is supposed to do but because it sticks them where it hurts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was going to inquire whether by speaking at this time the minister's parliamentary secretary had closed the debate, but apparently he has opened up the debate. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I confess that I have wracked my brain to try to

figure out why we are debating this bill tonight. The government House leader realized, and he told some of us, that there was a meeting he had to attend and that that would take him out of the House. He also realized that the Canadian Labour Congress is holding a reception, following the presentation of its brief to the government earlier today, and that that would take a few more members out of the House. He also probably realized that because the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada is holding its annual meeting, that would take all the good Tories out of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Why are your fellows not here?


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no secret about it. I just referred to the reception being held by the Canadian Labour Congress. A number of my colleagues are there, and I suspect that there might even be one or two Tories there as well. At any rate, I suppose the government House leader realized that this was not a night for anything heavy or serious and that we might as well take something that would at least make the evening entertaining and amusing. If we have treated this bill in this debate with some derision, Mr. Speaker, frankly that is how we feel about it.
I have enjoyed some of the things that have been said. I liked the attempt of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) to suggest that something more important should be under discussion, and she got in at least a passing reference to the high cost of living. But, Mr. Speaker, I suppose that is what this bill does-it will enable two persons to cope with the high cost of living because the two who will get these appointments will receive $18,000 salary per year, and a $4,000 tax free allowance per year until they are 75 years of age.


Erik Nielsen: And a voice in parliament.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Oh come, come-a voice in parliament! My hon. friend has been mouthing that all evening, either from his feet or his seat, and I suppose he takes encouragement from some of the things said by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid).
I rather like the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River. He is up there at the top of the western part of Ontario adjoining the province of Manitoba. He sits alongside my hon. friend from St. Boniface. By the process of osmosis he picks up some good ideas and a reasonable measure of decency. But I heard him say tonight that we should bring the north into the Senate so as to bring the north into the full stream of the public politics of Canada. Mr. Speaker, I know I should not call attention to the fact that you yourself are grinning, but you have no choice. The Senate-the full stream of the public politics of Canada? Come, come. Don't even try to tell the senators that; they know better. It seems the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River has got streams on the brain.


An hon. Member:: Streaks?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Streaming, not streaking. They don't do that in the Senate.
The Senate


André Ouellet: Yet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He said that this was bringing the north into the mainstream of Canadian life. Mr. Speaker, even on a night when we are sort of filling in the time because there are not many members here, please let him not give us that line that it is bringing a section of the country into the mainstream of Canadian life by putting it in the other place. How could anyone mouth such a sentiment?
Then he said another reason for wanting to bring the north into the Senate was to give it adequate access to the instruments of government. That is not the way I read the Senate. Mind you, if it is true, if some of the gentlemen and ladies over there, with their corporate directorships and so on, have access to the instruments of government that we do not know about, maybe this should be brought out and discussed in connection with conflict of interest. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not the mainstream of Canadian life over on the other side of this building. That is not the full stream of the public politics of Canada. That is a group of retired, privileged people who enjoy a salary of $18,000 a year and $4,000 a year tax-free expenses from the time they are appointed until they are 75 years of age, and there are a few of them over there who were appointed before that 75 year age limit was established and they go on for life.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Don't get touchy about age.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not
embarrassed about my age at all; I enjoy it. Not many weeks ago I had a debate on radio with one of my personal friends over there. I call them personal friends even if I do not respect them for being senators. I made the statement that not more than 20 or 25 of them over there were really working at the job and my friend, the senator, did not challenge that at all. We know when we go over there. How many are there? Of course, some good work is done in committees. But you do not need to keep 102 and, after this bill goes through, 104 Canadians on the the payroll of this country just to get some committee work done now and then even by the excellent and hardworking 25 or 30 members of the other place who may be on the job.


Erik Nielsen: Do you think they will pass this bill?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Senate? Should we have a pool on how long they will take? I will put my nickel on five minutes. Mr. Speaker, now that I have said that, they will probably make sure that they take at least ten.
The hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has been making a lot out of the fact that the Senate is there and, since it is there, should not the north be in it? Mr. Speaker, you do not correct a wrong by compounding it-by making it worse. If it is wrong in this country to have a body of individuals with authority to take part in the making of laws without any responsibility to the people of this country-if it is wrong to have 102 of them, it is all the more wrong to have 104.

March 18, 1974
The Senate


Erik Nielsen: We can at least make it representatively wrong.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not sure what kind of representation they would get. In my view there are 25 or 30 over there who work, who are around this building at weekends and at night as I am-but only a handful. By the law of averages, two more will produce about one-third of a person so far as work is concerned.
I think my hon. friend from the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) hit the nail on the head when he said we do not want senators from the north appointed without responsibility to anybody; we would far rather have one more MP. I am glad to see there is a going notion in all parties in the House that the time has come for that cry to be heard, particularly in an area the size of that which the hon. member for Northwest Territories represents.
The hon. member for Yukon says, let us have representation. Mr. Speaker, it is an insult to the northerners to say they would be represented if they had two appointed people in the other place. He himself is not sure who they would be and, as is perfectly consistent with the course of history, he thinks these appointments may well be used to kick upstairs some individuals who are difficult and embarrassing. Many times has that been used in the provinces when somebody in the cabinet has to be dismissed. Once upon a time we had a Deputy Speaker whom Mr. King could not stand, so he put him in the Senate.


Erik Nielsen: A few cabinet ministers, too.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was never done to a Speaker but in my early days it was done to a Deputy Speaker. Do you call that representation, to have a place where the government of the day can put in a couple of people with whom it is having trouble up in the north?


Erik Nielsen: It is equality of treatment of all Canadians.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This business of letting the northerners have all the things we have in southern Canada can be carried a bit far.


Erik Nielsen: What is wrong with that? We are Canadians.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Well, down here we have all kinds of pollution; shall we give that to the north as well?


Erik Nielsen: You can keep that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have urban sprawl and traffic problems.


Erik Nielsen: Keep all those.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have all kinds of things in southern Canada that they do not have in the north. Is that any reason why they should have them? In the same vein, we have Senators. Is that any reason why they should have to bear them as well? Not at all. After all, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yukon who has got in bed with the Liberals for the purpose of getting this bill through-[DOT]


Erik Nielsen: I might even go further.


Stanley Howard Knowles: With the new hairdo that the hon. member has, I do not know what he might do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, to me it is an insult to the northerners to say that this means anything to them. As my hon. friend with the new hairdo has said, it will be a matter of appointments made by the government of the day and any chance of having real representation just is not in the picture. Even if they did appoint persons, who might be true northerners-and my friend the hon. member for Northwest Territories says that no self-respecting northerner would accept such an appointment-once such a person got there, like all the rest of the senators he would be responsible to no one. No senator in the other place today is responsible to any group of people in Canada. He is not even responsible to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who recommended his appointment to the Governor General. He is there on his own until age 75, yet he has his say in the political processes of this country.
I have said it is a bit of an insult. We are not unknown around this place to quote things we have said in the past. I have heard it done by some others and I am reminded of something I said in front of radio and television reporters on the question of the Senate. They were quizzing me quite thoroughly on my opposition to the Senate and I was laying down the law that I had no use for it. Finally a sharp journalist said to me, "Mr. Knowles, would you feel the same way about the Senate if M. J. Coldwell or Mr. Douglas were over there?"


Erik Nielsen: Or Hazen Argue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The question was put to me the way I put it, Mr. Speaker. The name the hon. member has mentioned does not figure in this story. It does not figure at all as far as I am concerned. He has a new hairdo, too. At any rate, when the reporter said to me, "Mr. Knowles, would you not feel happier about the Senate if M. J. Coldwell or Tommy Douglas were over there?" I simply said, "M. J. Coldwell and Tommy Douglas are two of my best friends and I resent the insult that they should even be thought of for the other place." I submit, therefore, that those of us who have any interest in the welfare of the northern people of this country should look upon this thing with the derision that we are giving to it tonight, that it is an insult to them of the first order.
I am interested in the fact that although there is a direct reference in the bill to a senator being named for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, it seems to be coupled with that special power that is in the British North America Act which enables the government to pack the other place. It is not necessary any more; one side has such an overwhelming majority there is no sense in packing it. When the Tories did get control of this House, and started appointing people to the Senate, their time ran out before they got anywhere. Even when the Tories were in power they could not get back their majority. But there is a provision in the British North America Act that the government of the day may appoint four or eight extra sena-
March 18, 1974

tors at any time; it cannot be fewer than four or more than eight. It has to be one or two from each of the regions.
It is interesting that the power to appoint senators from the north is put in that part of the British North America Act that gives government power to make extra appointments over and above the normal number. That is why we are kicking around these figures. We are talking about a Senate which shall consist of 104 members but with a maximum possible membership of 112. These extra eight have never been appointed, but the authority is there.


Erik Nielsen: That answers the question I raised with respect to membership in the Commons not falling below two for each senator.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought that was an argument like other arguments I have heard the hon. member for the Yukon make: it did not really hold any water. After all, if there is a senator for the Yukon and a senator for the Northwest Territories, I do not see how you can claim a floor any higher than one for each of those areas. I do not think this provision that would enable the government to appoint two extra senators for the west, two for Ontario, two for Quebec and two for the maritimes or the Atlantics-at the moment I am not sure whether it is restricted to the maritimes or the Atlantics- will help. Anyway, who wants it? As my friend for Northwest Territories says, certainly no self-respecting northerner wants it.
Mr. Speaker, one of the things that amuses me about what the government has done tonight is that-I know that my friends to the right, the good Tories who are here, will bear me out-time and again, when we ask for some important piece of legislation which would deal with the high cost of living, pensions, veterans or what-have-you, we are given the stock answer, "We will have to see if there is parliamentary time." Apparently there is not enough parliamentary time for something that is really important. Yet the government can find parliamentary time for as unimportant an operation as bringing the move into the mainstream of Canadian life, bringing the move into the mainstream of the public politics of Canada, giving the north adequate access to the instruments of government.
I know it is risky saying these things because the sarcasm in one's voice too often will not be evident in the black and white on the pages of Hansard. I suggest that the best case for showing why this whole proposition is ridiculous and should be treated with derision was made- I was going to say by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River, but on looking at the hon. member for Yukon I realize that maybe it was made by him. Anyway, it is a toss up. Since those two hon. members are in bed together on this, I will let them sort it out.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question on second reading referring the bill to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs?


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, when the bill was introduced by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), the incumbent of the chair, yourself I
Adjournment Debate
believe, asked the House whether the bill should be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development. According to my recollection, this afternoon there was general agreement in the House to refer both bills dealing with the north to that standing committee, rather than to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, simply because it would be more relevant to conduct consideration of the two bills in the same standing committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am advised by the table that the reference was changed by order of the House after the motion was put to the House by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). That was my understanding, The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is rising, I gather, to confirm what I have said.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to confirm what Your Honour just said. The hon. member for Yukon must have been dozing when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) proposed that the reference should be changed to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. The Chair at that time said something like, "I suspect I should ask the House whether there is agreement to this." A few members said "Agreed" and it was so ordered.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the House would agree to call it ten o'clock. If it is agreeable, we will proceed with the "late show".


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the "late show" be replaced by an early show?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, those of us who are taking part agree, provided that the ministers or members who are to respond are present. I see nobody here from the Department of National Health and Welfare.


An hon. Member:: Yes, somebody is coming.


John Mercer Reid: May I ask Your Honour if we can proceed with the second and third questions which are scheduled to be called? We could take the first question when the minister has the opportunity to come down.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
638
[Stage Direction]
March 18, 1974
Adjournment Debate

William George Knight: Mr. Speaker, on the day when we were asking questions in this House relating to the severe and critical problems affecting transportation in Canada, I directed a number of questions to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand), to which I feel I was given inadequate answers. I therefore hope that tonight the parliamentary secretary will answer some of the questions relating to problems in the movement of grain in the prairie regions.
According to the president of the National Farmers Union, we stand to lose $603 million by the end of the current crop year. According to my own figuring, we stand to lose in the neighbourhood of half a billion dollars. Regardless of which figure we take, in the one year when prices for our commodities are highest on the international market we stand to lose most because of difficulties with our transportation system.
Part of our difficulty stems from the fact that as of February 22 this year there were 15,500 Canadian railway boxcars in the United States and 8,000 American boxcars in Canada. That is, there were twice as many Canadian boxcars in the United States as American boxcars in Canada. That being so, I asked the minister if he could advise the House what action would be taken to bring back those cars so they might be used for moving our commodities. Secondly, I asked the minister if the government was paying $3.43 million toward half the cost of repairing 2,400 boxcars used by the railways to move grain.
The fact was that as of February 22, 7,400 boxcars of our railway system needed to be repaired. The question I asked the minister, which was not answered, was what commitment had the railways in this country made to fix and repair the other 5,000 boxcars because at this point in time we are at least 11,000 cars short of requirements for moving our product to the international market? For example, consider what has happened at the port of Prince Rupert, where only 320 cars were unloaded this February, compared with 1,660 cars unloaded in February of last year.
The minister spoke of establishing a boxcar monitor, or a monitoring agent. He did not speak of a boxcar allocator, as proposed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and myself. Apparently he will know where in the country the boxcars are. That, of course, is a typically Liberal position. He will know where they are, but will not do anything to put them where they should be. I want the parliamentary secretary to tell us what powers will be given to this monitor or monitoring agent to make sure that these cars are in position to move our commodities.
The questions I directed to the minister about the difficult situation we face were as follows: First, what is being done to get back into our transportation system the Canadian box-cars presently being used in the United States? Second, what commitment have the railways made to repair and put in service the other 5,000 cars which need to be repaired? Third, what power will the so-called monitoring agent be given to force the railways to use these

cars as he sees fit for the movement of our products? Apparently his monitoring will tell him where the boxcars are. Mr. Speaker, that is not one bit different from what CN and CP have been doing all along. They know the location of the cars. They monitor that. However, they do not do anything about ensuring they are moving basic commodities to the international market. If there is going to be any monitoring, it has to be through an agent who has power to allocate.
Being a westerner, and having relatives in my area, I know the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) will want to move their grain. I look forward with interest to his response.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the number of Canadian railcars in the United States is always of great concern to both the railways and the federal government. However, the particular number of cars in the U.S. per se is not of real significance. What is of more concern is the speed at which these cars are returned to Canada once unloaded. Obviously, the greater the number of cars going to the U.S., the better our trade position with that country. We are not in disagreement with the figures the hon. member has stated. We would like, however, to offer a few words of explanation.
Canadian cars have a longer haul in the U.S. than U.S. cars have in Canada. This is due to the type of products hauled and the geography of the country. We tend to ship raw materials to points deep in the United States. The U.S. ship manufactured goods to the population centres along the border. In addition, the numbers of cars in the U.S. tends to increase according to the various business cycles. For instance, there was in February a marked demand for lumber in the U.S. The number of Canadian cars in the U.S. increased as a result, and this continued until some of these cars started to come back. During the past week the number of cars in the United States has decreased. This reflects the lumber cars now returning.
It should also be pointed out that 1974 is no worse than 1973 with respect to Canadian cars in the U.S. We are taking action, nonetheless. The railways have since January taken measures to expedite the return of cars to Canada. They have, for instance, requested an order from the American Association of Railways to ensure that United States railways return Canadian cars as rapidly as possible. There is a possible penalty if U.S. railways are found in fault.
I am sure the hon. member is not listening to the answer he has requested, but he can read it in Hansard tomorrow. In addition, the Canadian railways have very recently written to the presidents of major United States railways to request their co-operation in returning cars to Canada. This has had a significant impact on the reduction of Canadian cars in the U.S.
With regard to the hon. member's last question pertaining to repairs, this is being done at the present time through the co-operation of Canadian National Railways.
March 18, 1974


TRANSPORT-RAILWAY FREIGHT RATES-PROVISION OF INFORMATION TO WESTERN PREMIERS
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, my question was put to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mar-chand) on March 1, 1974. It had to do with the failure of the minister to honour the commitment he made to the western premiers in July, 1973, almost nine months ago, with regard to their complaints about inequities those provinces suffer at the hands of the railways. The Minister of Transport promised that the four western provinces would be supplied with information on the cost of shipping freight so they could prove their case that they were being discriminated against. That promise has not yet been kept despite the months which have gone by. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the minister promised they would force the railways to supply the provinces with the information they require.
What are the provinces complaining about? Let me give a few illustrations of the kind of discrimination they face. They feel that industrial development in the west has been inhibited by a freight rate structure which fails to recognize the federal government's expressed policy of regional economic structure. They say that the rate structure encourages the export of raw materials from western Canada and the import of manufactured goods to the detriment of western industrial development. They give illustrations. They point out that the statutory grain rates encourage producers to ship their grain from western Canada to the east where the grain is processed and then shipped back to the west. Because of the special rates for shipping raw materials, in this case grain, flour mills have been built and are operating in eastern Canada although the grain is grown in western Canada.
An example of the kind of discrimination they see every day is found in shipments from Winnipeg to Lynn Lake and Thompson, Manitoba. The distances are about the same, yet the cost of shipping petroleum to Lynn Lake is 30 per cent more than to Thompson. Why? Because there is no road into Lynn Lake and, therefore, no competition. The cost of shipping steel from Calgary to Hamilton is more than the cost of shipping steel from Hamilton to Vancouver. I presume that is because it is at least theoretically possible to ship the steel by boat through the Panama Canal. This is the kind of thing that has been going on for almost 100 years.
The premiers met in July, 1973. They made their case at the western economic opportunities conference. They were promised by the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport that they would see the railways supplied the necessary information to the four western provinces. On December 15, 1973, the Globe and Mail reported the Minister of Transport as saying the railways had until December 21 to comply with his request that they supply the western provinces with the necessary information. The minister said that if they would not comply, he would bring in legislation to force that disclosure.
The four western premiers met again about two weeks ago, February 28, 1974. They issued a statement in which they said:
Despite the public commitment by the Prime Minister that railway costs would be disclosed to the provinces, some seven months have passed without any substantive response by the Canadian Transport
Adjournment Debate
Commission (CTC) to the specific requests made by the federal Minister of Transport and the four western provinces ...
The reply of the CTC to the federal government's request for evaluation of 22 specific freight rate anomalies affecting the west has been recognized by transport ministers as incomplete and not responsive to the basic economic questions raised by the federal Minister of Transport.
They point out that the delay in achieving a reasonable solution to the rapeseed freight rate case, which has been before the CTC for nearly four years, is intolerable. The Minister of Transport received tremendous coverage a few weeks ago when he regretted the absence of a government transport policy. It is not surprising that the minister, who is supposedly responsible, could not get the railways to disclose the information the Prime Minister promised to the premiers. I suggest he should not delay bringing forward legislation which would require the railways to bring forth the information promised to the western premiers, and I urge the parliamentary secretary to take that message to the Minister of Transport.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the statement made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow): The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) has been quite frank with the House in outlining the difficulties facing the department. I think he is doing a tremendous job and that he enjoys the confidence not only of this House but of the people of Canada.
First, may I say we are referring here to railway costs, not to railway rates. Railway rates are freely available at all times from the railways or from the CTC.


David Orlikow: I am talking about costs.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I am talking about costs, too. If the hon. member did not hear me, I will repeat what I said. We are referring here to costs, not to rates. Railway rates are available at any time. Railway costs for specific movements, on the other hand, were always treated as confidential until the western economic opportunities conference and are protected by the Railway Act. At the western economic opportunities conference, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised that the federal government would arrange for a confidential government-to-gov-ernment exchange of railway costs. The provinces submitted to the minister early in October a test case consisting of six specific movements in respect of which they wished to ascertain costs. In reply, the CTC advised that such direct disclosure appeared not to be feasible because of legal requirements, and proposed in its place a cost committee the success of whose efforts would rest on voluntary disclosure by the companies.
On December 12, the minister wired the railway chairman asking them to state formally their positions on cost disclosure. Canadian National suggested that guidelines should be established with respect to the method, form and control of cost disclosure, such guidelines to be formulated by the CTC. The CTC established a special panel on cost disclosure, chaired by Mr. Benson. This panel set up a technical committee of CTC, ministry of transport, provincial and railway representatives. The panel and technical committee are to review requests for cost data
27398-41J

March 18, 1974
Adjournment Debate
and see that data is prepared in a form which the minister can convey to the provincial governments.
All the western provinces as well as the railways have agreed to the proposal and a meeting of the technical committee will take place in the next week or so. On March 1, the railways transmitted to the CTC actual cost data on the six specific movements mentioned in the minister's October letter to the CTC.
Although matters have not proceeded as quickly as the provinces would probably have liked, general progress has been made, and once the technical committee is functioning cost data can begin to flow. In the unfortunate event that this process breaks down-and we have no reason to believe it will-both the Minister of Transport and the Prime Minister are on record to the effect that they would resort to legislation to enforce disclosure if that were necessary.


SOCIAL SECURITY-OLD AGE SECURITY AND CANADA PENSION PLAN PAYMENTS-POSSIBILITY OF REDUCTION OF AGE OF ELIGIBILITY TO 60
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, unless something is done about it, I predict that when the next election comes, whether it is late or soon-


David Orlikow: Soon.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -one of the
questions all parties will have to face is this: What did you do in the twenty-ninth parliament about pensions at age 60? This is the reason I am raising this issue on every possible occasion. This is the reason for the question I put to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) on Friday, March 8, as recorded in Hansard at page 313. These were the words of my question:
In view of the deep concern and need of many Canadians between the ages of 60 and 65 and in view of the wide support in Canada for the proposition that pensions should be available at age 60, may I ask the minister whether the government is giving consideration to proposing amendments to the Old Age Security Act and the Canada Pension Plan to establish pensions at age 60 on a voluntary basis?
The next entry in Hansard reads as follows:


Marc Lalonde: I should like to assure the hon. member that there are many people below age 60 who are also in need of support. The policy of the government is to provide income supplementation and some form of guaranteed income to all people in need in this country without regard to age. Therefore, I do not plan to introduce a piecemeal amendment of the type the hon. member is proposing.
A further question and answer followed, saying much the same as was said in the first exchange. I should like to suggest to the minister that whenever any government is telling us the things it has done, it itemizes them piece by piece. That is the way most legislation in the social field as well as in other fields has grown in this country. It has been built piece by piece, stone by stone, as it were, so I am not fazed by the minister's statement that he does not want to do things on a piecemeal basis. That is what the Liberal Party has been doing in the field of social welfare since 1919.
The suggestion that there are other groups in need is one I confirm and endorse wholeheartedly. I welcome the steps the minister is taking in concert with his counter-

parts in the provinces to bring in something along the lines of a guaranteed income, something along the lines of providing supplementation for those who are at work but whose incomes are not sufficient to enable them to maintain a decent standard of living. But surely the minister is one Liberal in this House, even if he is the only one here tonight, who would agree that it is not good enough to talk about the needs of other groups, and then say we ought not to deal with the needs of one particular group.
He will have my full support in the other efforts he is making. At the same time, I urge him to give careful consideration to making pensions available at age 60, not on the same basis as old age security in the sense that everyone gets it, and now available at age 65, but certainly to all those we are out of the labour market or who are prepared to leave the labour market. I think the same should be done with respect to the Canada Pension Plan, and I see this change in these two pieces of legislation as one of the most important requirements in the field of social reform.
One of the reasons this is a matter of such concern and is so popular in this country is this: the pace of economic life has changed a great deal and there are a great many people over 50, or between 55 and 60, who find the economic rat race a little too much for them and feel they have the right to retire. There is also the problem in the many instances where one spouse is over 65 and the other is under that age. The solution to this, sometimes proposed, is that when one spouse gets the pension, no matter what the age of the other, the other should get it as well. I think that creates a problem. When one talks about a spouse under 65, then what about single persons under age 65, and so on? That problem would be largely solved in the average case of one spouse being three or four years older than the other if the person out of the labour market at age 60 could qualify for the pension.
So I put it to the minister again tonight, and I know from the answers he has made on previous occasions and from some of the comments he made today to the Canadian Labour Congress that he is ready to come up with arguments and reasons why we cannot do it. I suppose the real reason is that the Treasury Board does not agree at this time, that the Treasury Board feels the government did enough in this field during the last session. In any event, I appeal to the heart of the minister, which I believe is in the right place, and to his mind which I believe is aware of the political situation, particularly when I say to him that he should get moving, and especially that he should get the govermment moving on this urgent matter of pensions at age 60.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I always appreciate the remarks and the comments of the hon. member who is so well known across the country for his concern about senior citizens and pensions problems. I should first of all like to point out that it is not merely the Treasury Board that says we must be careful about public expenditures in this area, but also the Economic Council of Canada on which his friends and colleagues from the Canadian Labour Congress sit. Labour is well represented on this Economic
March 18, 1974

Council. The six labour members on that council did sign that report. It says that we must proceed over the next few years on the basis that increases in transfer payments should not exceed 11 per cent per year.
During the next election campaign, whenever it might be, I would, quite frankly, be sorry if a debate should take place on what has been done about pensions at age 60. I should hope that members of all parties would rather debate before the Canadian people what has been done for people in need in this country of all ages and in all categories.
This is a point I have been trying to impress upon various groups across this country and upon my colleagues in this House. The hon. member referred to people age 55 who feel not enough has been done for them and that they should be entitled to retire from the work force. I suggest
Adjournment Debate
that dropping pensions to age 60 will not answer the problems of those people. The hon. member refers to the spouse under age 65, but then we will have to consider the spouse under 60 and what we should do for her.
Let me repeat that what we must try to do is approach this question on a broader basis through income supplementation and guaranteed income, and in that way we can solve the problems of those age 60 and 65. Whether this is done through guaranteed income, through OAS-GIS payments or in other ways is, I submit, rather irrelevant to those people provided they get what is a fair deal in terms of guaranteed income or income supplementation. I think the suggestion that we should limit our attention to the idea of making pensions eligible to those at age 60, as if this were a panacea, will only create trouble and once more will represent a piecemeal approach.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.06 p.m.

Tuesday, March 19, 1974