1974-12-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think all hon. members may like to know that we have reached a settlement with the primary products inspectors and everyone will be back at work today or, at the latest, tomorrow morning at eight o'clock.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, before we leave motions, could the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) tell us more about the second part of his statement and indicate what the terms of settlement are? I ask this now so that we need not take the time of the House during the question period.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I do not know the final details. I know that the two parties reached an agreement but I do not know all the monthly payment details, and so on. I understand that the contract will be for 15 months and the increase will be 18 per cent over that 15-month period, plus other changes.


NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that a number of employees of the Northern Canada Power Commission have gone out on strike following the failure of the commission and the Public Service Alliance of Canada to come to an agreement on a new wage settlement, and in view of the fact that this situation presents a matter of some danger to public health and safety, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House instruct the Minister of Labour to immediately appoint a mediator in this situation and to dispatch him to the scene so that an agreement can be arrived at as soon as possible which will
satisfy all parties concerned and restore full power services to the northern communities affected.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion which, being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43, cannot be debated without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the motion, accordingly, cannot be put at this time.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-41, respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an
asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 20, 154, 176, 180, 294, 382, 455, 543, 578, 645, 662, 680, 699, 821, 836, 841, 848, 902, 914, 915, and 926 to 954 inclusive.
Mr. Speaker, if questions No. 150, 260, 270, 360 and 485 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
28543 - 53

December 4, 1974
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the total amount of LIP funds allocated in 1973-74 to constituencies represented in the House of Commons by members of the Cabinet?
2.	(a) What is the name of each constituency that was represented by a Cabinet Minister (b) what was the name of the Minister (c) what was the specific total of LIP funds allocated in each such constituency in 1973-74?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. $8,941,000.
(c) Funds allocated
(a) Constituency	(b) Cabinet Minister	1973-74 *Mount Royal, Quebec	Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau	157,000Eglinton, Ontario	Hon. Mitchell Sharp	111,000Cape Breton Highlands-	Hon. Allan J. MacEachen	865,000Canso, Nova Scotia	Westmount, Quebec	Hon. C. M. Drury	526,000Langelier, Quebec	Hon. Jean Marchand	409,000Ottawa-Carleton, Ontario	Hon. John N. Turner	92,000Saint-Maurice, Quebec	Hon. Jean Chretien	464,000Rosedale, Ontario	Hon. Donald S. Macdonald	529,000Hamilton East, Ontario	Hon. John C. Munro	127,000Hochelaga, Quebec	Hon. Gerard Pelletier	299,000Capilano, British Columbia	Hon. Jack Davis	270,000Rfcstigouche, New Brunswick	Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube	703,000Vancouver Centre, British Columbia	Hon. Ron Basford	1,022,000Burin-Burgeo, Newfoundland	Hon. Donald C. Jamieson	464,000Port Arthur, Ontario	Hon. Robert Andras	191,000Winnipeg South, Manitoba	Hon. James Richardson	410,000Saskatoon-Humbolt, Saskatchewan	Hon. Otto E. Lang	256,000Windsor West, Ontario	Hon. Herb Gray	172,000York-Scarborough, Ontario	Hon. Robert Stanbury	103,000Dollard, Quebec	Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer	255,000Etobicoke, Ontario	Hon. Alastair Gillespie	50,000Parkdale, Ontario	Hon. Stanley Haidasz	116,000Essex-Windsor, Ontario	Hon. Eugene F. Whelan	93,000Notre-Dame-de-Grace, Quebec	Hon. Warren Allmand	195,000Peterborough, Ontario	Hon. James Hugh Faulkner	150,000Papineau, Quebec	Hon Andre Duel let	156,000Cardigan, Prince Edward Island	Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald	267,000Outremont, Quebec	Hon. Marc Lalonde	272,000Ahuntsic, Quebec	Hon. Jeanne Sauv6	217,000Note: This breakdown is based on the address of the project sponsor. In many cases,	many persons hired
for LIP projects were resident in other constituencies and project activities took place in constituencies other than that in which the sponsor resided. These conditions applied particularly in the case of projects approved in urban centres, where there is considerable interchange and interaction bet ween constituencies.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What methods has the government devised to assess the effectiveness of retailing postcards and other commercial items in post offices?
2.	What is the conclusion of such assessments?
3.	In the last fiscal year, what were (a) the costs (b) the proceeds of retailing postcards and other commercial items in post offices?
4.	In the last fiscal year, was the practice of retailing commercial goods in post offices more successful in certain types of post offices and, if so, in what types was it most successful and in what types least?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. While the Canada Post Office has experimented with the sale in the past year or two of what may be termed commercial items, the sale of such products has since been discontinued. The sale of illustrated prestamped postcards is an extension of the practice of selling stamped stationary which the Canada Post Office has been engaged in for over 100 years. The first illustrated

prestamped postcards were issued in 1930. In selected postal outlets we are continuing the sale of postal related products and reporting systems are being refined to assist in the financial assessment of this limited product line.
2.	See 1 above.
3.	(a) and (b) Of the variety of postcards that have been sold by the Canada Post Office since 1871, the most recent, issued in July, 1972, bears full-colour provincial scenes which are enlargements of the postage impression on the address side of the card. Costs to date have been approximately $355,000 with proceeds from the sale of these cards estimated to be $700,000. As stated in 1, above, we are no longer involved with the sale of what may be described as commercial items.
4.	The experimental sale of commercial items was generally restricted to post offices in which a philatelic counter was located. Sale of such items were not normally conducted across regular post office counters. Therefore, as
December 4, 1974

only one type of post office facility was utilized there is no basis for comparison.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many Indian children attend elementary schools and how many attend secondary schools and, of these, how many are attending schools which are (a) purely Indian (b) integrated?
2.	How does the percentage of Indian students attending (a) elementary schools (b) secondary schools compare with the percentage of the whole population attending elementary schools and secondary schools?
3.	How many Indian students are attending universities or any other advanced educational institutions in each province?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: I.	Elementary Secondary	
	(1973-74) (1973-74)	
*(a)	24,536	862(b)	27,347	9,354The enrolment includes	non-registered Indians,	registered Indians,limits and other non-Indians.	2.	Indian Population	Whole Population(a)	(1972-1973)	(1972-73)54,040	3,568,891(b)	(84.3 per cent)	(67.4 per cent)10,003	1,725,733(15.7 per cent)	(32.6 per cent)
A small proportion of Indian Population might be non-registered and non-Indians.
Whole Population includes Indian population also.
Figures used are for 1972-73 fiscal year since these were the only ones available for Whole Population.
	University	Other
Maritimes	54	23Quebec	161	128Ontario	157	212Manitoba	309	131Saskatchewan	309	13Alberta	171	136British Columbia	106	199


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Of Indian students attending university in 1972-73, how many of those who began the first year completed the full course in each year?
2.	How many Indian students attending university in 1972-73 withdrew before the end of the academic year?


J. Judd Buchanan: 1. During 1972-73, 480 Indian university students completed their first year.
2.	During the same period, 138 Indian university students withdrew before completing their course.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Whittaker: What was the total amount of money given out in the Fitness and Amateur Sport Program to date (a) what was the total given out in the Program in the constituency of Okanagan Boundary and what percentage is this of the total distribution (b) what projects in the Okanagan Boundary, by name and amount were given in grants (c) how many were given grants in previous years and what amounts were given to them at that time (d) how many permanent jobs were created (e) what was the total amount of applications received from the constituency of Okanagan Boundary?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: $62,712,861. (a) With the exception of the grant-s-in-aid to student athletes, funds are distributed directly to national sport and recreation associations and to the Atlantic provinces and the Yukon and Northwest Territories. It is quite probable that individual athletes from the constituency of Okanagan Boundary have been supported in various competitions but this would be impossible to detail. Since 1971-72, Okanagan Boundary has received $17,500 in Grants-in-aid to student athletes. This represents .5 per cent of the total (distribution) since the inception of the granting program, (b) and (c) 1971-72: R. Advent, $1,500; 1972-73: George Athans, $2,000; B. Aynsley, $1,200; 1973-74: George Athans, $2,000; B. Ashley, $1,200; Greg Athans, $1,800; M. Bullock, $1,800; P. Hrdlitschka, $600; T. Irwin, $1,800; 1974-75: Greg Athans, $1,800; P. Hrdlitschka, $1,800. (d) The Fitness and Amateur Sport Program is not designed to create permanent jobs. Rather, it assists Canadian athletes to pursue both educational and competitive sport interests, (e) Information on unsuccessful applicants is not retained.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the public statement made by Mr. Gerry Che-evers, a member of Team Canada 1974, to the effect that he and other members of the Team found electronic snooping devices in their Moscow hotel rooms, is the Department of External Affairs aware of such incidents and, if so, how many such incidences occurred during Team Canada's stay in Moscow?
2.	Has the government made any protest to the Government of the USSR on this unwarranted invasion of privacy towards Canadian citizens and, if so (a) on what date was this protest made (b) by whom (c) to whom (d) what answer has been received and, if none, on what date is an answer expected?
3.	If the government has made no representations to the Government of the USSR on this matter and if the government has just become aware of the situation, will a full investigation be made immediately and appropriate action taken as a result?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The Department of External Affairs is aware that on October 9, 1974, allegations were made in the press that the rooms of Team Canada players in Moscow were bugged. The department has, however, not received any complaints about such activities and has no information at its disposal to suggest whether or not there is any substance to these allegations.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.
28543-53)4
December 4, 1974

Order Paper Questions


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What is the percentage penalty charged on wharfage accounts by the National Harbours Board that have not been paid per month?
2.	On what date was this rate established?
3.	What is the cumulative annual rate on such overdue accounts?
4.	Doer, the government feel that it is within and compliant to government policy to charge interest at these rates?
5.	Does this rate have the approval of the Cabinet and particularly the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?
6.	Is it the intention to adopt this rate of interest for other departments of the government that have accounts payable?
7.	On what date did the National Harbours Board determine that the vessel owners and operators should collect these accounts, as opposed to the Board collecting their own?
8.	Is any litigation underway with respect to these rates and, if so, what is the nature of the government's defence of these rates?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. The
applicable by-law provides for a penalty of 10 per cent on wharfage charges not paid within 60 days of the due date for each subsequent 30-day period. The concession to permit payment after delivery of the goods at the wharf is a convenience to the vessel owners, and the penalty is to prevent abuse of the privilege.
2.	The rate of 10 per cent became effective on November 1, 1968.
3.	If the penalty were applied in 12 consecutive months it would represent 120 per cent of the unpaid wharfage.
4.	The wharfage by-law makes no reference to interest.
5.	The wharfage by-law was approved by the Governor in Council prior to the establishment of the position of Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
6.	There is no knowledge of rates of interest that other departments of the government pay, if any, on their accounts payable or of any intention to change such practice.
7.	The wharfage by-law providing that wharfage charges shall be collected by the owner of the vessel has been in effect since May 9, 1966.
8.	Yes. The action is a claim by the board for the penalty charges pursuant to Section 14(1) (i) of the National Harbours Board Act and by-law B-3 issued thereunder.


Mr. Orlikow: Of the 1,673 teachers employed by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development for the year 1971-72, how many were of native origin (a) Indian (b) non-status Indian (c) Eskimo?


J. Judd Buchanan: (a) 222 Indian status, (b) Information not available, (c) 9 Inuit.


Mr. Herbert: For taxpayers with revenues (a) in excess of $200,000,000 (b) from $25,000,000 to $200,000,000 (c) from $5,000,000 to $25,000,000 what was the estimated intake and number of taxpayers audited for each of the years 1971-72, 1972-73 and 1973-74?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: While the information requested deals with taxpayers, our reply is based on tax return filers. Data for the ranges requested is only available for corporate returns. The accompanying table provides the information for corporations. "Intake" represents a reasonable approximation of intake of returns for the appropriate fiscal periods. "Tax Filers Audited" represents the number of filers of tax returns that were audited in each fiscal period.
Intake and Audits of Large Corporations Gross Income Range
(c) 5,000,000 to
1971-	1972 Intake
Tax Filers Audited
1972-	1973 Intake*
Tax Filers Audited
1973-	1974 Intake
Tax Filers Audited
*Intake for 1972-1973 are estimates. Actual data


Mr. Grafftey: 1.	What transport contracts have been awarded by the Department of the Environment to Lapointe Transport Ltd., 105 Industriel Blvd., Longueuil, Quebec, since January 1, 1972?
2.	What was the amount of the contract in each case?
id over	200,000,000	25,000,000$	$	*67	626	3,03939	264	78665	676	3,13540	253	77679	680	3,51748	306	888s not available.	3. Were reason?	public tenders called	in each case and, if not, for what


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Environment):: 1. No contracts have been awarded to Lapointe Transport Ltd. since January 1, 1972.		
2 and 3. Not applicable.		
[Mr. MacEachen.J
December 4, 1974


Mr. Grafftey: 1.	What transport contracts have been awarded by the Department of the Secretary of State to Lapointe Transport Ltd., 105 Industriel Blvd., Longueuil, Quebec, since January 1, 1972?
2.	What was the amount of the contract in each case?
3.	Were public tenders called in each case and, if not, for what reason?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1
None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Jones: 1.	How many times in each of the years 1963 to 1973 inclusive was the Moncton Airport used to handle international flights?
2.	Are there adequate services at the Airport available to service international flights and, if not, what additional services are required?
3.	Was any study conducted or were any requests received to have the Moncton Airport designated as an international airport and if so what action was taken on them?
4.	On what date is the Moncton Airport likely to receive international status?


Jean Marchand: 1.
Records are not available for 1963. 1964-16; 1965-9; 1966- 10; 1967-13; 1968-6; 1969-17; 1970-4; 1971-22; 1972-24; 1973 29. These flights were primarily general aviation and private aircraft with a small number of passengers per flight. The following additional charter flights, mainly diversions from international airports such as Halifax, are
recorded for the last three years only as 1971-12; 1972____22;
1973	12, and proportional numbers of diversions may also
be attributed to preceding years.
2.	No. Major expansion of ground handling, terminal and inspection services would be required.
3 and 4. A number of requests were received from the city of Moncton but investigation disclosed no necessity to conduct formal studies leading to designation of Moncton Airport as International; hence, no date for such classification has been established.


Mr. Jelinek: 1.	What is the mother tongue of all officials in the senior executive category (equivalent to the SX category in the Public Service) in Air Canada?
2.	How many of the officials in the senior executive category make over $25,000 per year?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Air Canada is interested only in the principal language of its employees, and does not keep records of their mother tongues. On this basis, English is the principal language of 34 of the 40 executive management of the airline and French is the principal of the other six.
Order Paper Questions
2. Information concerning salaries paid Air Canada executives has traditionally been treated as proprietary. To reveal this information while other Canadian airlines do not have to do so could be prejudicial to Air Canada's position in a highly competitive manpower market. Release of information covering terms of employment could also be damaging to the morale of the organization.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by Canadian National Railways Securities Trust (b) what would have been their aggregate salaries if all were employed for a full year (c) how many had salary levels of (i) $20,000 or more (ii) $35,000 or more (iii) $50,000 or more?
2.	What was the salary or the salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Corporation?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows; There are no employees assigned as such to Canadian National Railways Securities Trust. The work is done by employees of Canadian National Railways.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by Air Canada (b) what would have been their aggregate salaries if all were employed for a full year (c) how many had salary levels of (i) $20,000 or more (ii) $35,000 or more (iii) $50,000 or more?
2.	What was the salary or the salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Corporation?


Jean Marchand: The management of Air Canada advises as follows:
>[DOT] (a) (b)	1968	1970	1972	1974
Number of
Employees	16,582	17,568	17,443	20,969
Annual Payroll
Monthly x 12	134,792,388 174,412,992 209,491,860 273,880,740
1.	(c) and 2. Information concerning salaries paid Air Canada executives or groups of executives has traditionally been treated as proprietory. To reveal this information while other Canadian airlines do not have to do so could be prejudicial to Air Canada's position in a highly competitive manpower market. Release of information covering terms of employment could also be damaging to the morale of the organization.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1 What is the present status of the proposed revisions to the Indian

December 4, 1974
Order Paper Questions
2.	How much money has been allocated for this study?
3.	To whom has this money been given?
4.	When is the proposed completion date and will the proposal be tabled in the House of Commons or in the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development)! 1. The National Indian Brotherhood presented, at the end of October, proposed revisions of the Indian Act which had been developed under the sponsorship of the Indian Association of Alberta.
2.	The Department has allocated $225,000 for the study.
3.	The National Indian Brotherhood.
4.	The proposals submitted by the National Indian Brotherhood constitute, at this time, only a basis for discussion with the representatives of the Indian people. No decision has yet been taken whether the proposals will be tabled.


Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Does the Throne Speech reference to "further assistance to airports in small municipalities" as among "new initiatives that the government is prepared to undertake immediately" betoken an upgrading in the priorities for improvements of the Charlottetown Airport?
2.	Does the recent announcement that Air Canada will provide service to Charlottetown in April, 19V5 accelerate the pace of progress on said Airport improvement?
3.	What improvements and additions are now decided upon for the Charlottetown Airport and what dates will each eventuate?


Jean Marchand: 1. The
Throne Speech reference to "further assistance to airports in small municipalities" is generally relative to airports which are not owned and operated by the Ministry of Transport and is therefore not applicable to Charlottetown Airport.
2.	The extent of Air Canada requirements when they commence services to Charlottetown Airport in April 1975 is not yet known and is the subject of current discussions between Air Canada and Ministry of Transport officials. It is not anticipated, however, that immediate needs will be crucial and it is considered that future needs for incorporation into the airport master plan are of much more significance.
3.	The development of a master plan for Charlottetown Airport is in the final stages, with completion expected by early January 1975. The evolving plan and related discussions with provincial officials and the air carriers are largely keyed to the necessity for an up-graded passenger terminal and related facilities. The exact extent of these requirements will not be known until the plan is completed but there are current indications that a 3-4 year construction programme will be necessary. Implementation of the final plan will depend upon national priorities and the availability of funds. However, discussions with EPA and Air Canada are now underway to arrange a means of accommodating the increase in traffic expected. As well, a contract was awarded on November 7 to Schur-man Construction for the erection of a temporary control tower to be used until new permanent facilities are constructed as a result of the master plan findings.


Mr. MacKay: 
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Does the government contend that those islands commonly referred to as the Canadian Arctic Archipelago are part of territorial Canada?
2.	What nations have not recognized this claim in format terms?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Yes.
2. None. (Questions have been raised by the government of Denmark concerning a small rock formation known as Hans Island which is located approximately half-way between Ellsmere Island and Greenland in Kennedy Channel).


Mr. Forrestall: On what date and to what effect has Canada made representations to the Government of the United States with respect to the intended use by the United States Coast Guard of the 60,000 horsepower MAGB-10 and MAGB-11 to support planned commercial interests in the Canadian Arctic Archipelago?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No such representation has been made.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Prime Minister since April 4, 1967 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Prime Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of Privy Council):: Records are not maintained in such a manner as to provide an accurate answer to this question. The cost in manpower and time to undertake the very large amount of work which would be required to gather such detailed data as is obtainable for the period covered by the question, would be prohibitive.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the President of the Queen's Privy Council since April 22, 1963 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs since April 22, 1963 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of Public Works since April 22, 1963 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of Transport since December 18, 1965 when the distance travelled has
exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of Finance since December 18, 1965 when the distance travelled has
exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.

December 4, 1974
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the President of the Treasury Board since April 4, 1967 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Postmaster General since February 9, 1968 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources since April 20, 1968 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of Labour since April 20, 1968 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of Communications since April 20, 1968 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of National Revenu since July 6, 1968 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion since July 6, 1968 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration since July 6, 1968 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.
December 4, 1974


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of National Defence since July 6, 1968 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1- What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General since July 6, 1968 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of Supply and Services since December 22, 1970 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce since August 12, 1971 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of Agriculture since November 27, 1972 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Solicitor General since November 27, 1972 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Secretary of State since November 27, 1972 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs since November 27, 1972 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.
1934

December 4, 1974
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of Veterans Affairs since November 27, 1972 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of National Health and Welfare since November 27, 1972 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of the Environment since November 27, 1972 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Leader of the Government in the Senate since August 8, 1974 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Leader of the Government in the Senate on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.
(Mr. Sharp.)


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of State for Urban Affairs since August 8, 1974 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development since August 8, 1974 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	What is the total number of journeys taken by the Minister of State (Fisheries) since August 8, 1974 when the distance travelled has exceeded 100 miles?
2.	Who accompanied the Minister on each of these journeys?
3.	What type of transport was used for each of these trips?
4.	Who was the owner of each of the vehicles used?
5.	Who provided remuneration for the expenses incurred by the use of the particular type of transportation on each journey?


Mitchell William Sharp: See
reply to question No. 926 answered this day.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): What is (a) the name (b) the Canadian address of each successful applicant for teaching posts abroad with the Canadian Armed Forces in each of the years 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973 and 1974?
Return tabled.
December 4, 1974



CFB GAGETOWN-CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS

Mr. Howie: To whom and for how much money were any contracts awarded for the construction, renovation or maintenance of roads or buildings at CFB Gagetown since January 1, 1973?
Return tabled.



CUSTOMERS OF CANADIAN ARSENALS LIMITED

Mr. Kaplan: 1.	Who were the customers of Canadian Arsenals Limited in the past fiscal year?
2.	What was the value and nature of goods purchased by each such customer?
3.	If any such goods were purchased by the government or any agency of it for resale to third parties, who were such third parties?
Return tabled.



SECURITY STAFF OPERATING FLUOROSCOPY MACHINES AT AIRPORTS

Mr. Brisco: 1.	Do security staff at some airports in Canada, who are operating or monitoring a fluoroscopy machine for the purpose of examining hand luggage, wear film badges provided by the Radiation Protection Division of the Department of National Health and Welfare and (a) if not, for what reason do they not wear these film badges which are designed to indicate the amount of radiation to which the wearer is being subjected (b) if so, how often does the wearer receive a report from the Radiation Protection Division recording the amount of radiation the wearer has received?
2.	Do all security staff working in the immediate vicinity of the fluoroscopy units being used at various Canadian airports wear a film badge provided by the Radiation Protection Division of the Department of National Health and Welfare?
3.	Is there any danger that exposed or unexposed camera or movie films, contained in such hand baggage, might be fogged or otherwise unfavourably affected by this exposure to ionizing radiation?
Return tabled.



GRANTS, AWARDS AND FELLOWSHIPS GIVEN TO UNIVERSITY STAFFS

Mr. Holmes: 1.	How many grants, awards and fellowships have been given to non-Canadian university staff by (a) the National Research Council (b) the Medical Research Council (c) the Canada Council, from the 1970 to 1974 fiscal years?
2.	How many grants, awards and fellowships have been given to Canadian university staff by (a) the National Research Council (b) the Medical Research Council (c) the Canada Council, from the 1970 to 1974 fiscal years?
3.	For what reason does the National Research Council require Canadian citizenship requirements or landed immigrant status of students as an eligibility factor of application for post-graduate scholarships, bursaries or post-doctorate fellowships but does not require these citizenship conditions for university staff applying for grants and awards?
Return tabled.
Oral Questions



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 14 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.



COPIES OF ALL CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN FEDERAL AND MANITOBA GOVERNMENTS REGARDING USE OF HOUSING UNITS IN FORT CHURCHILL

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 14-Mr. Orlikow:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence between the government or any of its departments and the Province of Manitoba regarding the use of housing units now and previously owned by the Department of Public Works in Fort Churchill, Manitoba, from 1970 to 1974.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the very serious allegations made by a member of the Ontario legislature and the position taken by the Ontario solicitor general, is it the intention of the government to set up an independent inquiry into the operations of the SIU in order to fully and independently investigate the charges of violence and intimidation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague the Minister of Labour said some days ago, the RCMP has been asked to make certain inquiries into allegations that have been made. There is also a responsibility upon the province of Ontario in connection with infringement of the Criminal Code. My colleague, the Minister of Justice, is in touch with the province of Ontario to discuss the respective responsibilities.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question. In light of the
very serious charge that has been made which is to the effect that the SIU bragged that "we have a senior cabinet minister in our pocket"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
28543 - 5414

December 4, 1974
Oral Questions


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -am I to take it for granted that the government will want to have an independent inquiry with regard to that in order to clear the reputation of the members of the government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Is the Leader of the Opposition associating himself with these statements? Is he taking the responsibility for these allegations?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am taking notice of the fact that the charge has been made.


Mitchell William Sharp: By whom?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It has been made in the Ontario legislature and the statement has been attributed. As far as I am concerned, I thought the government would seize an opportunity to clear its name.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I simply wish to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether his government proposes to take any action with regard to clearing the slur that has been cast upon the members of the government.


Mitchell William Sharp: As I have just said, Mr. Speaker, the RCMP have been invited to investigate and are investigating any allegations that affect the reputation of federal officials or federal ministers. That is what they are now doing. The Minister of Justice is talking with the province of Ontario about the question involving the Criminal Code for which they have the responsibility of prosecution. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to make a charge that could be investigated here, let him make it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-DATE WHEN MINISTER OF LABOUR LEARNED OF TAPPED TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.


An hon. Member:: Two will get you three.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Because the Minister of Labour seems either unwilling or unable to make a voluntary statement in respect of these unfortunate allegations-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -can he tell us today the date on which he first learned that an alleged telephone conversation between himself and the president of the SIU was tapped by the Metro Toronto police?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member says I

refused to make a statement. That is utterly unfounded. I was the first-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carr Munro: Many members on both sides of the House were in this chamber a week ago last Thursday when I was the first to stand up and say that, after learning of these charges which had been made by this member of the Ontario Legislature I had asked the RCMP to investigate.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question!


John Carr Munro: I made several statements which any hon. member was free to note by reading the papers at that time.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With all respect to the minister, a suggestion was made as part of the question and the hon. gentleman has now refuted the preamble to the question, more, I think, as an answer to the question than as a question of privilege. I do not like to see this done by way of points of order or questions of privilege. I wonder if the minister would wish to address himself to the part of the question which remains as to knowledge about the tapping of the telephone.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Hees:: Let him answer.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I think the minister was rising on a point of order and directing himself to what he thinks were unwarranted allegations of mine in the first part of the question. In my view, the minister has not answered the question and I understand he now desires to answer it, in which case I might have a supplementary to ask.


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. With respect to the second part of the question, as the President of the Privy Council has indicated, I asked for an investigation by the RCMP. We have had, the Solicitor General has had an interim report from the RCMP.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question!


John Carr Munro: I am answering it but I want to be accurate in what I say. This interim report contained among its revelations the wire tap conversation between myself and Roman Gralewicz. I think I became aware of that some time last Monday afternoon.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-KNOWLEDGE OF MINISTER OF LABOUR OF INVESTIGATION WHEN CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION RETURNED
Allan Frederick Lawrence: My
final supplementary concerns the money apparently returned to the President of the SIU. Will the minister confirm he had no knowledge of any police investigation into matters relating to the SIU, and specifically to his own election campaign funds, at the time he returned those moneys?
December 4, 1974


John Carr Munro: At the time I returned the moneys to the SIU, I was aware generally that they were the subject matter of controversy. I made a value judgment as perhaps any hon. member of this House would. I am sure we all receive donations from corporations and perhaps from unions. I made a judgment that because there was controversy surrounding it, although I was not aware of the nature of the controversy, I thought it might be misunderstood if I kept this particular contribution and it was for this reason I returned it, not because I thought it was improper for any member of the House-


An hon. Member:: But you are the Minister of Labour!


John Carr Munro: Well, any minister of labour in the country might be suspect, then, having received moneys from a union to finance a campaign. If every member of the House is to be subjected to innuendo because of campaign contributions received at election time, perhaps we should all go before the Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Solicitor General. In view of the fact that the attorney general of Ontario is reported to have said that he sent to the federal Minister of Labour ten sworn affidavits regarding SIU violence, could the Solicitor General inform the House at what precise time the investigation into this situation was begun by the RCMP?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of these affidavits having been sent to the Minister of Labour. The first and only time since I have been Solicitor General that I was requested to investigate the SIU was last week, following the allegations of Mr. Shulman. Following those allegations, the Minister of Labour asked me to approach the RCMP about having a full investigation into those allegations, and they have been investigating ever since.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: If hon. members on the other side have questions I will answer them, but I guess the best they can do is laugh. As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the only time I was asked to have the RCMP investigate the SIU was last week, and they have been investigating ever since. I have received an interim report and the investigation is continuing. I have no knowledge of the ten affidavits.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-DISPOSITION OF TEN AFFIDAVITS SENT MINISTER OF LABOUR CONCERNING VIOLENCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Labour. If what the Solicitor General says is true-and I have no reason to doubt it-and he did begin the investi-
Oral Questions
gation last week, would the Minister of Labour explain to the House why he has not yet sent to the Solicitor General these ten sworn testimonials which were sent to him by the attorney general of the province of Ontario concerning violence by this union?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I can answer that. To my knowledge, the only reason they have not been sent is that I have not received them, and I am not aware that anybody else has received them. The RCMP investigation is carrying on and perhaps this will bring them forward. In the meantime, as the President of the Privy Council indicated, the Minister of Justice has been in touch with his counterpart in the province, and presumably through that contact we might obtain possession of these particular affidavits. They have not come at this time. I would welcome their coming, but at this time they have not come to my attention. I hope that the hon. member will accept this. I wish they would come. I should like to see them from the point of view of determining whether I should advise my colleague that some sort of further investigation other than the one already being carried on is warranted.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby on a final supplementary.


ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, in view of the precedent set by the appointment of Justice Norris as an industrial inquiry commissioner in 1962 to investigate waterfront violence and the role of the SIU specifically, and in view of the serious evidence, of which we are all now aware, of current violence on the waterfront, will the minister appoint another industrial inquiry commission immediately?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member would agree that there was instituted, within a very short time after these allegations were made, an RCMP investigation. I believe it is important that we get the results of this RCMP investigation and then make a judgment as to whether any type of further investigation of the nature suggested by the hon. member is warranted. I am just waiting for further revelations to come from the RCMP investigation, and I will keep this House, including the hon. member, fully informed.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Acting Prime Minister. Is it the opinion of the government that it is satisfactory practice for a member of the government to accept campaign funds from a union, the operations of which come under his jurisdiction as minister?

December 4, 1974
Oral Questions


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of Labour has said, we are going to have an investigation into all sorts of campaign contributions. Whether there is some reason that we should accept some and not others, let us make it general and not point the finger at any particular minister.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, of course the acting Prime Minister did not answer the question, so I will repeat it. Does the government consider it is proper practice for a minister to accept campaign contributions from a union, the operations of which come under his jurisdiction as the minister? This has happened and I am asking for the opinion of the government.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think this same question might be put to my hon. friend. When he was the Minister of Transport did he receive contributions from corporations?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to answer that question. When I was a minister of the government I did not accept campaign contributions from corporations or unions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, when I was the Minister of Transport I divested myself of any investments I had in transportation companies, and when I became the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I divested myself of all investments and put every cent I had into government bonds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Has the minister any other questions he would like answered?


An hon. Member:: Why don't you answer the question he asked.


George Harris Hees: I did answer the question.


An hon. Member:: No you didn't.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I have been accused of not answering the question. I did answer the question. I was asked whether I had received contributions from corporations or unions when I was a minister of the Crown. My answer was: No, I did not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
(Mr. Hees.)


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, during the investigation which has been taking place by the RCMP has the Minister of Labour been interrogated or interviewed by members of the RCMP, and has he sighed any statement in reference to matters that would concern him in the investigation?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, in respect of the SIU investigation by the RCMP, I have no way of knowing, nor should I know, the degree to which the RCMP, have investigated allegations against myself. I have no control over the RCMP, nor should I have such control. I have looked at the interim report.


An hon. Member:: Is that a public report?


John Carr Munro: I indicated earlier that I had seen the interim report which indicated certain material, the nature of which I have already revealed, in terms of the tape and so on, but nothing with reference to myself. I might add that the only charge which has been made in respect of myself is the charge by the member of the Ontario legislature which indicated that officials had been bribed. He did not name them. Then last night he said he did not mean bribery, he meant that certain officials were "cozy", so that is a little different situation in that particular context.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, let me quite clearly indicate that I do not believe there should be so much sanctimony shown here with regard to campaign contributions. There are ministers and there are members on both sides of this House who have received campaign contributions from corporations.


An hon. Member:: We are not Ministers of Labour.


John Carr Munro: It is no more improper for me to receive contributions from unions than it is for hon. members to receive contributions from companies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the minister is a little upset and did not understand my question which was a very simple one. During the investigation by the RCMP, which the Solicitor General dealt with today, the interim report of which the minister had read, was the minister of Labour interviewed by the RCMP, himself personally, in reference to this matter, and did he sign a statement prior to the investigation, or subsequent to it?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is no. In answer to the first question let me say that I would welcome an interrogation by them at any time they wish to conduct one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 4, 1974


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General.
Is he considering the possibility of introducing a bill similar to that adopted in the United States two weeks ago to allow Canadian citizens to verify and, if necessary, correct their files with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Hon. Warren AUmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, once I have examined the legislation introduced in the United States, I shall be able to reply to the hon. member.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question and possibly a supplementary for the Solicitor General, and my first question is directed to him in his capacity as the minister responsible for overseeing the investigation by the RCMP into Dr. Shulman's allegations. Why did he not disclose his connection with the SIU and the fact that he was not a disinterested party at the time he initiated this inquiry instead of waiting until after these facts were disclosed in a Toronto newspaper, and until after he had made a number of public statements-on the matter?


William Warren Allmand: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, I think I should point out to the House that I do not conduct investigations. They are carried out by the RCMP. The RCMP carries out hundreds and perhaps thousands of investigations each week without ever approaching me. Sometimes people ask me to request the RCMP to conduct an investigation. When that happens they conduct them completely independent of myself. I repeat, I do not conduct these investigations; I am not in charge of them and I do not have a veto in respect of such investigations.
As far as the nature of this matter is concerned, I think I was the first to reveal the fact that I received a donation from the SIU.


An hon. Member:: No, it was in the Toronto Sun yesterday.


William Warren Allmand: I revealed it, I think the day before. I forget exactly when I revealed it. Of course, if I had been asked in the House I would have revealed it here.


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


William Warren Allmand: As far as I am concerned, whenever I was asked to reveal information I did so. I never made any attempt to hide it at any time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF INTERIM REPORT OF ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I would refer the minister to section 5 of the RCMP Act which says that the Commissioner acts under the direction of the minister. Now that the Minister of Labour has indicated that the interim report of the RCMP had been shown to him in respect of the nature of this charge, is the minister prepared to table that report in the House so that hon. members may be able to consider it and satisfy themselves as to the nature of it?


William Warren Allmand: No, Mr. Speaker. I have shown the transcript of the tape to certain members of the government, and I discussed it with the Prime Minister as it was my responsibility to do so. This is not a report that should be tabled in the House. I showed certain aspects of the report to the Minister of Labour to determine whether he was in fact involved in such conversations, and he admitted that he was. In some way or other this tape has been given to this member of the Ontario legislature and others. How this happened I do not know. It was a tape made by the Toronto Metropolitan Police, but as far as I am concerned it is not something that should be tabled in the House.



FISHERIES


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have a very urgent question which involves both the Minister of Fisheries and the Minister responsible for the Unemployment Insurance Commission. In view of the fact there is not enough fish being landed to ensure employment on other than a part-time basis for fish handlers and packers in Nova Scotia, will the minister undertake to assure these fish plant workers that the government will make up the difference between their present earnings and the minimum amount available to the unemployed workers before the whole industry closes down and all fish handlers find it necessary to seek full unemployment insurance benefits?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, two of my officials are in the maritimes today discussing this very problem of the adequate throughput to support operations of plants. I shall, of course, be answering the hon. member's question when I get that information.

December 4, 1974
Oral Questions



ALLEGED VIOLATIONS OF ICNAF QUOTAS BY BRITISH FISHING VESSELS-GOVERNMENT ACTION

Roméo LeBlanc: While I am on my feet I would like to answer a question asked by the hon. member yesterday. I believe the boardings of the United Kingdom fishing vessels by the United States coastguard referred to by the hon. member occurred in September of this year. U.S. coastguard vessels found six U.K. vessels fishing in apparent violation of ICNAF haddock regulations in the Georges Bank area. These apparent violations were reported to United Kingdom authorities through regular channels. This matter was also raised by the United States at the recent ICNAF meeting in Miami. The delegate from the United Kingdom at the meeting was extremely concerned that these violations had apparently occurred. The United Kingdom delegate emphasized the importance which they attached to their fishermen being informed of and abiding by all ICNAF regulations. He stated that as soon as sufficient evidence had been obtained, the United Kingdom authorities would proceed with the prosecution of those who had violated the law.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of the fact that the budget bills will not follow through this week or next week, would the minister indicate to the House what procedures will be followed for the remission of the sales tax on heavy duty trucks, and also answer the question raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Huron-Mid-dlesex with regard to the effective date of purchase in the case of the special tax for heavy cars.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first part of the question, I will be seeking an order in council from the Privy Council under the Financial Administration Act to remit the sales tax on tax paid inventory for heavy duty trucks and other heavy transportation equipment, in accordance with the answer I gave in the House and the press release I issued subsequent to my answer to the hon. gentleman's colleague.
In answer to the second part of the question, the sales tax of course is imposed effective on budget night. It depends very much on the date of the contract of sale of individual items as to whether the tax is imposed or not, and, as I said to the hon. gentleman, when we get to committee of the whole I will be glad to get into more detail on that.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In view of the fact that discussion may be deferred for some weeks, perhaps the minister would consider making it abundantly clear so

that the trade and individuals concerned would know where they stand.
Mb. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton): The hon. gentleman may well have a point and I will look into it.



REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF TAX ON PLEASURE BOATS

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: My question deals with the matter of the 10 per cent additional sales tax on pleasure boats and on motors in excess of 20 horse power, and it is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the many complaints from boatbuilders and marina operators that this new tax will do untold damage to the tourist and boatbuilding industries, would the minister assure the House that he will reconsider his proposal to impose this tax?


John Napier Turner: I cannot give that assurance, but obviously it will be a topic of conversation before committee of the whole.



REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF GOVERNMENT POSITION ON EXPORT OF FISSIONABLE MATERIAL

Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of recent statements by cabinet ministers that government policy on safeguards regarding the export of nuclear fuel and technology is in the final stages of preparation, will the minister assure the House that every consideration is being given to limiting the export of fissionable materials to only those countries which have signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister said the other day in answer to a similar question, the matter is under consideration in the cabinet and has been now for a couple of weeks. This is one of the conditions that might be attached, but no final decision has been made. The matter is a very complex one. I only wish it could be settled as simply as that.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: In view of the fact that an agreement to supply France with enriched uranium from the James Bay area is under discussion, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister said in reply to a question of mine last week that he had conveyed the position of his government on the export of such fissionable material to the premier of Quebec and to the premier of France, will the Acting Prime Minister now convey to the House the government's position with regard to the export of enriched uranium?


Mitchell William Sharp: The whole question of the export of fissionable material, of nuclear reactors and so on, is under consideration now. As soon as we have reached a decision, we will make it public. The position on the export of fissionable material is long standing. When I was minister
December 4, 1974

of trade I had the responsibility of denying the export of fissionable material to France at that time.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I have a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the minister say why it seems proper for the government to communicate its intention to the government of Quebec or the government of France and not to the people of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I am sure that if we had not given a satisfactory explanation to the government of Quebec, which apparently now intends to consider a contract with France, we would have been derelict in our duty.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
Mh. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre): I should like to address further questions to the Solicitor General, but before doing so I should like to let him know that I also was proud to receive contributions for my campaign from trade unions.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: I didn't know you were a minister.


Mitchell William Sharp: There is a definite conflict of interest here.


Mr. Benjamin:: I am sure that members of the House accept the word of the Minister of Labour.
I would ask the Solicitor General whether he could tell the House what the terms of reference were for the RCMP when he requested them, at the request of the Minister of Labour, to make an inquiry. Did the terms of reference include an inquiry into political contributions or an inquiry into violence in SIU or any other matters?


William Warren Allmand: When I approached the commissioner of the RCMP I asked him to investigate allegations made by Mr. Shulman with respect to the SIU and impropriety by certain federal officials. At the same time, the deputy minister of labour had also made a request through one of his officials, and the commissioner of RCMP then decided he wanted the request in writing. So the deputy minister of labour made the request in writing to the commissioner. There were, therefore, two requests to the commissioner. I do not have details of that latter request before me now. I was told later by the commissioner of RCMP that so far as violations under the Criminal Code were concerned, that was within the jurisdiction of the government of Ontario, but that the RCMP could investigate corruption or bribery with respect to federal officials. That is what they are investigating now.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I take it then from the minister's answer
that the terms of reference of the RCMP are only in
respect of allegations regarding possible corruption or
Oral Questions
bribery attempts and not violence of the SIU. If the minister feels that that is something the Ontario government should look into, may I ask him, in view of the fact that an RCMP inquiry of this nature is internal in the sense that it is under the government and an internal matter, whether he does not feel able to make public any interim or final report. I am trying to be helpful, Mr. Speaker. In order to make it easier for the minister, his colleagues and everybody else in the chamber, would he agree to some kind of public inquiry in which findings of the RCMP investigation and other information would be brought out?


William Warren Allmand: We certainly have not decided against such a suggestion, but since we presently have a police investigation going on under the RCMP I think we should wait for some kind of report from the RCMP.


Mr. Brewin:: Who judges the report?


William Warren Allmand: As with all police investigations, if the RCMP have any evidence collected, they will lay charges and prosecute. If they do not have enough evidence to prosecute then there may be grounds for having a public inquiry, but there is a police investigation under way now. Following the police investigation there may have to be a public inquiry.



ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-REASON FOR SHOWING INTERIM REPORT TO MINISTER OF LABOUR-REQUEST FOR INDEPENDENT COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Could the minister tell the House whether it is normal practice to show an interim report on an RCMP investigation to persons mentioned in that report and if not, why was an exception made in the case of the Minister of Labour?


William Warren Allmand: I do not
know if it is normal practice, Mr. Speaker. This is the first time I have been confronted with this sort of thing. I was asked to discuss it with the relevant ministers and the Prime Minister and I did just that.


An hon. Member:: By whom?


An hon. Member:: Who asked?


William Warren Allmand: I was asked-I reported to the Prime Minister with the Minister of Labour.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, since this extraordinary action has been taken in this case-


An hon. Member:: Who says so?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -this extraordinary action of showing to a person mentioned in an interim report, simply because he happens to occupy the privileged position of minister of this cabinet-since that extraordinary action has been taken by the government in this matter, and I direct this question to the Acting Prime Minister-why does the government continue to refuse to

December 4, 1974
Oral Questions
have an independent inquiry into this matter so that we will know and the public of Canada will know that the results are going to be made available to all interested parties, which is to say this parliament, and not just the people who happen to be mentioned or involved in the investigation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important in the conduct of government that before inquiries of this kind are launched there should be a basis of fact and not just simply charges and innuendo put out by somebody who is not a member of this legislature. That is what we are doing. We are now asking the police to investigate the facts. If they find there are sufficient grounds for a prosecution, it will be launched. If there is not and the police believe an investigation is necessary we will follow that advice. Even if the police report were of such a character that we felt it desirable to have a public inquiry we would do so. I am sure all members of the House would believe it is better to have a foundation of fact than it is to have a foundation of gossip.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre on a point of order.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby asked the Minister of Labour if he would make provision for an industrial inquiry commission to go into the question of waterfront violence, the minister's reply was that this should wait until the current investigation by the RCMP had been completed. My point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that since that answer was given it has been made clear that the RCMP investigation is only into the allegations regarding certain individuals and not into the question of waterfront violence. I wonder, therefore, if the Minister of Labour should not now be given a chance to answer the question about an inquiry into the broader subject, that of waterfront violence.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated that I first asked for the investigation by the RCMP with respect to allegations made against officials. It was a very wide sweeping statement first made by the author and I felt this was the only way it could be clarified one way or another, to have this type of investigation and that included politicians, ministers and all officials in the broader context. My colleague, the Solicitor General has indicated that. He also indicated that the RCMP came back during the course of last week and indicated that they felt with respect to the charges of violence that it was a matter for enforcement of the Criminal Code and fell within the jurisdiction of the province.


An hon. Member:: That is nonsense.


John Carr Munro: You may feel it is nonsense and you have a right to that opinion. Let me state what I know to be a fact today. The responsibility for enforcement of the Criminal Code falls within the provinces. As the President of the Privy Council has indicated,

the Minister of Justice has contacted his provincial counterpart to see if this type of material, allegations of wrongdoing, violence, and so on could be forthcoming and with this as a base we could form a judgment as to whether some type of inquiry is warranted. That is going on right now.
While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I should like to indicate in terms of what I think an implication was about interim reports of the RCMP being revealed to me, that I will have to come to a judgment as I suppose every member of government will have to at some stage, as to whether a full type of inquiry in addition to what is going on in terms of the police investigation, is warranted. Naturally, if I have to assume that responsibility I see the reports.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


John Carr Munro: My only answer to this is that I have no control over the reports. They are RCMP reports. The RCMP, when it has the material, can decide to lay charges at any time without any suggestion from the government of any kind. Knowing the integrity of the RCMP I trust they will continue to take that posture.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised what was obviously a supplementary question on the basis of a point of order. The minister has made his contribution to the same point of order with what was obviously an answer to the supplementary question. There is the right of course for hon. members to pursue vigorously a topic of this kind. There is no question about that, and balanced against that are the rights of other members who have other questions. I only ask if hon. members want to pursue the matter that they do so by way of questions if indeed questions they have, and not under the guise of points of order.



ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF INTERIM REPORT OF ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I have one question arising out of what the minister said. I listened to him very carefully but there was a little noise. I thought he quoted from the police report that he had seen. I use as my precedent the occasion when a former solicitor general quoted from certain letters dealing with the case in which Carmen Perrault was mixed up, the Geoffroy case. I raised that with the former Speaker. The Speaker of that day ordered the former solicitor general to file the documents. Now that the minister has quoted from the report, and I think he did that, I think the investigation by the RCMP which has been shown these people should now be laid before the House of Commons by an order of the Speaker.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order. I did not quote from the document and I think that any examination of the record will show that. I do not believe it is proper-


An hon. Member:: That's right. It certainly is not.
December 4, 1974


John Carr Munro: -to quote from the report. I think that is a matter for the RCMP in their normal investigation methods-


An hon. Member:: Normal?


John Carr Munro: -because I have a responsibility to determine-


An hon. Member:: Whether you should be investigated.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: That is the most dreadful reasoning I have ever heard.


John Carr Munro: No, no, I have a responsibility to determine whether an inquiry should be held.


An hon. Member:: Where is your sense of values?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Calgary North raised what is a legitimate point of order. He suggested that because a report was quoted from it must be tabled. If indeed a minister of the Crown has quoted from a report or document which is in possession of the ministry, there is clear precedence that it must be tabled. My recollection of the remarks of both the Solicitor General and the Minister of Labour, however, is that they made reference to the existence of the report but did not quote directly from it. Therefore, as I understand the precedent, they will not be required to table the report under the circumstances.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take the immediate opportunity, since members are insisting on being very precise in regard to certain matters, to point out that earlier in the discussion in the question period the President of the Privy Council indicated that there had been contact between my officials or that I had asked for contact by my officials with those in the counterpart department in the provincial government. The Minister of Labour inadvertently referred to direct contact between myself and the Attorney General. I want to make clear to the House that that in fact has not taken place.
It is rather extraordinary that no one, so far as I know, in the provincial administration of justice, which is the only administration with jurisdiction over such matters as criminal violence, sought in any way the assistance of those in the federal jurisdiction in these matters. That should have been, I would think, the ordinary way of going about this if those concerned want assistance instead of seeking a public answer on this matter.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order raised by the Minister of Justice. The Minister of Justice raised a point of order, in the course of which he asserted that the matter in question was one within provincial jurisdiction. I ask, is it not abundantly clear that violence on the waterfront falls directly within federal jurisdiction, as the Norris commission inquiry clearly indicates.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it should be clear to members of the House that, although the federal parliament enacts the criminal law, it has been the long standing tradition that matters which arise under the Criminal Code fall within
Oral Questions
the administration of justice, the enforcement of which has been delegated, under the Criminal Code, to provincial attorneys general. Let me make the point that provincial attorneys general have been very jealous about their function in the administration of justice which has been delegated to them.
In any matter involving violence, fraud or an offence coming under the Criminal Code, the ordinary initial investigation and pursuit of the matter comes within the competence and jurisdiction of the provincial attorney general. Of course, if that provincial attorney general finds it impossible to complete the investigation or if he finds that he cannot get the co-operation of other provincial attorneys general, then we stand more than ready to help. I only suggest that in such circumstances it would be well if the provincial attorney general would communicate such request to us, instead of responding publicly to invitations held out by an NDP member in the provincial legislature or making statements in the press.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. When the Minister of Justice attempts to slough this matter off on the province, as he has just now done-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -and when he attempts to indicate that the provincial attorney general has not sought his help, and those were his words, or the assistance of the federal government in this matter, Sir, may I, through you, suggest to him that this matter falls exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Obviously, that is why provincial attorneys general would not seek federal assistance. They believed that these matters, which encompass far more than the territorial jurisdiction of one province, fall solely and exclusively under federal jurisdiction.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I think everybody here is getting self-righteous, and I want to be self-righteous and suggest to the Minister of Justice that it is a pity he does not follow his own sensibilities about the administration of justice when he lectures the ministers of justice of the provinces about abortion law.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will endeavour to hear all hon. members who want to contribute on the point of order, although I have grave reservations as to whether it is a valid point of order. I have heard several hon. members and several more want to contribute. If I hear some, it is only fair that I should hear all who want to make a contribution. I remind hon. members that our proceedings were interrupted by the point of order. We were in the process of coming to the hon. member for Rocky Mountain for a final supplementary. I think, in the interests of the question period and the orderly conduct of the House generally, that we should return to that point as quickly as possible. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton on a point of order.


Mr. Dick:: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be some divergence of opinion between the two ministers concerned. I wonder if the ministers could resolve it. The Solicitor General indicated that the administration of justice falls

December 4, 1974
Oral Questions
within the jurisdiction of the provinces and that therefore matters of violence, which are dealt with under sections 244, 245 and 246 of the Criminal Code should be dealt with by provincial attorneys general; on the other hand, it is suggested that offences falling under sections 108, 109 and 110 of the Criminal Code, to do with fraud, bribery of officials, breaches of trust by public officials and influencing or negotiating appointments, meaning influence peddling and bribery-and he used the word bribery-should be investigated through his department. Why are both categories of offence not dealt with by the same agency, either by the province or by his department.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want to make sure I have heard from all hon. members who wish to contribute. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, may I raise what will be, I hope, a final point of order. It has to do with the contact which has or has not taken place between the federal government and the government of Ontario. The Minister of Justice just told the House that he received no requests from the government of Ontario for an investigation of this matter. Is he saying that that request did not come from the government of Ontario? Did he not receive that request from the Minister of Labour? I was informed that on November 19 the Minister of Labour obtained a specific request from the attorney general of the province of Ontario to have this matter investigated. Did the Minister of Labour not request the Minister of Justice to look into this?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, he did not. The investigation which followed that contact was in relation, I think, to matters which were followed up through the police. I should say in reply to the further question asked that prosecutions involving employees within the federal field, and criminal cases closely touching the federal government, fall within the jurisdiction of provincial attorneys general. That is our policy. Because such cases closely touch the government itself, we naturally take steps on our own initiative to investigate complaints. If they come to anything, or if it appears that anything is substantially wrong, the case goes into the hands of the provincial authority in ordinary circumstances.
As well, in cases not involving federal governmental people but involving people coming under the broad jurisdiction of parliament, the Criminal Code clearly calls for investigation and pursuit, under existing conditions, to fall within the ambit of provincial attorneys general. Provincial attorneys general have been extremely jealous about any interference or alteration of that course. At the same time, perhaps this House might consider whether some further matters ought to be administered by the attorney general, federal, rather than by the attorney general, provincial. As matters now stand, when a matter involves violence or an offence which would lead to a criminal charge against a non-governmental person, that matter falls squarely within the jurisdiction of the provincial attorney general.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of
order. Does the Minister of Justice not agree that widespread and general allegations of beatings, violence and
[Mr. Dick.)
intimidation concerning a national union, have national ramifications which affect a national industry and that this should justify federal intervention in the form of an inquiry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before the minister answers that question, as by his rising he shows he intends to do, I think the Chair should make it clear that, as an hon. member raised by way of point of order a question which he felt ought to have been put, but which was not-and that was not a point of order-so in this case, the House is considering a point of order which began when the minister made to the House an answer to a question which he had hoped, I suppose, would be asked during the question period but which was not asked; that, too, was not a point of order. We have now clearly arrived at the point at which we ought to have arrived in the first place. We should simply continue the question period and hear questions of members and answers from ministers. I do not know why the guise of a point of order was ever used in either instance. I have some difficulty in understanding that. I again ask hon. members to apply themselves to questions during the question period. The hon. member for Peace River asked the minister a question, which the minister was about to answer.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think if the matter falls within provincial jurisdiction, then, naturally, we would draw it to the attention of provincial authorities. What the hon. member has referred to, however, as widespread allegations-and the point in question concerns what are allegations, have come to our attention through the press. The person who apparently has some information in his possession is drawing it out day by day before the Ontario legislature and not even placing it fully before the provincial authorities. As far as we are concerned, we read about it in the press as he day by day reveals more of his supposed rabbit which turns out not to be a rabbit at all.



ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is to the Solicitor General who earlier in the question period indicated he had been directed to take this extraordinary step to make the interim report of the RCMP available to his colleague, a minister who was involved in that report. Can the Solicitor General advise who gave him that direction? Was it the Minister of Labour and will the Minister of Labour be part of the group which assesses the RCMP reports and makes the decision as to whether there should be a public investigation into activities which include activities of the Minister of Labour?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I said I was directed.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


William Warren Allmand: I said I made it available. I made it available to the Prime Minister. If I recall correctly, I initiated the move to see the Prime Minister and Minister
December 4, 1974

of Labour about it. The hon. member keeps speaking about this case as if the Minister of Labour were an accused. The Minister of Labour is the one who asked me to initiate the investigation with the RCMP.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: He asked for the investigation. The Deputy Minister of Labour asked for an investigation. I decided to show the interim report, which was not a police report but an interim report in the form of a letter, to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour.


Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I should have preferred advising the Chair of my intention of raising the question of privilege, as requested by the Standing Orders, but before doing so I wanted to check in Hansard for yesterday the oral question I put concerning the exportation of cereals stored in eastern elevators.
A copy of Hansard was given to me by an employee of the Commons just before I came into the House, that is around five minutes past two, I was unable to check it earlier and to advise the Chair of my intention of rising on a question of privilege. I therefore beg the Chair to understand my situation.
My question of privilege stems from the fact that the Chair felt that the question I put to the Minister of Justice yesterday, concerning feed grains and exports of cereals from eastern ports, would not be such as to harm the domestic market in eastern Canada, and that steps will be taken to prevent such exports being made to the detriment of the farmers in that area of Canada.
I looked very quickly in Hansard to find out whether the government had answered such a question asked by Quebec or Maritime members. I did not find any such question or answer. Since that situation occurred last year, I merely wanted to be assured by the minister that this would not happen again.
In addition, as a member from eastern Canada and more particularly from Quebec, I feel it is my duty to obtain that assurance from the minister responsible for feed grains in order to protect the interests of farm producers and consumers. Even if the strike of the grain inspectors has ended, can the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board assure us that the domestic needs of eastern Canada will have priority and that the grain now stocked in eastern elevators will not be exported to the prejudice of our domestic needs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The short and most direct answer I can give now is that, despite whatever merits the hon. member's presentation today may have, there scarcely can be any other way I could regard them except as a request in some way to reconsider a decision that I made during the question period yesterday. I gained the impression yesterday that the question he was asking at the end of the question period was basically the same question that had been asked by the Leader of the Opposition and by other members of that party supplementary to the question of the leader at the beginning of the question period. If by any shade of opinion the hon. member is
Oral Questions
concerned about that, I certainly cannot consider any reconsideration of that position. However, there is nothing to prevent the hon. member from posing that question at a subsequent question period.


Mr. Ellis:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It requires an answer from the Solicitor General. Because of the long question of privilege preceding mine, the minister left the chamber. I would like to be recognized for the purpose of asking it tomorrow. My question of privilege is not only on behalf of myself because of an investigation that I underwent, but on behalf of any other member of the House who may well have been investigated. Why was an interim report not tendered to me or any other members who may have been mentioned?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: On the question of privilege, the other day the hon. member raised some questions. I said I would get the answers for him. I have the answers here. I do not know if I would be allowed to read them in the House. It appears that the hon. member for Hastings was not investigated as a possible accused, but was approached as a witness in a case. He was interviewed by the RCMP as a witness and not as an accused.


An hon. Member:: What about the Minister of Labour?


William Warren Allmand: As I stated earlier, the Minister of Labour had requested an investigation. I was reporting to him and the Prime Minister. There were no allegations of any wrong-doing made against the Minister of Labour. If the investigation had been into the Minister of Labour, he would not have got the report.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Hastings has raised a question of privilege to which the Solicitor General has made a very valuable contribution. In light of the difference between the two cases, I must hold that the hon. member for Hastings does not have a prima facie question of privilege.


Mr. Fortin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege that concerns the business of the House.
My colleague from Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), was referring to pages 1883, 1884 and 1885 of Hansard for yesterday, and to his question, as reported on page 1890, dealing with feed grain, stating that the supply of feed grain for the eastern market must be given priority over exportation.
Your Honour ruled then, and I do not object to your decision, that this question had already been asked.
Yesterday was an opposition day, when most of the speeches were made in French, so that we have received the official report-and this occurs very rarely-after 2 o'clock, so that my colleague could not give notice he was going to rise on a question of privilege, as prescribed by the Standing Orders.
He raises the question of privilege at a time when the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
Federal Business Development Bank Act Lang) is discussing with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) and is not sitting at his place. The Chair states that my colleague will ask his question some other day and my colleague remains unsatisfied while this is a matter of high priority and urgency.
Immediately after that, the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis), on a question of privilege similar to that of my colleague from Bellechasse, asks a question. Before the Chair has a chance to interrupt, the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) intervenes and answers the question.
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, I ask you to allow my colleague from Bellechasse to put his question not tomorrow but today, since we have asked only one question because there were so many points of order and abuses in the House today during the question period.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Although there was some indication at the beginning of the discussion during the report stage on this matter about the grouping of the motions, I understand it was indicated during the course of that discussion that it would be preferable and more orderly to proceed first with the vote on motion No. 3, and, depending on the outcome of that vote, we would then determine what might be done with motion No. 2. Therefore, the question is on Motion No. 3 in the name of Mr. Stevens.


Mr. Speaker:: I listened with interest to the questions of privilege raised by both hon. members and before making a decision in either case I was not only ready, but anxious, that anyone who wished to make any kind of intervention on the question should do so. The position is the same at the present time. If the minister wishes to make an intervention, he may do so.


Otto Emil Lang: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity. I am glad to say that the Canadian Wheat Board will make every effort to ensure that the supplies which are required are available. There will be some difficult transportation problems this winter, and it will be important for everyone involved in the business of obtaining feed grains to do what they ought to do to get those grains and not rely on the help of the Wheat Board. However, when the chips are down and it is a matter of supplies, the position of the domestic market is, of course, held secure first.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, November 29, consideration of Bill C-14, to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and motions Nos. 3, 2 (as amended), and 4.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand there is agreement that the House should proceed now to the taking of the deferred divisions with respect to several of the motions to amend Bill C-14. Call in the members.
And the Members having been called in.

Messrs.
Alkenbrack	Gillies	MasniukAllard	Grafftey	MazankowskiAndre	Halliday	McCain(Calgary Centre)	Hamilton	McCleaveBaker	(Qu'Appelle Moose	McKenzie(Grenville-Carleton)	Mountain)	McKinleyBaldwin	Hamilton	McKinnonBalfour	(Swift Current-	MitgesBawden	Maple Creek)	MuirBeatty	Hargrave	MunroBeaudoin	Hees	(Esquimalt-Saanich)Benjamin	Hnatyshyn	MurtaBlackburn	Hogan	NeilBrewin	Holmes	NowlanBrisco	Horner	NystromBroadbent	Howie	O'SullivanCaouette	Huntington	Paproski(Villeneuve)	Hurlburt	PattersonCarter	Jarvis	ReynoldsClark	Johnston	Ritchie(Rocky Mountain)	Kempling	RocheClarke	Knowles	Rodriguez(Vancouver Quadra)	(Winnipeg	SaltsmanCoates	North Centre)	SchellenbergerCrouse	Knowles	SchumacherDick	(Norfolk-Haldimand)	ScottDinsdale	Korchinski	SkoreykoDionne	Lambert	Smith(Kamouraska)	(Bellechasse)	(Churchill)Douglas	Lambert	Stanfield(Nanaimo-Cowichan-	(Edmonton West)	StevensThe Islands)	Lawrence	StewartEllis	MacDonald	(Marquette)Elzinga	(Egmont)	SymesEpp	MacDonald (Miss)	TowersFairweather	(Kingston and the	WenmanForrest all	Islands)	WhitewayFortin	MacKay	WhittakerFriesen	MacLean	WiseGilbert	Macquarrie	WoolliamsMalone
NAYS Messrs.	Yewchuk-99Abbott	Breau	ClermontAllmand	Buchanan	CollenetteAnderson	Bussieres	ComtoisAndras	Cafik	Condon(Port Arthur)	Campbell (Miss)	CorbinBaker	(South Western Nova)	Corriveau(Gander-Twillingate)	Campbell	CoteBechard	(La Salle- fimard-Cote	CullenBlais	Saint-Paul)	CyrBlaker	Caron	DansonBoulanger	Chretien	Daudlin
December 4, 1974

Messrs.
De Bane	Joyal	MunroDemers	Kaplan	(Hamilton East)Dionne	Lachance	Nicholson (Miss)(Northumberland-	Lajoie	O'ConnellMiramichi)	Lalonde	OlivierDouglas	Landers	Ouellet(Bruce)	Lang	ParentDrury	Langlois	PearsallDube	Laniel	PelletierDuclos	Lapointe	(Sherbrooke)Dupont	Leblanc	PennerDupras	(Laurier)	PhilbrookDuquet	LeBlanc	PinardEthier	(Westmorland-Kent)	PortelanceFaulkner	Lee	PoulinFleming	Lefebvre	RailtonFlynn	Lessard	ReidFoster	Loiselle	RobertsFo*	(Chambly)	RooneyGauthier	Loiselle	RoV(Ottawa-Vanier)	(Saint-Henri)	(Laval)Gendron	Lumiey	Sauve (Mrs.)Gillespie	MacFarlane	SharPGoodale	MacGuigan	SmithGoyer	Maine	(Saint-Jean)Gray	Marceau	StewartGuay	Marchand	(Cochrane)(St. Boniface)	(Langelier)	StolleryGuay	Marchand	Tessier(Levis)	(Kamloops-Cariboo)	TrudelGuilbault	Martin	TurnerHerbert	Mclsaac	(London East)Hopkins	Milne	TurnerIsabelle	Morin (Mrs.)	(Ottawa-Carleton)Jamieson	Watson
Young-114


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Motion No. 3 having been defeated, is there a disposition in the House to deal with motion No. 2 on division? Is it the pleasure of the House to agree to motion No. 2 (as amended)?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 2 agreed to on division.


Mr. Speaker:: The next question is on motion No. 4.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce) moved: that Bill C-14, to incorporate the Federal Business Development Bank, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Now, by leave.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand that there may be a disposition in the House, with leave, to read the bill the third time now.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alastair William Gillespie: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, December 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp that Bill C-36, to provide for representation in the House of Commons, to establish electoral boundaries commissions and to remove the temporary suspension of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, when I adjourned the debate on this redistribution bill on Monday I was speaking about the frustration of the ordinary Canadian who finds difficulty in exercising a certain amount of control over a government that is continually growing. I am closing the debate today although I know that several of my colleagues would liked to have participated in it. I mention the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds), the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) who feel as I do. They recognize, as I do, that anything that is big does not necessarily mean that it is better. Just because we have a big government does not mean we have good government. A big House of Commons does not mean it will be a good House of Commons.
When the day comes that the government gives members of this House the opportunity fully to exercise their abilities, we will be able to give greater service to Canada than is being given at the present time.

On Monday, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) brought to the attention of the House the fact that Senator Hastings from Alberta, a Liberal, had made an announcement regarding LIP grants to the city of Edmonton. Surely such announcements should either be made by the minister in the House or even by the member representing the area. I feel this is almost bordering on a question of privilege when a spokesman for the Liberal organization makes such announcements. I am not so much concerned about who makes the actual announcement provided it is a member of the cabinet, preferably the minister in charge of the department, and it is made in the House of Commons.
I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that some members opposite seem to consider that we are conducting a filibuster on this bill. We are not. I mentioned that some of my colleagues would like to speak but they are willing to forgo their opportunity so that the bill may come to a vote and go to committee. After the bill had only 3V4 hours of debate the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Pearsall) yesterday put the following question to the President of the Privy Council, as reported at page 1889 of Hansard:


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Privy Council. In view of the filibuster on the redistribution bill last night, can the minister indicate when that bill will be brought forward again?


Mitchell William Sharp: As soon as I have some indication that progress in desired on the other side, Mr. Speaker.
It is unfortunate that the hon. member spoke in such a manner when members on this side of the House from British Columbia are so very concerned about what is happening with this bill. As I said, bigger does not mean better, and an increase in the number of members in the House of Commons will in no way ensure better government. The ordinary Canadian is becoming frustrated daily as he feels he is losing control.
In Great Britain where the population is 55,514,600, parliament has 635 members. That means each member represents 87,000 constituents. In the United States with a population of 212 million there are 435 Congressmen and 100 Senators, which means that each person elected represents 396,000 people. With 22 million people in Canada, taking the members of the House of Commons and the Senate combined, each member represents 60,000 people. Canadians are the most over-governed people in the world. If the government really wanted to give good service to the average Canadian it would make better use of the Senate which is assigned a disproportionate membership from certain regions.
Commissioners will be appointed under the provisions of this bill to oversee the redistribution of electoral boundaries. This rules out any possibility of a member of the House of Commons or other individual having influence over such boundaries. This is one of the areas that created great concern in the last redistribution.
The commissioners completely failed to consider the needs of the people. I know that Saskatchewan and Manitoba need protection, just as the eastern provinces and the maritime provinces do, and I think the people of Canada recognize this, as do members of this House. We in
December 4, 1974

this party all subscribe to the idea that commissioners, when they draw boundaries, should consider the needs of constituents. The other day the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) introduced a private member's bill, which was passed, which called on commissioners to give reasons for their decisions. That was a step in the right direction.
One of the greatest shortcomings of this bill is that it does not lay down guidelines which commissioners must follow. That is a serious omission. I think the government is wrong in thinking it is God's gift to Canadians because I, for one, as well as many others, do not hold that view. The government should remember that we, on my side of the House, also speak for Canadians, that we are interested in this matter and that our advice is worthy of consideration.
When electoral boundaries are drawn consideration should be given to the travelling habits of people, to their social habits, and to what is convenient for them. Canadians should not be treated like cattle, and provinces should not be carved up like a turkey for Thanksgiving. When electoral boundaries are drawn and, for instance, a river is involved, should the commissioners not consider on which side of the river constituents would like to be included, whether there is a convenient way of crossing the river, whether bridges are available, and so on? At present these matters are not considered. Guidelines on such matters should have been incorporated in the bill. Perhaps the committee will consider this matter and propose amendments which will improve the bill.
Some say that we should adopt wholly the principle of representation by population, but in a country as vast as Canada that may not be possible. The requirements of various areas must be considered. I hope the government will listen to the recommendations of members on my side. We, too, speak for Canadians. We wanted to speak on this bill, to make the government conscious that we are dealing with human beings. After all, we are here to represent our people. I wish the government would give us all a better opportunity to serve our people better. After all, Mr. Speaker, this House exists for that purpose.


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure hon. members wish to allow the hon. member who has the floor an opportunity to participate in the debate.


Ian Watson: Mr. Speaker, I rise to express some serious reservations about this bill. I would prefer to see the bill not go through this afternoon. Actually, I would prefer to see it not passed at all. Members of this House who represent rural areas-I am not in that group-should not be happy with this bill, because it is one that they should not buy. The end result of this legislation, I am convinced, will be that there will be a larger number of seats in the Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver areas, and the rest of the country will take up the balance. If members on the other side of the House feel that somehow this bill will improve representation in rural areas, they are deluding themselves. It will not happen that way.
Electoral Boundaries
There are, in addition, some more fundamental reasons for my opposition. The bill is based on the premise that we in Canada are heading in the direction of an ever increasing population. It is my firmly held belief that Canada should aim at zero population growth.
I also argue that, under the new formula, no advantage will accrue to Quebec. Compare the proposal under the amalgam formula with the system which would exist if this legislation were dropped. What will you find, Mr. Speaker? I suggest that Quebec will bear almost exactly the same relationship to Ontario and the rest of the country under the proposed system as under the existing system.
My argument may or may not persuade members to vote either in favour or against the bill. Nevertheless I sincerely believe that we shall make a mistake if we increase the number of seats in the House, as more seats will make the House more unwieldy and we shall encounter more problems.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Watson: Certainly I think we shall encounter more problems in our ability to handle our own affairs. I do not believe that we need to have 353 members in this House in the year 2000. I urge the House not to vote on this bill this afternoon, because the public of Canada needs to hear more about it.
On Monday, when few members were present, there was general agreement to process the bill through the House. That did not happen, and I am happy. I suggest that we need more time to let the public zero in on this question. Once the public starts zeroing in on it, I suggest members of parliament on all sides will begin reacting in the same way as the public.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks at this stage of Bill C-36 which concerns electoral boundaries that are about to be changed. As for me, after studying the bill, Mr. Speaker, I feel that the province of Quebec is in process of becoming the least represented province in the House of Commons.
According to the amalgam process, we have lost some ridings in the last few readjustments and are now about to be given one more riding and so, once more, 75 MPs for the province of Quebec. However, if we look at the present trend toward the exodus from parishes or rural areas to the cities, one can readily foresee that this new riding will be absorbed by the city of Montreal which even then will not have enough representation. The rural areas of the province of Quebec will inevitably lose other ridings to the cities of Montreal and Quebec. To my mind, the same phenomenon exists in Ontario especially and will soon be witnessed in British Columbia.
Before many decades we will have a country that will be represented, run and governed by Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver. And that would be to the detriment of rural or semi-rural areas, and I do not think it would be to the advantage of all Canadians.
Under that method even if after 1981 the province of Quebec has four more ridings, when the legislation is

Electoral Boundaries
passed, that will mean that no matter what the trend in the population of the province of Quebec may be, whether it goes up, remains the same, or decreases, there will always be those four more ridings. Should there be a rapid increase in population, that would still mean that the province of Quebec would be less and less represented, all proportions being kept.
I would also like to bring to the attention of hon. members a very important point. Under the method we had with the last census or the last redistribution, we realized that the map was drawn up by the commissioners before members were consulted. We were kindly offered to voice our opinions after, but I do not know if it is for reasons of economy but our recommendations were ignored, the maps were not reprinted, the electoral boundaries were not reviewed according to recommendations made by hon. members. There were some absolutely ridiculous situations.
I have one now in the riding of Abitibi. To represent two municipalities-Desmaraisville and Miquelon-I must virtually cross the adjacent riding, the riding of Villeneuve. Similarly, when the electors of those ridings want to meet their member of Parliament, they must cross another riding.
After this carving into the electoral map, recommendations were made in this House. I made some representations to the commissioner. At that time, I asked that municipalities with an equivalent population near the constituency of Villeneuve be given back to that of Abitibi and that the municipalities of Desmaraisville and Miquelon be given back to Villeneuve. This would have been more logical, but I received no answer. I was not even told whether it was reasonable or not. These recommendations were not considered, and I know that other members made recommendations at that time and met with the same answer.
I humbly submit that this bill should be amended. If it is to be passed, I would like hon. members to be consulted before the constituencies are chopped up, before any change is made in the boundaries. I believe that the members who represent constituencies, be they rural or urban, know their region, their population, the geography of their constituency, and are in a better position to advise the commissioners through their representations.
Mr. Speaker, these considerations should be studied in depth. When the bill is studied in committee, they should be taken into account, and I believe that this would be to the advantage, not only of myself, but of others who will represent my constituency in the years to come, I do not know when, but I hope not for a long time, but in any case, others will benefit from this later. It still remains that Bill C-36 which will soon be passed will apply for a long time. We must therefore take all the time we need to study it carefully so as not to make any mistakes and be stuck with provisions that we would not like later on.
For all these reasons, Mr. Speaker, I believe we should take all the time we need to study the bill, to learn the opinion of all members from across Canada, so that the bill may truly meet the needs of all areas, and not only the needs of political parties but those of the Canadian people.

December 4, 1974


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the minister rising on a point of order? I see the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) is standing. He may wish to address the House.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I already spoke on second reading of this bill: therefore, under the rules, I cannot speak again. That is why I rise on a point of order to ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), who was going to rise, whether he intends to answer the points I made in my speech on Monday and the recommendations I put forward along the same line as several other members on both sides of the House, to the effect that we can indeed expect some changes in the mandate of the commissioners who will draw up the maps. Under this condition, Mr. Speaker, we would be ready to support the bill and expedite its passage. Otherwise, it will be extremely difficult to obtain the co-operation of hon. members on both sides of the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must inform hon. members that if the minister addresses the House at this time, he will close the debate.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to keep the House for more than a few minutes. I wish first to thank hon. members who have contributed to the debate.
When the government presented this bill it was not on the basis that it would satisfy all members of the House, but that it seemed to represent the best consensus that could be reached. We based this view upon the discussions that took place in the standing committee in the last parliament and upon the informal discussions that took place between the parties. It is quite clear that it does not satisfy all hon. members. It does not satisfy some members of the Conservative party nor does it satisfy all members of the Liberal caucus.
I want to make it quite clear that the government is not putting this forward as a partisan measure. It is putting it forward as representing the best consensus that appears to be available that best represents the interests of all members of the House. I say that quite clearly because it would be most undesirable for it to appear to the public that the government is moving ahead with a measure that was designed to be of particular advantage to the party on this side of the House. That is not so. It was not designed for that purpose. If we had something like that in mind, this might have been quite a different bill. As I say, it is one that is based upon discussions that have taken place among members of all parties.
The second point I wish to make is partly in reply to my friend, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson). I think it is obvious there is a better chance of there being greater representation from rural areas with a larger number of seats in parliament than if we continue with the present system which, hon. members may recall, was found to be wanting. It was almost universally condemned by all parties and by many members. It was for this reason
December 4, 1974

Electoral Boundaries
the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was suspended.
We are hoping that on the basis of the new distribution of seats, or whatever proposals may be forthcoming as a result of discussion in the committee, there will at least be a better opportunity for the representation of the Canadian people. If the committee were to come forward with some proposals for the adjustment of this bill which it considered more acceptable, the government, for its part, would not necessarily oppose them.
We are looking for something which is broadly acceptable to the greatest number of members and to the country as a whole. I hope, therefore, that we can get this bill into committee where there will be opportunity for the kind of discussion to which the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson) referred, giving the public time to understand all the implications of what is being proposed. Debate on second reading is rather inadequate for these purposes since it does not afford sufficient flexibility. I urge hon. members to allow the bill to go to the committee for these reasons. If there are improvements which can be made, the government is not inflexible.


Some hon. Members:: Question!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Those in favour of the motion will please say yea; those opposed will please say, nay.


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


Some hon. Members:: Nay!
Messrs.
Douglas
(Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Duclos
Dupont
Dupras
Duquet
Ethier
Faulkner
Fleming
Flynn
Foster
Fox
Gauthier (Otta wa-V anier) Gendron Gilbert Gillespie Goodale Goyer Gray Guay
(St. Boniface)
Guay
(Levis)
Guilbault Herbert Hogan Hopkins Isabelle Jamieson Joyal Kaplan Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)
Lachance
Lajoie
Lalonde
Landers
Lang
Langlois
Laniel
Lapointe
Leblanc
(Laurier)
LeBlanc
(Westmorland-Kent)
Lee
Lefebvre
Lessard
Loiselle
(Chambly)
Loiselle
(Saint-Henri)
Lumley
MacFarlane
MacGuigan
Maine
Marceau
Marchand
(Langelier)
Marchand
(Kamloops-Cariboo)
Martin
Mclsaac
Milne
Morin (Mrs.)
Munro
(Hamilton East) Nicholson (Miss) Nystrom
O'Connell Olivier Ouellet Parent Pearsall Pelletier (Sherbrooke) Penner Phil brook Pinard Portelance Poulin Railton Reid Roberts Rodriguez Rooney Roy
(Timmins)
Roy
(Laval)
Saltsman
Sharp
Smith
(Saint-Jean) Stewart (Cochrane) Stollery Symes Tessier Turner (London East) Turner
(Ottawa-Carleton) Yanakis Young-122
++NAYS
Messrs.


An hon. Member:: I think we've won.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


PETROLEUM ADMINISTRATION ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, November 14, consideration in committee of Bill C-32, to impose a charge on the export of crude oil and certain petroleum products, to provide compensation for certain petroleum costs and to regulate the price of Canadian crude oil and natural gas in interprovincial and export trade-Mr. Macdonald (Rose-dale)-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I invite hon. members who are leaving the House to do so hastily so that we can proceed in committee.

When the committee adjourned on November 14, 1974, it was considering clause 2. The committee held a general debate allowing members to hold a general discussion on clause 2.
The hon. member for Hastings had the floor. I wonder if he had completed his remarks? The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Chairman, since this bill was last before committee of the whole a great deal of water has passed under the bridge. To say the least the bill is now completely redundant and is an anachronism. First of all I have to comment on the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is not present. When we are debating a ways and means motion that has $3 billion or so riding on it, I think he should be here.
The price of oil this winter is no longer of great urgency since the premier of Alberta has indicated his intention to keep the price at $6.50 per barrel, so we are debating this in a vacuum. I have several questions, however, which I will put to the parliamentary secretary, although they can only be answered by the minister speaking for the government as a whole.
Since this bill was before the committee on November 13 a report has been issued by the National Energy Board asking the people of Canada, and parliament, to move as swiftly as possible in order to bring the oil and gas industry back to an economic state of health. In plain English, that is warning the people of Canada that if they do not move expeditiously there will not be oil enough to meet their needs very shortly.
In other words, by the bumbling and fumbling of the various governments in Canada, and I am referring specifically to the federal governments, future supplies of oil and gas in Canada have been endangered. This means that consumers in Ontario and the eastern provinces will
(Mr. Speaker.]
have to bear the load of higher prices and shortage of supply because the present government, by a series of actions has made a declaration of war not on the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan alone, but on every province.
The National Energy Board is the only board in Canada that is independent of the government and that can give us some form of truth. Despite the fact that it has been in existence since 1959 this is the first report it has published, and I recommend it to members on the government side. If they have any voice in caucus they should tell the government what the report says. The year 1977 is not far away, nor is the year 1982. If I lived in any part of this country as far away from oil and gas wells as Ontario, Quebec and the eastern provinces are, I would take a good look at this report.
The first question I have to ask the parliamentary secretary is this: in view of the fact that the National Energy Board is pleading for us to make a rapid decision, will the government not now recognize that Bill C-32, which is supposed to ratify and legitimize a position taken by 11 heads of government on March 27, is completely redundant?
A second report that has come out since this bill was debated on November 13 is that of the Economic Council of Canada, another board independent of the mandarins in the Department of Finance and the Bank of Canada. That report devotes a whole chapter to energy in graph and table form. It tells the people of Canada that the only way they can assure themselves of not moving into an importing position and becoming dependent on world supplies is to get the price up to $8 per barrel. With this report in their hands every member of the government party should be at the door of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister showing that they take it seriously.
In view of these two important reports by independent groups advising the people of Canada to take heed, the government should take them very seriously indeed.
The budget of November 18 repeated the mistake of the May 8 budget in making provincial taxes and royalties non-deductible. That shows that Bill C-32 is not just a bill to ratify what 11 heads of government agreed to on March 27 but is a continuation of a planned attack on the constitution of this country, by attacking every province on its basic rights of ownership-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Boulanger:: You don't believe that!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If any
member from the province of Quebec does not know the history of that province-why they came into the federal system, why they sought so hard to have certain responsibilities remain within their field-he should read the debates leading up to enactment of the British North America Act in 1867. All during the years that followed, the province of Quebec has led the battle in trying to protect the rights of its people against the encroachment of a strong federal power. Now for the first time in the history of this parliament we have a group of members from the province of Quebec-


An hon. Member:: Who are running!
December 4, 1974


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -all
interested in one thing only, keeping a united voice in order to keep a Prime Minister in power who is destroying the basic economic health of the country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Just reserve that genuflection for the proper place, my friend.
I have in my hand a front page story from the Montreal Gazette quoting the Premier of Quebec on the question of energy. He says that the federal government has simply the role of a customs officer. The premier says that he is in a position of power. He was referring to resources belonging to the people of Quebec. Yet we see members of this House representing ridings in Quebec selling their province down the drain by their support of the budget. The effects of the budget are plain. No province can impose a tax on land which-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please.


Mr. Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: Is the hon. member for Sherbrooke rising on a point of order?


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a question to the hon. member.


Gérald Laniel: It cannot be done without the consent- [English]
The hon. member is seeking permission to ask a question.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, may I thank the hon. member for seeking permission, although I wish he had given me an opportunity to complete my remarks without interruption.


Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Chairman, I simply want to know whether the hon. member would entertain my question?


Gérald Laniel: Order. The hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) has answered that he does not wish to be interrupted, which means that he is not prepared to accept the question. Since he has the floor, he is entitled to continue.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, the truth is hurting hon. members opposite.


Irénée Pelletier: Say what you think, but you don't think about what you say.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I know the hon. member has no knowledge of the history of this country. He does not know what the great members of parliament from Quebec have done over
Oil and Petroleum
the years in this House. He is selling the people of Quebec down the river, just so that he can remain a faithful soldier of the Prime Minister. The government has expounded its philosophy in this bill. It intends, unilaterally, to interfere with taxes any provincial government may impose on land, forests, mining and oil. It is trying to pretend that this bill is an attack on the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan only; it is not. It is an attack on people in every province. That is why the premier of Quebec knows he must fight. That is why every member from Ontario and from Quebec who supports this bill knows that he stands on the wrong side of this question.
During the past year the province of Ontario passed a law for taxing excess profits taken by speculators in land. The federal government said that the amount of such tax paid will not be considered as a deductible expense for purposes of income tax. Under section 109 of the British North America Act land, resources and royalties are the property of the people of the province concerned. The government has said that the tax on land-


Gérald Laniel: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member; however, he has used up the time allotted to him. He may continue only if there is unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gérald Laniel: Although there is no consent for the hon. to continue, no other member is standing up seeking the floor.


Mr. Foster:: Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the hon. member. Although he did not spend much time talking about clause 2 of the bill, his intervention was most interesting. He suggests that this bill is not valid because one party to the agreement of March 27 no longer supports what was agreed to then. One of the most important features of the bill is that it gives the government power to pay compensation to the five eastern provinces of this country, and this guarantee will lapse on December 31. I do not think hon. members opposite who represent ridings east of the Ottawa Valley, ridings which are beneficiaries of this clause in the bill, want to see a filibuster. I suggest that they want the bill to pass as soon as possible, because its provisions are as necessary now as they ever have been.
The hon. member talked a great deal about resources being seized by the federal government. That was just claptrap. No one questions the rights of provinces to own their resources. Of course they own them. Yet, if one examines the British North America Act, one will find that the federal government has authority to tax by any means it chooses. We are not talking here about the ownership of any resource; we are talking about the taxation of corporations. I do not think that point has been made effectively.
When the hon. member spoke on the National Energy Board report, I thought he said that it is an encouraging report as it indicates positively that there are supplies of oil in this country. I suggest that we should move on to other clauses of the bill, rather than talk about non-relevant matters.

Oil and Petroleum


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


An hon. Member:: Why not the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie?


Walter David Baker: Who is in the Chair? How dare you do that to a lady!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Madam Chairman, I was asking a series of questions which can be answered only by the minister. As this bill, in conjunction with the budget, presents serious constitutional implications, and as I asked in what manner has the government changed its attitude since we last discussed the bill, I suggest that my question should be answered by the minister speaking for the whole government and not by the parliamentary secretary.
I pointed out that the National Energy Board and the Economic Council of Canada in their reports both asked the government to quit quarrelling with the provinces and return to the business of restoring the health of oil and gas companies in order that we may foster development. The dangers of which I warned the government, dangers which flow from a confrontation between provincial premiers and the federal government, have been realized. I told the committee what the premier of Quebec thinks. I have before me a whole file of clippings showing what other premiers think, but I will not read them to the committee.
In our discussion of clause 2 we are dealing with the general purposes and general thrust of this bill. I have raised questions concerning the National Energy Board report, the Economic Council of Canada report, the budget, the position of Premier Lougheed, who is the main partner in the agreement of March 27 as he is providing 85 per cent of the oil, and other questions concerning the reactions of the governments of British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Newfoundland and other governments.
In view of the current position I would think that it would make good sense if the government after a full cabinet meeting, could look at the new factors which have arisen and withdraw the bill until there can be consultations with the premiers of all provinces. If we are to keep our federal system strong, the federal government must show positive leadership. Our system can be kept strong only by consultation and agreement, not by confrontation.


Mr. Blais:: That is what the bill says.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The bill says, Mr. Chairman, that in the absence of agreement the federal government will use its power to impose conditions unilaterally. Further, the bill says that the government is to have permanent powers in setting the price of oil and of petrochemical products in this country.
This is a direct infringement on the provincial power of price setting. I say again that I am asking, in these opening remarks on this bill, that the government come down

and state that its ministers as a government have considered this in council, and their position is this.
We are not dealing with itty-bitty little matters. We are dealing with the constitution of Canada. Bill C-32 was brought into this House to legitimize an agreement made orally between 11 heads of government. All parties agreed to legitimize that agreement by putting through this legislation. However, it is no longer in the ball park. It is an anachronistic type of legislation.
I wish to bring forward some points of which I think we should take note. When the vote came up in the House on Supplementary Estimates A, I spoke to the head of the Treasury Board. I pointed out that the vote which made it legitimate for the government of Canada to pay subsidies to those people east of the Ottawa line only carried until the end of December, 1974. As a matter of procedure in this House it should be proper, I told the President of the Treasury Board either to change the wording of the vote, which was inaccurate, or raise the amount to the full fiscal year to the end of March. He promised to consider that.
The change was not made. This indicates that the government is deliberately trying to cut off the money to subsidize the people in eastern Canada at the end of this year. When the government had a chance, during debate on the supplementary estimates several weeks ago to make that vote effective until the end of March, 1975, at the request of the spokesman for the official opposition on oil and gas matters, it did not do it. Instead it has now come in with a bill that is redundant and out of date. There is no agreement to ratify. The Cabinet wants to waste the time of this House without a responsible minister here to speak for the whole government. I simply point out that if the government is going to play games with the people of Canada on a subject like this, and deliberately cuts off its power to give money as a subsidy, to people east of the Ottawa Valley which all parties have agreed to, the fault will lie on the shoulders of this administration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: The
provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan voluntarily agreed last March to subsidize every consumer of oil products in this country to the extent of $2.5 billion to $3 billion a year. They did that as Canadians. They were praised in this House by all parties for their statesmanship.
Who destroyed this good will? Who broke the agreement? Who brought in Bill C-18 in the last session hours after the agreement was made, that destroyed the agreement? This government did. The budget of May 6 was a complete declaration of war. It was repeated again all during the election campaign. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance said this was a negotiating point, that they would reconsider it. However, when the budget came down on November 18, they again declared war. They pretended they were backing up by $115 million a year on a $3 billion industry.
I want to put something forward for the government's consideration because eventually this has to be dealt with by the government as a whole, not just by the parliamentary secretary or someone else. Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is prepared to propose ways in this House that will prevent the government from taking off the subsidy for
December 4, 1974

people east of the Ottawa Valley line, that will keep one price across Canada which is lower than the world price, that will allow for the cushioning effect of staging to the new price levels, and will also be fair to the producer provinces and give them a quid pro quo. Above all, we are prepared to bring forward proposals that will guarantee, if the government wants to carry this legislation forward, that there will be consultation before there is any unilateral force applied to a province when dealing with the property of the people of that province.
We, as a loyal opposition, are willing to try and end this confrontation deliberately sought by a government that is only conscious of political gimmicks to achieve its end. We will be putting forward these proposals. However, they can only be made in the presence of a minister who can go to cabinet and make these proposals to it. I have made some of these proposals to the minister in private and some in public.
The proposals we want to put forward will have to be dealt with seriously by the whole cabinet because this bill is a clear indication that it is a power device by this government to continue its gambling policy that it can smash the constitution by unilateral action while playing politics with the question of prices for the oil that heats our homes and runs our automobiles. This is a very serious thing the government is doing.
I suggest to the government supporters and to the parliamentary secretary in particular, that they carry this message back loud and clear because the people of Canada are not going to stand idly by Mr. Speaker. Not only will the provinces and their premiers be in rebellion, but if you do not honour the property rights of the people of a province, the people of that province can destroy a government. No provincial government wants to be destroyed by not fighting on this issue, which is the whole bedrock of our constitutional base.
We in this party are the founders and fathers of the federal system. We held out the proposal to the people that a strong federal system will only work if you undertake it by agreement and consultation. If agreement does not follow consultation, then we are not a mature nation and do not deserve to continue.
This principle of consultation which we have followed over the years has worked. I was in the Diefenbaker administration. Over 50 agreements were made with the provinces in which then the federal government took the initiative, on matters which were purely in the provincial resource area. In every case we sat down as equals with the relevant provincial government and said, "This is your resource. In the national interest we would like to achieve certain objectives for the good of all Canadian people. Here is our proposal." Every one of those agreements were signed willingly by the provinces. This not only involved matters of resources.
We even moved into the field of education. Every province signed, because they were agreements reached after consultation. We went across the field. Believing in a strong federal central government, we knew it could only be strong if we worked in harmony with the provinces which had responsibilities under their part of the constitution. That is a record which bears repeating.
Oil and Petroleum
If the people of Canada know what the issue is, they will opt for a type of federal system that does not have this concept of confrontation that was brought in by the Pearson administration in 1963, and continued by the present administration. They will opt for the principle of consultation, and then agreement. This is a vital issue affecting the way in which we run our government.
I conclude by repeating what I said in my opening sentence. This is not just a constitutional debate. It is a debate on a product which provides 50 per cent of the energy of Canada. This energy not only runs our factories, our trucks and our automobiles; it keeps us warm in winter. The actions of the government are driving the oil and gas companies out of this country, and hastening the day when we will have to go out and beg the world for supplies of oil to run our factories and keep us warm. If that doesn't get through to hon. members opposite, I am darned sure the premiers of the provinces, particularly the premiers of Ontario and Quebec, will be teaching them a lesson very shortly as to where the real power lies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Symes:: Madam Chairman, the government has decided to bring forward this bill at this time, and I consider it very inadvisable to do so today. It is indicative of the federal government's continuing policy of confrontation with the provinces. There is to be a very important meeting on Monday of the federal-provincial ministers of finance, which will look at the budget implications, and especially the implications attached to non-deductibility of provincial resources.
This bill cannot be considered by itself. It must be looked at in conjunction with the federal budget and the measures which relate to energy. Therefore, it seems to me very ill-advised on the part of the government to expect the House to deal with this bill, to try to ram it through, before those discussions with the provincial finance and energy ministers take place. We do not even have the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources with us today. We have before us an energy mess. It is a mess not only from the point of view of supply and from the point of view of price, but also from the point of view of federal-provincial relations. I somehow get the impression from the government side-from the backbenchers and from the Minister of Energy-that Bill C-32 is going to be one of the great solutions of the energy problem in this country. But this bill is not going to do very much.
There isn't the oil in Canada in the first place to provide Canadian industry with fuel, and consumers with fuel as well. And I think the bill must also be looked at in the context of the recent National Energy Board report which, if you go through it carefully, finally recognizes what we in this party have been saying for many years, that we are in a critical supply situation and the future does not look promising. Now the board talks about becoming net importers by 1982. But if you look at the board's charts, all they are looking at is western Canadian production and western Canadian demand. If you add eastern Canadian demand we are going into a shortfall position as early as 1977.

December 4, 1974
Oil and Petroleum
The National Energy Board report also assumes that we will be able to feed the eastern market with oil simply by importing it from the Middle East and Venezuela. But other reports show that by the beginning of the 1980s there will be a critical world oil supply situation. For the board and the government to assume that as we run short of western Canadian oil-and I would remind the House that sufficient quantities of Arctic and offshore oil are not yet discovered and the tar sands cannot produce sufficient quantities of oil by the early 1980s-we will be in a situation where we will be able to import one million to two million barrels per day in the early 1980s, is taking an overly optimistic view. The world supply situation will be becoming tight at that time and there is no guarantee that eastern Canadian demand will be fulfilled. So the bill has to be looked at in that context because it deals with payment of compensation to eastern Canada, and also with the giving of power to the federal government ultimately to decide the price of oil if no agreement is reached with the provinces.
So, it seems to me then that the timing of the bill, the bringing of the bill before the House at this stage before relations with the provinces are sorted out as to royalties, is most unfortunate. Looking at the business of the nondeductibility of royalties that the Minister of Finance brought forward in his budget, surely it cannot be classified by an impartial observer as a fair measure.
The argument of the federal government, as I understand it, is that ever since the price of Canadian oil went up from about $3 to $6.50 a barrel and the provinces correspondingly increased their provincial royalties, the federal government has lost very important sources of revenue and that the provinces are moving by the royalty route into an area of taxation which the federal government considers to be its own prerogative. Well, that in itself is very debatable. The resource, of course, belongs to the provinces since historically the provinces have had the right to impose royalties. But the minister comes up with the curious argument-well, the royalties of the provinces today aren't royalties in the classical sense of royalties. In other words, he is saying that despite the fact that the price of a barrel of oil goes up, the royalty must always remain fixed, and can't be imposed on a percentage basis. I wonder if the Minister of Finance would accept the same kind of argument as applied to corporate income tax, saying it must be fixed and cannot rise as corporate profits rise. I think that it is a very unfair interpretation.
The Minister of Finance and the Minister of Energy are taking the position that the federal government has moved somewhat, that it has reduced certain taxes, that it has allowed the exploration write-off to rise from 50 per cent to 100 per cent, and that it has allowed deductions for development and so on. Therefore they are saying now to the provinces that the ball is in their court. They are saying, "We in the federal government have moved back a bit from taxation, so now we want you to move back on the royalty issue." Well, I do not think the federal government has moved back much on corporate income tax.
The minister talks about a 10 per cent surtax on corporations, but he exempts the resource industries. If he wants more money he can impose a surtax on the resource industry. He cannot give them a 100 per cent write-off for

exploration. I think the Minister of Finance has bought the argument of the oil industry that they desperately need all these concessions for exploration, citing as evidence the fact that drilling rigs are moving out of Alberta.
I submit that the drilling rigs are moving out of Alberta because the oil companies have concluded that there is no oil to find in Alberta. They are more interested in the Arctic or in other countries, so it seems to me the concessions which the minister has given in his budget are not entirely necessary. He has room to manoeuvre to increase federal income. I really question the motives of the government in bringing the bill in today this early before the question of royalties has been settled with the provinces.
I should like to put two questions to the parliamentary secretary because I think they are pertinent to this bill and to the recent report of the Energy Board. First of all I have a very brief question, and when I have the answer I will follow it up with a second question.
How long does the government intend to pay compensation to eastern Canada for its imported oil?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Chairman, that is a very hypothetical question, because we do not know what compensation program will be necessary to compensate for world prices of oil. We do not know what the world price of oil will be. The minister has said on many occasions that the Canadian price would move up to a level that would bring on frontier and non-conventional oil supplies, but I do not think anyone could guess how long it is going to be necessary to provide compensation to the eastern provinces.
One of the complaints of the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle-Moose Mountain, when he spoke on second reading, was that the bill did not have a terminal date on it; he said this was new and that it was different. It is not new and it is not different. There was no terminal date to Bill C-18 that was introduced last spring, and, of course, there is no terminal date to this bill.


Reginald Cyril Symes: That is very interesting. The government wants us to pass this bill when we are not given any timetable showing how long the compensation provisions of the bill are to last.
My second question is this: How does the federal government expect to fund this compensation to eastern Canada in view of the fact that the funds to date have been coming from revenues derived from the export tax? The National Energy Board is now saying we must reduce our oil exports to the United States, which will mean that we will be reducing the amount of revenue gained from this tax. As this revenue declines, how does the government intend to compensate eastern Canada? If the export tax fund goes into a deficit position through reduction of exports to the United States in accordance with the National Energy Board recommendation, how does the government intend to fund this compensation?
Is this the reason that the parliamentary secretary is reluctant to give us any indication of how long this compensation will continue? Is he saying that in the near future the government is going to start cutting back on
December 4, 1974

compensating eastern Canada, or will withdraw that compensation entirely? This is why I want to know whether, as exports of oil are cut back and the revenue therefrom depleted, compensation will be paid out of general tax revenues. Will compensation come from, say, an excess profits tax on the oil companies, or will the government cease compensating consumers in eastern Canada?
Of course, once the price of oil in eastern Canada goes up to the world level, it will mean that the price of oil all across Canada will reach the same level, thus doubling the price of a barrel of oil in Canada. This will doubtless mean another huge increase in inflation, and Canadians may be paying $1 or $1.20 for a gallon of gasoline.
I should like to know what position the government is taking. Obviously the minister is showing his confidence in the parliamentary secretary being able to answer these kinds of questions, so I ask him where will we get the money to compensate eastern Canada as our revenues from the export tax decline, and for how long will this compensation be paid?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Madam Chairman, the bill provides that funds for compensation will be appropriated by parliament. Surely the question as to where funds will be found should more appropriately be addressed to the Minister of Finance rather than the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. This bill sets out a regime till the end of this fiscal year.


Reginald Cyril Symes: On a point of order, Madam Chairman, the non-answers of the parliamentary secretary confirm my original view that we are wasting time trying to discuss this bill in the House today. We cannot get any definitive answers.


Eudore Allard: Madam Chairman, even if the province of Quebec has no oil resources, I am pleased to take part in the debate of Bill C-32 which deals with an extremely important matter for the future of our country. If present conditions hold, the productive capacity of oil fields in Canada will start to decline in a few years from now or in not more than four or five years.
Even if the country goes all out to transform in real supplies its immense energy potential, it will not for some
Oil and Petroleum
twenty years recover the freedom it now enjoys in choosing among various types of energy. Any curtailment of exploration and development would throw the country in the situation of energy shortage now experienced by various countries. The degree of government taxation is an important factor in determining the development of petroleum resources, in promoting or discouraging the exploitation of future discoveries.
According to various inquiries, it is estimated that it will take about $50 billion in the next ten years to enable our country to regain its present independence. Our problem right now is to find new sources of energy. Since charity begins at home, it is imperative to think first about Canada's needs. As it deals with a non-renewable resource, it is urgent that the government take steps to ensure that research for the protection of existing reserves be maintained and encouraged.


Mr. Andre:: Madam Chairman, I see it is very near the hour of adjournment, but may I ask the parliamentary secretary whether the minister will be here tomorrow? No offence intended; he has answered questions in the fashion we have become accustomed to, but could he answer that question?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Yes, Madam Chairman. It is our intention to go on with this bill tomorrow and the minister will be here. It was only because of such great co-operation from the other side that we were able to get in this very enlightening half hour this afternoon on the bill. I am sure we will go on to make a great deal of progress tomorrow, and I thank the members of the committee for this co-operation.


Harvie Andre: Then may I call it six o'clock.


B. Keith Penner: Order. It being six o'clock, I must rise, report progress and request leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At 6.02 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
1959

Thursday, December 5, 1974