1974-12-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Special Committee on Egg Marketing, in the two official languages.-Mr. Fox.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, this is the second or third thrilling instalment of the question of privilege which has been raised before Your Honour in this House concerning comments made by the hon. member for Temiscamingue. I think it is good that this matter be settled and I may say at this point, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to move a motion at the conclusion of my remarks provided, of course, that Your Honour finds after discussion that there is a prima facie question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member. However, I think we are all aware that on Thursday evening the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette) made certain remarks which are the subject of the general question with which the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) proposes to deal. Those remarks allegedly involved the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) who raised the matter on Friday, and was supported in that by the hon. member for Peace River.
There can be no question in my mind that those two actions on Friday made it apparent that the matter should be dealt with at the first opportunity. The hon. member for Peace River was good enough to give me notice of his question of privilege. I am most anxious to deal with this problem, and I thank the hon. member for raising it because I think the House ought to give its attention to this. I notice, however, that the hon. member for Temiscamingue is not in his seat at the moment and I feel that we ought not to deal with it when the hon. member is not here. I wonder under the circumstances if it might not be simpler to agree to defer it until tomorrow.
Is that agreeable?
Some hon.. Members: Agreed.


MANPOWER
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 relating to last week's announcement by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) that an additional $4,914,100 has been allocated to the 1974-75 Local Initiatives Program. In view of the fact that LIP is a national program, designed to benefit Canadians in all parts of the nation and in view of the fact that three provinces in Canada, namely, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia have apparently been precluded from participating in the latest funding, I move, seconded by the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That this House instructs the Minister of Manpower and Immigration to consider including the three provinces which have been arbitrarily excluded from these extra funds and to make additional funds available in proportionate amounts for selected areas of need in Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan; and that the minister should, at the first opportunity on motions or otherwise, provide the House and the country with the rationalization for leaving out three of Canada's provinces from a program which is national in scope, at a time when economic conditions are uniformly worse all across the nation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion being proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43. The motion cannot be adopted 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 cannot be debated at this time.


TABLING OF FOURTH REPORT OF CLERK OF PETITIONS- RULING BY MR. SPEAKER ON READING OF REPORT
Mr. John Roberts (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, December 11 when the fourth report of the Clerk of Petitions was presented Your Honour indicated some doubts or concern about whether a request which I presented to have a petition read was one you could accept. As a result of your invitation for some contribution on this issue I have done some research on precedents and I think I now know more about petitions than I really want to know. You indicated concern about the language of the petition and mentioned twice in your remarks that a petition should not have in it any reflection upon a decision taken by this House, the government, or by other

December 16, 1974
Petition
bodies. Your Honour also wondered whether it was advisable to include in the petition comments or reflections upon decisions already taken by the government. You suggested that might be a bit of a departure.
The word "reflects" is ambiguous and might be taken to mean "refers to", or "alludes to". If one uses the word "reflects" in that sense, it is clear that in the past there have been reflections on or referrals to previous government decisions on legislation which has been passed.
Mr. Speaker Lamoureux decided to refer a petition to committee on December 11, 1970. That petition clearly dealt with legislation which had been passed by the House of Commons, namely, the Cape Breton Development Corporation Act, and with decisions taken by other authorities under the framework of that legislation. Therefore if the word "reflects" is taken to mean "a referral", there is precedent for accepting the petition which I have presented to the House.
The word "reflects" may also carry with it the connotation of "critical" or "hostile to a decision of the government or of the House of Commons." That leads to this question: What are the limitations on language which can be presented in a petition? Let me refer to Standing Order 67(4) which reads:
Members presenting petitions shall be answerable that they do not contain impertinent or improper matter.
That is the standard against which one must judge whether something is presented in a critical or a hostile way.
I take it that Your Honour is objecting to the phrase or language saying that the petitioners as Canadians view with dismay the absence of resolve of the government of Canada, and, secondly, that they believe Canada's abstention at the United Nations "cannot be justified". I take it that is the language to which Your Honour objects. I think you may feel that the word "justified" is being used in a moral sense. I understand that the petitioners believe that it cannot be justified in a logical sense. In either case I suggest that the language "view with dismay" and "cannot be justified" hardly constitutes impertinent or improper matter. If it did, members of the opposition would be impertinent and improper every day in this House.
A further elaboration on the language required in a petition is found in citation 333 of Beauchesne which says in part:
The language of a petition should be respectful and temperate and free from disrespect to the Sovereign,...
This is certainly the case in the petition I presented. I continue:
... or offensive imputation upon the character and conduct of parliament, or the courts of justice, or other tribunal, or constituted authority.
The words which I have read out in the petition certainly contain no imputation on the character or conduct of Parliament or the government. Criticizing an action does not carry with it an imputation on the character, good faith, goodwill, integrity and honesty of the decision which has been taken.
It may be that the matter which most concerns Your Honour is the decision of Mr. Speaker Lamoureux of June 7, 1972, when he found unacceptable the petition presented by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin). I contend that that decision is to be clearly distinguished from the situation with which you are being asked to deal now. It is clear, from Votes and Proceedings of that day, that Mr. Speaker Lamoureux had two other grounds not related to the language of the petition for rejecting the acceptability of the petition. He said, first, that it was his understanding that there is an avenue open to the petitioner which has not been referred to; in other words, there was a means of redress which he had not utilized and on that ground alone the petition would have failed. That is not the case in the petition I have presented. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux indicated also that:
Included in the substance of the purported petition are statements which, in my opinion, are charges of a very strong character against a minister and a senior departmental official.
In other words, they are allegations of a strong nature to do with their individual conduct.
A subsequent paragraph of the decision reads in part:
... I wonder if honourable members would not agree that if allegations contained in a document were allowed to be inserted into our records, another possible injustice would not be created.
I think he was referring to the idea that people whose character had been attacked in the petition would not have an opportunity to reply to that attack. Again, quite clearly the petition which I presented makes no such imputations of conduct or character of members of the House of Commons nor the government nor on individuals. It does not impugn motives. It does not charge lack of good faith or question integrity. It seems to be fairly clear that the precedents do not enjoin the rejection of this request that the petition be read.
There are one or two other points I wish to make, although I apologize for trespassing on the time of the House with this matter. It seems clear that the petititon meets the required form of petitions. It rests with the Clerk of Petitions. It is of course possible for members of parliament to see it. They have a right to see it and to go to the Clerk and have access to it.
I suggest that the reading of the petition by the Clerk of the House or the printing of it in Votes and Proceedings is simply the question of accessibility and convenience for the members. It is a little bit like the process of giving first reading to a piece of legislation so that members are able to regard it and look at it.
I suspect Your Honour is concerned about the possible disruption of the House if this tactic were used frequently by members to introduce matters which concern them. I would suggest the control of that kind of procedure is in the good sense of the members themselves. Of course, any single member could deny consent to have such a petition read or printed in Votes and Proceedings. In any case, the same objection might be made to rules 26 and 43 of the Standing Orders. Would Your Honour on that ground rule those motions out of order ab initio. I suggest if there is a problem with the conduct of the House business responding to the presentation of petitions, it should be discussed by the procedure committee.

December 16, 1974

There is one further comment I wish to make, although I believe the arguments I presented are convincing. We are discussing here not basically a question of procedure of the House, but a question of the rights of citizens of Canada, the right to present to the House of Commons through the method of petition, properly worded, a concern which is shared by citizens of this country. It is a hallowed and time honoured right of the citizens of this country. We should accept that the citizens of the country are not necessarily trained lawyers nor trained parliamentarians and that we as a House should be forebearing and generous in our interpretation of the words which they present to us.
I hope every member of this House will feel that when
2,000	citizens have gone through the rather time-consuming and awkward process of presenting views on which they feel strongly to the House of Commons in parliament assembled, that members would wish to know what are those views.
With the admiration, loyalty and respect I have for the Chair, I will of course accept whatever ruling you present on this issue. However, I confess I will be very saddened if through your decision today you restrict, more narrowly than precedent enjoins, upon the right of the citizens of Canada to make their views known to members of the House of Commons in parliament assembled on matters which they feel strongly.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak very briefly in support of the argument that the petition is acceptable under our rules and the precedents in that regard. I submit there is nothing in the petition which would not be acceptable if expressed in the House of Commons by members of parliament. When members speak in this House, they are speaking on behalf of the Canadian people. I submit a petition should not be rejected through interpreting the precedents in question as meaning that Canadians cannot use the same language when they petition the House of Commons as their own elected members can use when they speak in that House of Commons. I submit this petition should be accepted. To reject it on the basis of the language in it would mean that the ancient right of citizens to petition parliament would be limited. This is because we would be limited to interpreting this right according to the more limited and restrictive standards of hundreds of years ago rather than current standards acceptable to the House and to the country generally. I therefore submit that the petition be received.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If there are no other hon. members who wish to continue this interesting discussion, I would remind the House, with respect to the able and experienced members who have made contributions, that the question before us, is, of course, not one of the acceptability of the petition. The petition in its written form has been accepted; there is no restriction with respect to that form which applies to acceptance by the Clerk of the House and, in turn, by the Clerk of Petitions. Any petition which the citizens of this country wish to place before the
Petition
House of Commons can be so placed in writing as long as it is presented in a form acceptable under the provisions. No restriction is placed on petitioners or petitions in that regard.
The question is whether we ought to carry that process one step further and allow the petition to be read. It is the right of a member presenting a petition to ask that the petition be read. However, before taking that further step I must express some concern about the contents of any petition which is proposed to be read, since in that case not only does a petition need to be in the proper form but, in addition, it should refrain from expressing an opinion with regard to the House or the government or the positions taken by members of the House, but, rather, that it should seek a redress of grievances. Petitions which have been accepted previously have sought to redress what might have been a legitimate grievance. I was curious to know whether or not it was appropriate to go further, having in mind the very terms to which the hon. member referred, one of which in particular caused me concern- the one which expressed dismay at absence of resolve on the part of the government in respect to an issue and followed by saying that the government's abstention on this issue cannot be justified.
Citation 331 of Beauchesne, the second paragraph, reads as follows:
The House of Commons is a representative institution. It only considers questions submitted by its elected members. The ordinary citizen has no right to appear personally before the House of Commons.
The hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) said the language ought not to be objected to because it would be in order if it were used by an elected member of the House. But with the greatest respect to that honourable and experienced member, that is precisely the point. This is a representative institution, and the elected representatives are the ones who should carry into this chamber opinions or reflections on the performance of the government, not messages from outside brought here in some other guise. A petition which seeks to place before the House the opinions of people who are not responsible, elected members ought to be viewed in accordance with a strict interpretation.
On further examination of the precedents I would draw the attention of hon. members to the ruling to which I referred earlier, that of the previous Speaker, Mr. Lamou-reux, in June, 1972. Examining a similar petition, he went over the same ground and clearly came to the same conclusion. He said on that occasion:
In the light of what I have read and stated I wonder whether hon. members would not agree that if the allegations contained in the document were allowed to be inserted in our record, another injustice would be created.
I submit, therefore, that the Chair ought to take the very strictest view. A petition can be received here so long as it has been certified by the Clerk of Petitions to be in order as to form; there is no restriction upon that. However, to carry it further than that and to have the Clerk of the House read it gives it some force which, I submit, ought to require us to examine it and to see to it that it is free from opinion and representations which, if they are going to be made in this House, ought to be made by an

December 16, 1974
Member's Salaries
elected member, not through people who sign, in an anonymous sort of way, a petition.
I therefore submit, with the greatest respect, that I should put a very strict interpretation upon this petition and find that the words that have already been referred to do cast a reflection and express an opinion upon a stand taken by the government. I submit that this ought not to be done by way of petition but ought to be done during the course of debate by elected members of this House.



ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-369, intituled: "An Act to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act".


Some hon. Members:: Explain!


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would say briefly that the purpose of this bill is to ask the commissioners, who trace the electoral boundaries of a riding, after the bill is passed to consult the members of the House of Commons before releasing their report to newspapers, in order to save money and make consultations really democratic and efficient.


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

Mr. John Reid (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-370, to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to end the discrimination that exists in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act against large rural ridings by permitting the commissioners to be able to use the 25 per cent leeway instead of having it work against large rural ridings, as is now the case.


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

[Stage Direction]
AMENDMENTS RESPECTING SALARIES AND ALLOWANCES On the order: Introduction of Bills.
December 13, 1974-The President of the Privy Council-Bill intituled: "An Act to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act".

Recommendation
His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons a measure
(1)	to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act
(a)	to increase the salary of the Speaker of the Senate from $9,000 to $15,000 per annum;
(b)	to increase the salary of the Speaker of the House of Commons from $9,000 to $20,000 per annum;
(c)	to provide for a salary of $5,000 per annum to the Deputy Speaker of the Senate;
(d)	to increase the salary of the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons from $6,000 to $10,000 per annum;
(e)	to provide for a salary of $6,000 per annum to the Deputy Chairman and Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the House of Commons;
(f)	to increase the sessional allowance paid to every Member of the Senate and of the House of Commons from $18,000 to $27,000 per annum;
(g)	to increase the allowance paid to the Leader of the Opposition in the House of Commons from $15,000 to $25,000 per annum;
(h)	to increase the allowance paid to a Member of the House of Commons, other than the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, who is the leader of a party that has recognized membership of twelve or more persons in the House, from $4,000 to $8,000 per annum;
(i)	to increase the allowance paid to the Chief Government Whip and Chief Opposition Whip in the House of Commons from $4,000 to $6,000 per annum;
(j)	to provide for an additional allowance to the Opposition House leader in the House of Commons in the amount of $6,000 per annum;
(k)	to increase the allowance paid to the Leader of the Government in the Senate from $10,000 to $16,000 per annum provided that such allowance shall not be paid if the person occupying that position is in receipt of a salary under the Salaries Act;
(l)	to increase the allowance paid to the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate from $6,000 to $10,000 per annum;
(m)	to provide for an additional allowance of $5,000 per annum to the Deputy Leader of the Government in the Senate and for an additional allowance of $4,000 per annum to the Deputy Leader of the Opposition in the Senate;
(n)	to increase the expense allowance paid to Members of the Senate from $3,000 to $6,000 per annum;
(o)	to increase the expense allowance paid to Members of the House of Commons
(i)	if the Member represents an electoral district in Schedule III to the Canada Elections Act other than the electoral district in the Northwest Territories, from $8,850 to $13,275 per annum;
(ii)	if the Member represents the electoral district in the Northwest Territories, from $9,650 to $14,475 per annum, and
(iii)	if the Member represents an electoral district not referred to in subparagraph (i) or (ii), from $8,000 to $12,000 per annum;
(2)	to amend the Salaries Act to increase the salary paid to the Prime Minister from $25,000 to $45,000 per annum; to increase the salaries paid to the Ministers listed in section 4 of the Act, from $15,000 to $25,000 per annum, and to increase the salary paid to each Minister of State being a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada who presides over a Ministry of State from $15,000 to $25,000 per annum;
(3)	to amend the Parliamentary Secretaries Act to increase the salary paid to a parliamentary secretary from $4,000 to $6,000 per annum
and, except in the case of the expense allowance referred to in paragraph (o), to provide in the manner prescribed for an adjustment to continue for the duration of a Parliament, of the salaries and allowances described herein to commence at the beginning of the first session of each Parliament next after the 30th Parliament; and
(4)	to provide that the measure shall be deemed to have come into force on July 8, 1974.
December 16, 1974
['No, the\nDepartment of Labour does not have a labour management advisory council. However, as I have announced on more than one occasion, a study is presently in progress regarding the feasibility of setting up some such body.']
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the Governor General's recommendation attached to this bill, the text of which appears on the order paper. As your Honour is aware, there are a great many citations in Beauchesne's Fourth Edition, and many more in May's various editions, concerning the importance of the Governor General's recommendation in this parliament or the Queen's recommendation in the parliament in Westminster. We learn of this importance usually when we get into committee on a bill and seek to make amendments. At that time we have read to us various citations that tell us that the House cannot go beyond the terms and the exact wording of a royal recommendation. I remember one occasion a few years ago when the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) was piloting through the House a bill having to do with medicare. We wanted certain changes made in that bill and we persuaded the minister, who was then minister of national health and welfare, to accept those changes, but he had to halt the proceedings while he got an amended recommendation from the Governor General.
My contention is that there is a defect in this recommendation-I could, of course, claim that the whole recommendation is a mistake, but I will not go into that today- that would put us in an impossible position if we tried to carry out its terms in a bill. I said there are a great many references to the Governor General's recommendations in the authorities. May I just read two or three of them. In Beauchesne's Fourth Edition at page 207, Citation 246 reads in part as follows:
The guiding principle determining the effect of an amendment upon the financial initiative of the Crown is that the communication, to which the royal demand of recommendation is attached, must be treated as laying down once for all (unless withdrawn and replaced) not only the amount of a charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications.
It is clear that we have to follow the wording of the royal recommendation with exactitude.
Over on page 216 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition in Citation 250, paragraph (3), the same stricture appears once again in these words:
No amendment affecting the purposes for which the grant is recommended by the Crown can be allowed.
Further down on the same page in Citation 250, paragraph (4), it states:
The fundamental terms of a money resolution submitted to the House with the Governor-General's recommendation upon which a Committee of the Whole is set up cannot be amended.
I think the language is crystal clear. Once we have the wording of the Governor General's recommendation we have to stay with it, no matter what happens.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if I could just interrupt the hon. member as I am having trouble with one point. As I understand the hon. member's point, which may be well taken and well established, and if I grasp his point correctly, the problem in effect is that the bill which the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) seeks leave to introduce must in some way differ from the recommendation, and therefore either the bill or the
Member's Salaries
recommendation is wrong. At this point, since leave has not been given to introduce the bill, the bill has not been introduced, and I wonder how it is that the hon. member can question a recommendation that stands on its own as being in any way different from the bill which as yet we do not have.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I hope no one will accuse me of having told you what I was going to do and having prompted you to ask that question at this precise point, because it fits perfectly into my argument.
If hon. members will look at this resolution, and I suspect that most members have read it, they will find in paragraph l(n) this phrase:
to increase the expense allowance paid to Members of the Senate from $3,000 to $6,000 per annum;
It is true that I have not seen the bill, but I do have available the present Statutes of Canada. According to paragraph (a) of sub-section (3) of Section 44 of the Revised Statutes, as amended by Section 1 of Chapter 45 of the statutes of 1970-71-72, the amount of expense allowance being paid to the senators at the present time is $4,000. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, for the Governor General to give us a recommendation of which he approves raising the allowances paid to the senators from $3,000 to $6,000 when in fact they are now receiving $4,000 puts us, I suggest, in an impossible position.


An hon. Member:: A typographical error.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Someone suggests that it is a typographical error. First of all, as a member of the International Typographical Union, Winnipeg Local 191, I object to this abuse that occurs when something is wrong and it is said it is because there is a typographical error. No printer misspells the word "three", and it is there spelled out as "three". Unless I can be given evidence that proves to the contrary, printers put down what is put in front of them.
Hon. members may say this is a technicality, but technicalities are pretty important around here. I suggest that if that is what the Governor General's recommendation says and the bill is brought in and says something else then there is a conflict, and the government has no right to ask for the introduction of this bill today.
There is a citation somewhere else in the book, though I was not able to find it in the time I have been looking at this. It is to the effect that in such circumstances an amended resolution can be introduced in 24 hours rather than 48. However, I submit that if we are going to found a bill on a Governor General's recommendation that recommendation should conform with the facts.
What this recommendation seems to mean is that we are going to increase the senators' allowances by $3,000 because it goes from $3,000 to $6,000. How can we change the figure three to six when at the moment the figure is four?
This is a defective and imperfect recommendation that has been placed before us. My point is that it should be sent back to His Excellency so he can correct it and it can
2266

December 16, 1974
Member's Salaries
be brought back to us again in proper form. I hope no one in the Cabinet will stand up and suggest he will correct it right now. I know these things are technicalities but it is part of our system that the Crown and the Governor General in this country have certain prerogatives and rights, but the Governor General has submitted this and somebody may have made a mistake somewhere along the line, probably not His Excellency in a personal way, but a mistake has been made.
Let me remind Your Honour that it is not many days ago we were asked to pass a supply bill in this House, which still has not passed the other place. The objection was that there had been something proposed for which there was questionable if any authority. I would remind Your Honour that you are also wrestling with another point of order having to do with one of the taxation bills.
If there is a point to be raised that there must be conformity between a Governor General's recommendation and the bill based thereon, I suggest it applies in this case. It will not hurt this House one bit if this bill's introduction is delayed 24 hours.


An hon. Member:: Twenty-four years.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Longer, as far as I am concerned. I suggest precisely because we are dealing with a bill that affects ourselves, a bill upon which the eyes of the country are focused, we should not violate, or appear to violate, or ride roughshod over the rules in any way.
My point of order is that you should rule, and I hope I have persuaded you that I knew what I was talking about, even though I have not seen the bill, that this recommendation of the Governor General is defective and should be sent back. If the government wants to introduce it again tomorrow that would be for the government to decide.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this recommendation is to establish the upper limit of the expenditures, that is $6,000. It cannot amend the existing statutes of parliament. Quite obviously and clearly a clerical error has been made. I agree with the hon. member that he would like to debate this bill for a long time. I have no objection to that, but I do believe that technicalities like this should not be permitted to interfere with the proper discussion of this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: If there are no other hon. members who want to make a contribution to this very interesting point perhaps I might comment. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has raised, as always, a very interesting and, I might also say, a very well informed and documented argument. However, I have some difficulty with this point, as he and other hon. members would readily understand and appreciate.
The recommendation itself is a necessary step or prior condition precedent to the introduction of this kind of bill. If there are substantive differences between the recommendation and the bill or if there are other kinds of difficulties in the bill which might test the authority of the government to introduce it, they may become evident
(Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).]
when the bill is given first reading and distributed so that hon. members can scrutinize it. However, the purpose of first reading is clear; that is, to see to it that any bill may be introduced, printed and distributed so as to give hon. members an opportunity to study it. There are procedures under which that process can be stopped and can be voted against if necessary, and I think hon. members are familiar with it. However, the fact that that occurs only in the most extreme and rare circumstances is an indication that, regardless of the content of any legislation, no matter how controversial it may be, it is the undoubted right of any hon. member, whether he be a government member or a private member of the House, to at least put in the form of a bill his views and opinions before the House. It is also his right to have the bill printed and distributed in order to ensure that all hon. members will have an opportunity to examine and study it, and therefore discuss it in an intelligent way. That process should not be stopped except on the clearest possible grounds.
The grounds put forward by the hon. member are interesting, clear, and easy to understand. They are that the lower limit is in error in the Governor General's recommendation in so far as expense allowances to senators is concerned. There can be no doubt that if the upper limit were in any way in question in terms of the bill, that would be a different story. In any event, since it is only the lower limit which is in error, and certainly if the bill sought to amend or change the lower limit, there would be considerable procedural difficulty, that may be in the nature of the bill. It seems to me that the scales ought to be tipped in favour of the introduction of the bill which in no way supports it in principle but causes it to be introduced, printed and distributed so that hon. members will have it in their possession for study. Certainly if it were another stage of the bill, it would be a different matter, but at this stage of the bill, unless the grounds are absolutely clear, the process of first reading, printing and distribution should not be interfered with. Therefore, I should ask the House whether the minister has leave at this time to introduce the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Mitchell William Sharp: the first reading of Bill C-44, to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, the Salaries Act and the Parliamentary Secretaries Act.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 16, 67, 94, 100, 102, 103, 258, 304, 342, 374, 415, 643, 650, 658, 663, 676, 684, 721, 807,
December 16, 1974

809, 810, 829, 835, 837, 843, 844, 866, 890, 904, 921, 855, 984, and 1010.
If questions Nos. 71, 81, 85, 95 and 202 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	How many persons are receiving pensions from private pension plans, such pensions being based on employment in Canada and what is the average pension per month received by such persons?
2.	Of those indicated in the answer to Part (1), (a) how many are having their pensions escalated annually at a rate equal to the rise in the Consumer Price Index (b) how many are having their pensions escalated annually at a lesser rate (c) how many receive no annual escalation of their pensions?
3.	How many persons are contributing to or are enrolled in private pension plans based on their employment in Canada?
4.	Of those indicated in the answer to Part (3), (a) how many are in plans which provide, after retirement, for an annual escalation of their pensions at a rate equal to the rise in the Consumer Price Index (b) how many are in plans which provide, after retirement, for an annual escalation at a lesser rate (c) how many are in plans which provide for no escalation, after retirement, of their pensions?
5.	How many persons in Canada are receiving retirement benefits from annuities, insurance plans, retirement savings plans or other schemes apart from employment-related pension plans and what is the average amount per month received by such persons from such plans?
6.	Of those indicated in the answer to Part (5), (a) how many are having such benefits escalated annually at a rate equal to the rise in the Consumer Price Index (b) how many are having their benefits escalated annually at a lesser rate (c) how many receive no annual escalation of their benefits?
7.	How many persons in Canada are enrolled in retirement plans of all types other than employment-related pension plans?
8.	Of those indicated in the answer to Part (7), (a) how many are enrolled in plans which will provide, after the payment of benefits commences, for an annual escalation equal to the rise in the Consumer Price Index (b) how many are enrolled in plans which will provide, after the payment of benefits commences, for an annual escalation at a lesser rate (c) how many are enrolled in plans which will provide, after the payment of benefits commences, for no escalation?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of National Revenue, taxation, is concerned: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8: There are no departmental programs to capture this information either by analysis of documentation filed for registration purposes or through filing of special information returns.
In so far as Statistics Canada is concerned:
3.	The latest year for which we have complete data on pension plan contributors is 1970. In that year, there were
2,822,000	persons contributing to private pension plans based on employment in Canada.
4.	Statistics Canada cannot reply to this question as asked, however, of the above figures in part 3, 2,630,300 contributed to plans with no automatic escalation, and 191,700 contributed to plans that provided for automatic escalation of benefits after retirement. For 147,400 the
Order Paper Questions
escalation was limited to a maximum of 2 per cent or less per year and for 3,800 the ceiling was 3 per cent.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What was the amount of the rental paid by the Liberal Party of Canada for use of the National Conference Centre by an international Liberal gathering earlier this year?
2.	How many hours and on what dates was the Centre used for this purpose and what is the total number of government employees that were in any way involved?
3.	On what date and by whom was the Liberal Party of Canada advised of the rental fee and on what date and by whom was the rental actually paid?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: 1. No
rental was paid. Policy with respect to the non-official use of the Conference Centre has evolved as its degree of usage has increased. Its original purpose was to provide facilities for the larger federal-provincial conferences when the facilities of the West Block proved inadequate. First usage proved to be so successful that at present it is booked heavily for months and in some cases even a year in advance for official conferences.
Since its prime purpose was to serve governmental conference needs, and since these were taken to include inter and intra-departmental, federal-provincial, government/ business and government/private group meetings, it was only incidentally used for non-governmental purposes in the earlier period when usage was not as heavy as it is now.
Because it was not intended that it would be used for other than government purposes, except in rare instances, no standard tariff has been established. Non-governmental users were charged for catering and similar expenses, including the cost of overtime it staff were involved in work after normal hours.
Because of the heavy and increasing usage rate for governmental purposes, opportunities for non-governmental use in the future will be very limited. It is the policy of the Department of Public Works to continue as outlined above and in the event it should be possible to cater to a non-governmental function, that is to say if the Conference Centre is not otherwise required for its primary purpose, charges will be made for catering, related expenses and staff overtime only. Departmental policy is not to establish a tariff of charges for rental of the facilities since this would imply an availability of the Centre for this purpose which would be misleading.
2.	The Sussex Room at the Government Conference Centre was in use for an International Seminar from 8:30 a.m. April 29, 1974 to 4:00 p.m. May 3, 1974. No special room arrangements were requested. One technician was on duty to operate the interpretation system.
3.	See 1 above.
28626 - 914

December 16, 1974
Order Paper Questions


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


Mitchell William Sharp: No.
(a)	to (d) Not applicable.


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


Mitchell William Sharp: No. (a) to (d) Not applicable.


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


Mitchell William Sharp: No. (a) to (d) Not applicable.


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


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Yes. The government pays the expenses associated with meetings of the Canadian Fisheries Advisory Council (a) since October, 1971; (b) through the Department of the Environment; (c) 1971- $3,316.34, 1972-$21,395.00, 1973-$29,176.86; (d) no.


Mr. Nystrom: 1.	With respect to the Indian Reserves (a) Pepeekesis (b) Okanese (c) Star Blanket (d) Little Bear (e) Standing Buffalo (f) Pasqua (g) Muscowpetung (h) Piapot (i) Gordon (j) Muskowekwan (k) Poorman (1) Day Star (m) Fishing Lake (n) Sakimay (o) Cowesses (p) Ochapo-wace (q) Cote (r) the Reserve north of Cote (s) Key, what road maintenance equipment is available for roads?
2.	On what dates were roads maintained on each of these Reserves from April 1 to September 30, 1974?

3.	Has any of the equipment mentioned in answer to Part 1 been inoperative and, if so (a) for what period of time (b) for what reason (c) on what date is it expected that this equipment will be operative?


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1.	For the Indian Reserves of Pepeekesis, Okanese, Star Blanket, Little Black Bear, Standing Buffalo, Pasqua, Muscowpetung, Piapot, Gordon, Muskowekwan, Poorman, Day Star and Fishing Lake there are 3 motor graders available to maintain roads. The Reserves Sakimay, Cowessess and Ochapowace each have their own graders while Cote, Key and Keeseekoose Reserves contract out their road maintenance.
2.	There is no date breakdown listed for individual reserves except for: Gordon, April 19, 23, 30, August 14, 15; Poorman, April 24; Day Star, April 26, August 13; Muskowekwan, August 9, 10; Fishing Lake, August 7, 8; Standing Buffalo, September 4, 5.
For the reserves of Pepeekesis, Okanese, Star Blanket, and Little Black Bear road work was done on April 6, 7, 8, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26; May 6, 7, 8, 9, 16, 17, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31; June 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 20, 21, 29; July 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 15, 16, 17; August 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27; September 3, 9, 16, 18, 23.
For the reserves of Pasqua, Piapot and Muscowpetung road work was done on April 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10; June 17, 18, 19; July 23, 24, 25, 26; September 6, 26, 27.
The bands have road committees who delegate to the operator when and where roads are to be maintained.
3.	One machine broke down and was traded for a reconditioned vehicle. One additional machine was inoperative for three weeks for lack of an operator and on two occasions for moldboard and transmission repairs.


Mr. Whittaker: 1.	What was the total estimated catch of fish off the coast of British Columbia by all nations in 1973?
2.	What percentage of this total was caught by Canadian fisherman and how does this figure compare with the estimated catch to date this year?
3.	What is the estimated size of the Canadian West Coast fishing fleet and how does the size compare with that of 1968 to 1974?
4.	What is the total of the low cost loans made to the British Columbia fishermen by the government?
5.	What is the estimated number of people employed by fishing and the related industries in British Columbia?
6.	What is the estimated percentage of unemployed in this industry?


Len Marchand: 1. As the 1973 data is not completed, this information cannot be supplied at this time.
2.	As noted above, this question is partly unanswerable. Canadian catch to: October 6, 1973, 354,541 (x 100 lb.); October 5, 1974, 302,494 (x 1000 lb.).
3.	Canadian west coast fishing fleet.
December 16, 1974

Near	Number of licences
1968	7548
1969	7064
1970	6829
1971	6606
1972	6217
1973	5871
1974	incomplete
4.	1973-74, $8.15 million.
5.	15,275. Related industries are not included due to reporting difficulties.
6.	Statistics are not kept as this labour force is highly seasonal as well as being frequently part time.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	(a) How many housing units (PMQ's) at Fort Churchill owned by the Department of Public Works and previously used to house Department of Public Works employees and/or other Departments, agencies or federally approved occupants have been closed down (b) for what reasons were they closed down (c) was the Government of Manitoba consulted before they were closed down (d) did the Government of Manitoba ask that these units be used to house the residents in the Churchill area, including native families resident in the Dene Village Reserve, administered by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?
2.	Are the units closed down empty and, if so, for what reason have they not been turned over to the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation to operate?
3.	How many units have been turned over to the Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. (a) Thirty two housing units (PMQ's) at Fort Churchill owned by the Department of Public Works have been closed down, (b) The units were surplus to Canada's requirements, (c) No. (d) Approximately 18 months after the units had been closed down the government of Manitoba requested that the housing be made available to residents in the Churchill area but did not include families resident in the Dene village area. The units were subsequently offered to the province of Manitoba on the proviso that the province take ownership and pay all costs to rehabilitate them to acceptable safety standards. The province also had to agree to service and provide alternative heating arrangements for these units at such time as it became impractical, due to phase-down of federal operations at Fort Churchill, to maintain existing services to the units. This offer was rejected by the province of Manitoba.
2.	The units were taken out of service over three years ago and are presently empty. See 1(d) above for further details.
3.	Fourty four units have been leased to the province of Manitoba through the Churchill Liaison Committee to be utilized in conjunction with the Churchill development. The Manitoba Housing and Renewal Corporation act as agents for the province of Manitoba with respect to this lease.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	How many Veterans Hospitals have been turned over by the government to provincial government responsibility?
2.	In each case, where was the hospital located and on what date was responsibility transferred?
3.	How many other Veterans Hospitals will be turned over to provincial authority?
4.	In each case, where are they located and what is the proposed date of transfer?
5.	In each of the hospitals already transferred to provincial jurisdiction, how many employees had to resign their federal positions and re-apply to the province?
6.	How much severance pay was given in each case by the government?
7.	In each of the hospitals still to be transferred from federal to provincial authority, how many employees will be expected to resign their federal positions?
8.	What is the projected amount of severance pay which the government will be required to pay in each case?
9.	Was superannuation paid to any of the hospital employees by the government resigning their federal positions?
10.	What was the federal share of such payments in each case?
11.	Will superannuation be paid to employees who will be resigning federal positions when their federal employment is transferred to provincial jurisdiction?
12.	What is the projected amount of federal payments in each case?


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Four.
2.	Ste. Foy Hospital, Quebec, P.Q., September 1, 1968. Lancaster Hospital, Saint John, N.B., November 15, 1972. Shaughnessy Hospital, Vancouver, B.C., July 29, 1974. Veterans Hospital, Victoria, B.C., August 26, 1974.
3.	It is the policy of the federal government to transfer DVA veterans' hospitals to the community in which the hospital is situated. This is a continuing policy.
4.	DVA operates hospitals in Halifax, Montreal, Ste. Anne de Bellevue, London, Winnipeg and Calgary. It is intended, according to established government policy, to transfer these hospitals to provincial jurisdiction when the community authorities are ready to accept ownership.
5.	No employees have resigned their federal positions and none will be asked to resign in any future transfer of a veterans' hospital.
6.	The amount of severance pay given in each case is determined under the terms of collective agreements negotiated under the provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act which are binding on both the Public Service as the employer and the employees. Ste. Foy Hospital, Quebec, P.Q., Nil; Lancaster Hospital, Saint John, N.B., $673,892.61; Shaughnessy Hospital, Vancouver, B.C., projected, $3 million; Veterans Hospital, Victoria, B.C., projected, $1 million.
7.	See answer to Part 5.
8.	It is impossible to project the amount of severance pay which the government will be required to pay in any future transfer of a veterans' hospital.
9.	As lay offs, the employees had the option of taking an immediate annuity, deferred annuity, a return of contributions or, under a reciprocal agreement between the provin-

December 16, 1974
Order Paper Questions
cial government and the federal government, the employee could ask for a transfer of superannuation credits to the superannuation account fund of the provincial government. These credits would include the contributions of both the federal government and the employee, plus interest.
10., 11. and 12. See answer to Part 9.


Mr. Rodriguez: What were the (a) total amounts ol money (b) number of grants paid out under the Counselling Assistance to Small Enterprises program (CASE), by industry groups, in each of the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70, 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74?


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: The CASE program was established in 1972/73. From commencement to March 31, 1974, the number of projects authorized for support and the actual expenditures have been as follows: F.Y. 1972/73: Projects, 164; Expenditures, $10,175; F.Y. 1973/ 74: Projects, 243; Expenditures, $39,017; Total projects, 407; Total expenditures, $49,192.
Data is not maintained on an industry group basis. However, approximately 70 per cent of the applications received have been from the manufacturing sector and 30 per cent from the tourist industry.


Mr. Grafftey: 1.	What transport contracts have been awarded by the Department of Agriculture to Lapointe Transport Ltd., 105 Industriel Blvd., Lon-gueuil, 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. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. None.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Grafftey: 1.	What transport contracts have been awarded by the Department of Labour 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. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: 1. Nil
2.	Nil.
3.	Not applicable.
(Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan).]


Mr. Grafftey: 1.	What transport contracts have been awarded by the Department of National Health and Welfare 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?
(Mr. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. None
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Grafftey: 1.	What transport contracts have been awarded by the Department of Public Works 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?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. Nil.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Have any departments or agencies of the government caused any studies to be made with respect to mosquito population and mosquito control by insecticides and natural means and, if so (a) on what dates were these studies made (b) what were the recommendations?
2.	Do the Ministers responsible intend to take some action to eliminate the mosquito problem in this country by natural means?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Yes, Agriculture Canada. The Canada Committee on Biting Flies was formed in 1973 under the auspices of Agriculture Canada to analyze the problem of biting flies which include mosquitoes and to recommend action which would be expected to alleviate the problem. The committee consists of representatives from provincial agriculture departments, universities and federal departments with an interest in biting fly problems. The committee is encouraging several approaches including the development of ecologi-cally-acceptable chemical control agents and alternatives to pesticides particularly those with the greatest promise of early application and adoption, (a) The department's research program includes two projects related to mosquitoes which commenced prior to the formation of the committee, (b) The studies have not reached the stage where recommendations can be made.
2. Any action to be taken will depend upon the results and recommendations emanating from the projects currently in progress.
December 16, 1974


Mr. Clarke (Vancouver Quadra): On the last business day of each month from August, 1973 to September, 1974 inclusive (a) how many keypunch operators were employed in Ottawa by the Department of National Revenue, Taxation Division (b) how many keypunch operators, formerly employed in Ottawa by the Department of National Revenue, Taxation Division, were receiving unemployment insurance benefits?


Mitchell William Sharp: In so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned: (a) The number of keypunch operators employed in Ottawa at the last business day of each month for the period August 1973 to September 1974 inclusive was: August, 1973, 142; September, 1973, 109; October, 1973, 109; November, 1973, 71; December, 1973, 147; January, 1974, 252; February, 1974, 1,180; March, 1974, 1,660; April, 1974, 1,700; May, 1974, 1,631; June, 1974, 295; July, 1974, 150; August, 1974, 133; September, 1974, 146; (b) No record is kept of employees after they leave the Department of National Revenue as to whether or not they apply for unemployment insurance benefits and receive the same.
In so far as the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: (b) Occupational coding does not readily yield this information. Unemployment Insurance Commission has considered this request and is unable to respond due to the high cost of the specific program requested.


Mr. Schellenberger: 1.	At the present time, how many people in the Department of Agriculture, Research Branch, are working on methods of control for wild oats?
2.	Does the Department have anyone on its staff looking into greater control of the weed by substantially higher kill per ounce of chemical applied?
3.	Is the Minister aware of the new machine developed in or about Texas which kills all seeds in the soil preparation and of which you can seed your cereal crop directly after?
4.	Does the Minister or the Department think that in the near future a farmer may be able to apply a chemical at a cost of less than $5 per acre for control of wild oats?


Eugene Whelan: 1. Eleven. These employees also spend varying portions of their time on other weed problems so that the total input on wild oat control is five man/years.
2.	Yes.
3.	Officials in the department are aware of the new machine now being developed in Texas.
4.	The department does not believe that in the near future a farmer may be able to apply a chemical at a cost of less than $5 per acre for wild oat control since the companies producing wild oat chemicals are forecasting increased prices because of rapidly escalating basic chemical and production costs. This outlook may be offset to some extent if the department's studies on improving the efficiency of chemical application equipment and increasing the efficacy of chemicals are successful.
Order Paper Questions FARM CREDIT CORPORATION EMPLOYEES


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by the Farm Credit Corporation (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?


Eugene Whelan: 1.
(a)	(b)	(c)(i)	(>i)	(hi)1968	630	4,612,700	1	0	01970	607	5,454,200	4	0	01972	508	5,863,100	20	0	01974	632	7,108,200	23	1	01908	1970	1972	1974*	$	$	$22,100	
,000 to 27,000	28,000 to 35,000	30,250 to 38,25019,240	20,000 to 25,000	25,000 to 31,000	26,750 to 33,75018,000	18,700 to 22,300	21,000 to 25,000	23,600 to 28,10010,620	18,700 to 22,300	21,000 to 25,000	22,300 to 26,50016,120	17,600 to 21,000	19,800 to 23,600	21,000 to 25,000


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by Eldorado Nuclear Limited (b) what would have been the 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 Company?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Eldorado Nuclear Limited reports as follows: 1.
March	March	March	March31/68	31/70	31/72	31/74(u)	954	825	687	754(b)	$8,090,000	$7,203,000	$6,706,000	$8,400,000(<[DOT])	(i) 3	7	11	20(ii) 1	nil	nil	2(iii) nil	1	1	12.	It is not considered to	be in the	interest of Eldorado	
Nuclear Limited, which is engaged in a competitive business, to disclose the salaries of senior executives.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by Eldorado Aviation Limited (b) what would have

December 16, 1974
Order Paper Questions
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 Company?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Eldorado Aviation Limited reports as follows: 1.
March	March	March	March31/68	31/70	31/72	31/74(a)	35	39	33	48(b)	$315,400	*421,000	$390,703	*583,00 0(c) (i)	nil	1	5	7(ii)	nil	nil	nil	nil(iii)	nil	nil	nil	nil
2. It is not considered to be in the interest of Eldorado Aviation Limited, which is engaged in a competitive business, to disclose the salaries of senior executives.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by Canadian Arsenals Ltd. (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 Company?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: 1.
(a)
(b)
<e)	(i)
(ii)
(iii)
2. Salary Range
March 31, 1968
1,002
*5,567,021

19.000-	24,000
17.000-	22,500
17.000-	22,500 16,906-19,211 15,452-17,558
March 31, 1970
*3,909,078
*
22.000-	27,000
20.000-	25,000
20.000-	25,000 19,100-21,700 17,400-19,800
March 31, 1972
*3,062,608
*
25.000-	31,000
22.000-	28,000 17,700-22,100 20,100-24,200 18,010-19,578
March 31, 1974
*3,802,853
*
26,750-33,750
23,500-30,000
22,200-27,800
20,300-25,400
19,715-22,407


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by the Agricultural Stabilization Board (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 Board?


Eugene Whelan: 1.
(a) 62-1968 60-1970 60-1972 59-1974
(b) *317,223-1968 332,817-1970 345,945-1972 437,653-1974
(<:)	(i) None-1968
None-1970 One-1972 One-1974
(ii) None-1968 to 1974 (hi) None-1968 to 1974
1968	1970	1972	1974$	*	$	*i.	13,308 to	16,068 to	17,969 to	18,867 to15,118	18,260	20,421	21,4422.	9,953 to	10,500 to	11,034 to	13,070 to11,309	11,931	12,538	14,8523.	9,353 to	9,867 to	8,862 to	12,358 to10,627	11,211	9,738	14,0434.	7,414 to	7,850 to	8,862 to	10,547 to8,176	8,626	9,738	11,9895.	7,441 to	7,850 to	7,139 to	10,049 to8,176	8,626	7,846	11,043


Mr. Beatty: Has the government surveyed the manufacturers and suppliers of scales for use in retail stores to determine whether conversion to metric weights on present scales can be made without undue cost or inconvenience to retailers and, if so, what was the result of this survey?


Gaston Clermont: The Metric Commission established a task force to investigate the

December 16, 1974

problems of conversion of measuring devices of all forms to permit the introduction of the metric system.
The report of this task force concluded that the conversion of scales in retail stores would require a planned program extending over a period of some two years. A working group has been established with the cooperation of the retail organizations and the supply industry to study the elements of such a program. Pilot projects are being planned for the communities of Kamloops, Peterborough and Sherbrooke.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to Air Canada Flight 807 from Frankfurt, Germany to Toronto via Shannon and Montreal on Saturday, November 9, 1974, what was the specific reason that this flight was suddenly terminated in Montreal rather than proceeding to its final destination in Toronto?
2.	Was any mechanical problem involved with the aircraft in any way whatsoever and, if so, what was the nature of such a problem?
3.	(a) Was one of the reasons for termination of the flight that the crew had exceeded, or was about to exceed, the number of hours permitted on duty by regulations (b) how long had this crew been on duty on arrival in Montreal and what is the maximum time permitted?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1. Air Canada flight 807 from Frankfurt via Shannon to Montreal and Toronto on November 9, 1974 was terminated in Montreal due to radiation fog at Toronto. It was one of 33 flight cancellations due to the fog that day. Passengers were protected on a later flight.
2.	There were no mechanical problems involved in the cancellation.
3.	Crew duty time had nothing to do with the cancellation.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the total amount of funds granted by the government to Participaction since its inception?
2.	(a) What were the specific amounts and on what specific dates were amounts granted to Participaction (b) what was the exact purpose in each case?


Marc Lalonde: 1. $1,394,469.
2(h).	Dates
August 20, 1971 January 14, 1972 July 19, 1972 September 12, 1972 November 14, 1972 February 12, 1973 March 29, 1973 August 2, 1973 October 11, 1973 January 22, 1974 April 29. 1974 July 5, 1974
Federal Contributions *
129.000
80.000
02,000
07.000
100,000
96.000
75.000 79,469
105.000
110.000
124,820
125,000
Order Paper Questions
Dates
August 26, 1974 September 24, 1974
Federal Contributions $
125,180
125,000
Total	1,394,469
(b) These contributions were provided to help meet the operating expenses incurred by Sport Participaction Canada.


Mr. Andre (Calgary Centre): 1.	What was the total cost for construction of the new Northern Transportation Company Limited maintenance building in Hay River, NWT?
2.	(a) How many man-hours of maintenance per fiscal year were budgeted for this facility (b) how many man-hours of maintenance were performed in the last fiscal year?


Jean Marchand: 1.
Estimated final cost (since building is not yet fully completed) is $1,700,000.
2. Building was occupied only as from November 1, 1973. For company fiscal year (January 1 to December 31, 1974): (a) Total budgeted man-hours was 69,600; (b) Estimated total man-hours which will be performed by December 31st is 80,100.


Mr. Huntington: 1.	Will the Minister of Manpower and Immigration advise if his Department has studied the matter of medical advances in the treatment and control of epilepsy and considered an amendment to the Immigration Act?
2.	Is the Minister aware of the medical advances made in the treatment and control of epilepsy and, if so, for what reason has an amendment not been considered?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The Department of Manpower and Immigration is aware of the medical advances in the treatment and control of epilepsy that have taken place in recent years and is studying this matter as a part of the overall review of immigration legislation now in progress.


Mr. Wise: 1.	Does the government have a policy regarding the availability and distribution of wreaths for presentation at the various November 11 Remembrance Day Services in Canada and, if so, what is this policy?
2.	How many wreaths were purchased and placed at cenotaph ceremonies in Canada on November 11, 1974 by the government?
3.	(a) What were the names of the persons placing such wreaths on November 11, 1974 (b) in what places were these wreaths placed?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. The Department of Veterans Affairs, through its Vetcraft shops, produces wreaths and other remembrance symbols. Through an agreement with the Dominion Command of the Royal Canadian Legion, the wreaths are sold at cost price to the Legion. The Legion in turn, through its various branches throughout the country, provides wreaths to the general public in return for donations
2274

December 16, 1974
Order Paper Questions
to Legion funds. The department purchases wreaths which are laid by government representatives at memorial ceremonies in the provincial capitals and one wreath which is laid on behalf of the department at the National War Memorial in Ottawa.
2.	Eleven.
3.	(a) and (b). Mr. V. H. B. Snow, St. John's, Nfld.; Senator M. L. Bonnell, Charlottetown, P.E.I.; Senator H. D. Hicks, Halifax, N.S.; Mr. E. V. Flewelling, Fredericton, N.B.; Mrs. A. Morin, M.P., Quebec, Quebec; Mr. G. W. McGuire, Ottawa, Ontario; Honourable B. J. Danson, Toronto, Ontario; Senator G. L. Molgat, Winnipeg, Man.; Mr. R.- Goodale, M.P., Regina, Sask.; Senator E. Hastings, Edmonton, Alta.; Senator A. E. H. Heath, Victoria, B.C.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	What is the total cost of launching and operating the STOL services between Montreal and Ottawa?
2.	What was the cost of upgrading the Rockcliffe Airport to the standards required for this service?
3.	(a) How many and what type of aircraft is used in this service (b) who purchased these aircraft (c) at what cost?
4.	Who is operating this demonstration service and how long will it continue?
5.	What subsidy is provided to operate the service and by what level(s) of government?
6.	Are the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec making a financial contribution to this inter-provincial commuter service and, if not, for what reason?
7.	What are the revenues for the service for each month since it was inaugurated?
8.	Is this service regarded as part of (a) the third level service being contemplated by the government (b) the government's regional air policy (c) some other policy category?


Jean Marchand: 1. Capital expenditures on the STOL demonstration project were 15'A million dollars, as budgeted. The total operating cost over the period of the demonstration project is projected to be approximately 9*/2 million dollars. The total cost of the project is therefore expected to be about 25 million dollars.
2.	The total cost of the Rockcliffe STOLport was 1.9 million dollars. This includes all buildings, access roads, pavements, facilities and equipment.
3.	The aircraft used is the DHC-6-300 (MOT). This is a version of the Twin Otter to which modifications have been made to permit the development and testing of STOL airworthiness regulations and operating procedures. Six of these aircraft were purchased by the Minister of Transport at a total cost of 5'/2 million dollars. This price includes the aircraft and spares, but excludes navigation equipment.
4.	The Ministry of Transport is operating the demonstration project. Three groups within the Ministry of Transport have a major operating responsibility. The Canadian Air Transportation Administration is responsible for the development and operation of the STOLports, the STOL navigation system and STOL certification criteria and operating procedures. The Transportation Development Agency is responsible for scientific monitoring and evaluation of the results of the demonstration. Airtransit
I Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan).]
is responsible for marketing and operating the STOL commercial services. The demonstration service will continue for a period of approximately two years.
5.	The total cost of about 25 million dollars is paid by the Ministry of Transport.
6.	The provinces were not asked to contribute to the demonstration project because the purpose was not to provide an inter-provincial commuter service but rather to develop and test a new mode of transportation. Development of ground facilities, navigational systems, certification criteria and operating procedures for new modes is one of the responsibilities of the Ministry of Transport. On the subject of provincial support to third level commuter air services, I would note that when the Province of Ontario decided to proceed with the NorOntair demonstration, the province paid 100% of the capital and operating costs.
7.	The revenues for each month are July (1 week) and August $153,000, September $162,000 and October $182,000. 25,100 passengers were carried between July 24 and October 31 for a total revenue of $497,000. An Additional 8,500 passengers were carried in pre-revenue testing of the new passenger service systems. Passenger surveys indicate a high degree of acceptance by travellers of this mode of travel.
8.	The STOL demonstration project is regarded as a step towards a STOL policy.


Mr. Howie: With reference to the answer to Question No. 452 of the Second Session, 29th Parliament, at what stage is the investigation into identifying and formally recognizing the house known as "Belmont" at Lincoln, New Brunswick, as the home of the Hon. Robert Wilmot, a Father of Confederation?


Iona Campagnolo: Belmont House came before the Historic Sites and Monuments Board of Canada at its meeting of November 15, 1974. The board's recommendation is that "Belmont" appears to be of sufficient architectural interest to warrant preparation of a full scale architectural paper for consideration at the next meeting; and further, that in view of its historical connections "Belmont" be considered an appropriate location for the plaque to Robert Wilmot, Father of Confederation. Once the board has received a report on the architectural investigation a further recommendation may be made at the spring, 1975, meeting, as a building may be commemorated for both its historical and architectural importance on the national scale.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to a newspaper column appearing on November 21, 1974 in the Record-News of Smiths Falls, Ontario and entitled: "From Parliament Hill by Mitchell Sharp, President of the Privy Council" (a) on what date did the Minister actually write this column (b) what are the names of all persons in any way whatsoever involved in writing,
December 16, 1974

preparing, reviewing or mailing out this column and which ones are employees of the Liberal Party (c) to how many newspapers was the column distributed (d) was it distributed directly from the Minister's office or was it distributed directly from the national office of the Liberal Party?


Mitchell William Sharp: (a) The column was based on excerpts from a speech prepared and delivered by the President of the Privy Council in the House of Commons on October 9th, 1974. The material for the column was provided to the national office of the Liberal party for editing and mailing, (b) Insofar as the minister's office is concerned, Jon Church assisted the minister in editing the material. The names of the persons involved in the national office of the Liberal Party are not known, (c) Do not know, (d) It was not distributed to newspapers by the minister's office except for a small number of copies provided to members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.


[Stage Direction]
Questioh No. 1,010-Mr. Herbert:
Does the Department of Labour have a Labour Management Advisory Council considering more effective ways of labour management negotiations and, if so, what progress is being made?
John Carr Munro: No, the
Department of Labour does not have a labour management advisory council. However, as I have announced on more than one occasion, a study is presently in progress regarding the feasibility of setting up some such body.



QUESTION PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. McGrath: 1- How many people are employed by the government in (a) Newfoundland (b) Nova Scotia (c) Prince Edward Island (d) New Brunswick?
2.	How many people are employed by the Marine Division of the Department of Transport in (a) St. John's (b) Halifax (c) Saint John
(d)	Charlottetown?
3.	(a) How many regional offices are there in the Department of Transport (b) in what cities are these regional offices located (c) what regional office includes Newfoundland?
4.	How many departments of the government have offices in Newfoundland?
5.	What departments or divisions of departments located in Newfoundland still report directly to Ottawa?
6.	(a) For what reason was the St. John's office of the Public Service Commission closed down (b) what office of the Commission looks after Newfoundland?
7.	(a) How many Crown corporations have offices in (i) Newfoundland (ii) Halifax (b) what are these Crown corporations?
Return table.



GOVERNMENT INVESTMENT IN CROWN CORPORATIONS

Mr. Fortin: 1. For each proprietary Crown corporation, what was the investment of the State, as at December 31, 1973 (a) in capital stock (b) in long term loans (c) in medium term loans (d) in short term loans?
Order Paper Questions
2.	What is the rate of interest for each category of loan?
3.	During the past three years, has the government granted loans under Section 82 of the Financial Administration Act and, if so (a) to whom were these loans granted (b) for what period of time (c) at what rate of interest?
Return tabled.



FISHERIES PRICES SUPPORT BOARD-APPLICATIONS FOR ASSISTANCE

Mr. Marshall: How many applications were received by the Fisheries Prices Support Board since July 30, 1974 under (a) cold storage assistance (b) inventory financing and, in each case, from whom and for what amount?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT SUBSIDIZATION OF CANADIAN SAFETY COUNCIL

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



TESTING OF FISH FOR MERCURY CONTENT

Mr. Holmes: 1.	(a) What species of fish were tested for mercury content in Lake St. Clair (i) prior to the year 1970 (ii) for each year 1970 to 1974 (b) what were the results of these tests?
2.	(a) What species of fish were tested for mercury content in the Great Lakes system other than Lake St. Clair (i) prior to 1970 (ii) for the years 1970 to 1974 (b) what were the locations, species of fish tested, mercury contents and dates samples were obtained and tested?
3.	For the years 1970 to 1974, what was the mercury content of the following species in Lake St. Clair (a) bullhead (b) carp (c) catfish (d) sheephead (e) pike (f) rock bass (g) sauger (h) sturgeon (i) suckers (j) sunfish (k) white bass (1) yellow perch (m) yellow pickerel (n) dogfish?
4.	(a) How many Lake St. Clair commercial fishermen and members of their families have been tested for mercury intoxication (b) what are the results of the tests on blood and hair samples (c) have the results of these tests been communicated to the families involved and/or to responsible individuals in the community?
5.	(a) What level of mercury in fish is considered to be a hazard to health (b) how many cases of mercury intoxication due to the ingestion of fish from the Great Lakes have been reported?
6.	(a) What investigations are being carried out at the present time to determine feasibility of recommencing commercial fishing in Lake St. Clair (b) have the studies been completed and (i) if not, on what date will this be done (ii) if completed, what are the results and on what date will they be made public?
7.	Has the Lake St. Clair Fishermen's Association been informed of the results of these studies and, if not, for what reason?
8.	What liaison was established between the government and the Lake St. Clair Commercial Fishermen's Association following the ban imposed by the Health Protection Branch in 1970?
9.	Was compensation paid by the government to the Lake St. Clair commercial fishermen for the years 1970 to 1974 inclusive and, if so, in what amount?
28626-lO'/z

December 16, 1974
Oral Questions
10.	On what date will the commercial fishermen be able to resume fishing in Lake St. Clair?
Return tabled.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who told me last Friday that, with regard to his government's attempt to achieve a consensus, the exploratory stage would commence in January. If the exploratory stage is to commence in January, what stage have we been in since the Speech from the Throne, a pre-exploratory stage? Could the minister indicate what has been going on until the present.


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I will accept the hon. member's definition.


Gerald William Baldwin: Prehistoric.


INFLATION-PROPOSALS OF GOVERNMENT AND NAMES OF PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR SEEKING CONSENSUS OF VARIOUS GROUPS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: do not know quite why there is so much security surrounding this operation, but could the minister tell us whether the task force that has been established, he said, to co-ordinate and set up a schedule for this exercise has prepared government proposals to be discussed during this exploratory stage or, if it has not prepared such specific proposals, why is it that the government is waiting until some time in January to commence this exploration?


John Napier Turner: The purpose of the exploratory stage is for the government to come in with a position that is not firm but one that opens up a dialogue and discussion with various sectors of the economy as to what in their opinion would be a reasonable position for each of those sectors to take, arriving at a consensus for limiting respective demands in the economy. Up to this stage, the discussions have been limited on an informal basis to ascertaining whether there was any chance for this type of operation to succeed at all.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I must confess to a certain bewilderment, which is very unusual for me under these circumstances, as to what has been going on, if anything. I would like to ask the Minister of Finance, as a final supplementary question with respect to this pre-exploratory stage, whether it is going to become an exploratory stage some time in the new year or whether the minister is now in a position to indicate who is in charge of it because he said in the House on Friday that the task force had been established but he was not sure whether he was free to indicate who
was to head the task force. Can he at least give us that crumb of information? If total security surrounds what is going on, can he at least tell us who is doing it?


An hon. Member:: Mackenzie King.


John Napier Turner: When this stage begins, we will be making appropriate statements in the House and the personnel of the task force will be described to the House in detail.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When the Minister of Finance explains this he sounds very much like Geoff Scott imitating me explaining the PC Canada fund.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INFLATION-GOVERNMENT GUIDELINES IN SEEKING A CONSENSUS OF VARIOUS GROUPS-POSSIBLE COMPENSATION FOR THOSE WHO OPERATE WITHIN NATIONAL CONSENSUS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: May I ask the
Minister of Finance whether, when he sets out on his pursuit of a national consensus for voluntary restraints next month he can tell the House if before entering into these negotiations, hopefully leading to a national consensus on voluntary restraint, he is prepared to tell the House what guidelines the government has evolved for itself?


An hon. Member:: 50 per cent!


John Napier Turner: At the exploratory stage there are no guidelines at all. The purpose of the exercise is to ascertain what, in the view of various sectors of the economy, are reasonable positions to take.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the minister if he has conceived of a plan to compensate those who are prepared to operate within a national consensus, and, if so, what form will that compensation take? Does the minister propose to back this up with appropriate legislation in the House?


John Napier Turner: As I said in the budget speech, Mr. Speaker, the plan is not one to be imposed; it is one to be mutually evolved by reason of the consensus process itself.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the minister if he has put it to the provincial ministers of finance that his plan involves a compensatory factor for those groups in the economy who are prepared to operate within the restraints which would be imposed upon them within the national guideline.


John Napier Turner: No, Mr. Speaker, that was not put forward to them in that detail.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON RESTRICTING EXPENDITURES IN VIEW OF PROPOSED SALARY INCREASE FOR MEMBERS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the President of the Treasury Board. Since the Minister of Finance informed the House last

December 16, 1974

Thursday that the government was planning to restrict its increase in expenditures for the present year to 15 per cent, can the minister inform the House whether the government has changed its position on this matter both in terms of salaries it is considering for civil servants and in terms of other expenditures by the federal government for public construction and so on, in light of the fact that the government has today introduced a bill that is going to increase salaries of members of parliament by 50 per cent?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think we will negotiate with the unions. I find the hon. member trying to play politics and I do not answer that kind of question.


INFLATION-POSSIBLE USE OF FIFTY PER CENT AS GUIDELINE IN SEEKING CONSENSUS OF VARIOUS GROUPS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, apparently members on both sides are a little sensitive on this issue. I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Can he inform the House if the proposed 50 per cent salary increase for members of parliament, not to mention cabinet ministers and other people, is the same formula which he or other cabinet members or their officials will use in discussions across the country with what the minister has described as a variety of interest groups. Is the 50 per cent going to be the figure used?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. Minister is ready and anxious to answer the question. However, on previous occasions when there have been legislative measures before the House the Chair has quite properly taken the stand that if the matter is about to be considered by the House, surely the minister responsible for the legislation on behalf of the government will be compelled to attend either before a committee of the whole House or a standing committee of the House and questions of that sort ought to be put during the course of the legislative process. Questions in the question period ought not to concern themselves with items that are going to be before the House in a regular legislative way.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, a point of order. With respect I share entirely your judgment about questions pertaining to bills that are just being introduced and are going to be debated later, of course. But my question has nothing to do with the bill that has been introduced. My question pertains to the 50 per cent guideline figure. I am asking the Minister of Finance if it is the government's position that a 50 per cent increase in salaries and wages, which is admittedly in the bill that is going to be discussed later but that is not the point of the question, is going to be the government's position in terms of its discussions with Canadians during the coming months which the minister has indicated are going to take place?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman refers to the fact that the last increase for members was three or three and a half years ago, and that this will be the only increase they would have for the life of this parliament, then the increase of 50 per cent if
Oral Questions
prorated over eight years would come to somewhere between 6 per cent and 6V2 per cent per year.


SALARY INCREASE OF MEMBERS AS EXAMPLE OF LEADERSHIP-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister of course did not answer my question, so my final supplementary is to the Prime Minister. Since the Minister of Finance said that the tax cuts in the budget were intended to increase disposable incomes of Canadians and I quote from Hansard of December 11 "particularly the lower income groups", and since those at the lowest end of the income scale save only the grand total of $50 in taxes this year, does the Prime Minister regard the proposed annual salary increase for members of parliament of $13,000, which is more than the total annual earnings of the majority of Canadians this year, as an example of effective leadership?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in so far as the question is addressed to myself, I would repeat what the House Leader said this morning at his press conference. This is an initiative which was put to the government by a group of members of all parties, including his own-


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Some hon. Members:: Yes, yes!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do want to say most emphatically that the government is prepared to take its responsibilities, out of respect for members of parliament, and we will not force this bill down the throats of members. We hope it corresponds to the general will of members, and we will see what the debate provides.


John Edward Broadbent: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister has just referred to a presentation made to the government House Leader by a group which he said was representative of all parties. I should like to make it perfectly clear that the New Democratic Party took no part in such a group-


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


John Edward Broadbent: At no time was there any authorization by this party-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -for any member to take part, and if the Prime Minister checks with the government House Leader I think he will state that in clear terms. There was no such group in which this party was represented.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the same point. I believe that I could say the same for this cabinet. The group that met included some representatives of all parties.


John Edward Broadbent: No, it did not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Certainly, the Liberals had no mandate from the government to negotiate anything. They were not

December 16, 1974
Oral Questions
speaking for members of parliament. They spoke for themselves.


Mr. MacGuigan:: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the confusion arises from the identification of a group or committee. In fact, there were discussions among backbenchers of all parties. None of those backbenchers was designated by their party, but in each case they spoke for themselves and other members of their party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is question of privilege on the floor of the House at the present moment. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby has raised his question of privilege in the form of a denial that his party was in any way involved in what were referred to as discussions or negotiations prior to the introduction of the bill. In any event, there has now been contrary comment in respect to that position. I get back to the point, without in any way resolving or endeavouring to resolve what has been raised as a legitimate question of privilege and without accepting it as such, that what has been faised is a matter of considerable importance and substance in the debate on the bill, which precisely gets back to the original point that when a bill is before the House for debate the terms and conditions of that bill ought not to be the subject of questions during the question period.


HOUSING
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
In view of the fact that a home ownership savings plan was proposed in his budget speech, and that caisses populates were foremost in offering mortgage loans to the population as a whole, can the minister advise the House whether, like chartered banks, caisse populates will be allowed to sell federally sponsored home ownership savings plans?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, while it is impossible for me to give a definitive list of such investments, I intend to recommend that the list of qualified investments be extended by regulation such as to parallel those investments which I feel qualify for registered retirement savings plans. This list would include such things as deposits with a credit union or caisse populaire, shares of a mutual fund corporation and units of a mutual fund trust.


FUNDY TIDAL POWER PROJECT-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON DISCUSSIONS WITH STATE OF MAINE
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy,

Mines and Resources. I understand that the minister had meetings today with officials from the State of Maine in relation to Fundy tidal power and related power matters. I wonder if he is in a position to inform the House of the progress of these discussions or future occurrences?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this was just an initial contact with the Maine officials, in the process of which we discussed the development of the St. John's River, the impact of Fundy tidal power development and also deep water oil ports on the east coast. We decided, as a result of that meeting, to have further official contacts, of which I shall advise the House from time to time. May I express my appreciation to the hon. member for having arranged the introduction.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. Now that the minister has had an opportunity to review the evidence related to alleged incidents of violence, intimidation and related matters within the Seafarers' International Union, and now that the minister has had an opportunity to consider a letter from his counterpart in Ontario dealing with the same subject, will he indicate if he feels there are sufficient grounds for holding an inquiry into SIU activities in past months and years? If not, why not?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the answer is that we have not yet had ample opportunity to review the submissions from the Solicitor General's office in Ontario, to see if anything new has been added to what was known to us before. Of course, at the same time certain investigations are still going on.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. As the government has ordered previous inquiries into incidents not dissimilar to those now allegedly involving the SIU, will the minister say if he has reviewed the evidence which was required before other inquiries were undertaken and will he say whether there is now sufficient evidence to warrant the holding of an inquiry at the present time? How does the amount of evidence which was available previously before other enquiries were commissioned compare with the amount of evidence now available? I ask this as the minister persists in saying that he needs more time before deciding whether an inquiry into SIU activities is warranted.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is appropriate to take a reasonable amount of time in looking at any particular submissions before reaching conclusions. There have been other occasions where significant amounts of evidence of serious occurrences, together with strong submissions from the labour movement in the country and the management involved, together supported an inquiry. Much of
December 16, 1974

that is lacking in this particular case. I say that without wanting to prejudge the very question of whether there is any basis for an inquiry. At the moment, a good deal of the evidence which exists about anything substantial is, in simple terms, related to criminal activity which, in the ordinary course, the provincial authorities would deal with by laying supporting criminal charges. Of course, we clearly indicate our willingness, when asked, to give support to the provincial authorities, if they need it, in carrying out their responsibilities under the Criminal Code.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my supplementary question to the Solicitor General. As recorded on page 1941 of Hansard, the Solicitor General said:
... if the RCMP ... do not have enough evidence to prosecute then there may be grounds for having a public inquiry ...
He said that a police investigation was under way, following which there may have to be a public inquiry. Will the Solicitor General say if the RCMP investigation has been completed and whether any decision has been taken on the basis of that investigation for the holding of a public inquiry either into violence concerning the SIU, or the question of the propriety of the conduct of ministers.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the RCMP inquiry is still under way.


INVESTIGATION INTO ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION-INQUIRY AS TO INTERIM REPORT
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, will the minister advise the House whether there has been an interim report by the RCMP and, if so, to whom that interim report has been directed.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, they have given me a report. I asked if their inquiry was completed, and they said it was not; they had many more witnesses to see. That is the only report I have.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to direct to the Minister of Labour. In view of Mr. Justice Norris' recommendation some ten years ago that hiring hall practices should be brought under closer government supervision and in view of the complex complaints procedure set up in Part V of
Oral Questions
the Canada Labour Code relating to union members being wronged by their own union, which tends to limit procedures for complaints against trade unions, will the minister assure the House that he stands ready to bring in amendments, if necessary, to Part V of the Canada Labour Code and the Canada Shipping Act, to enact further safeguards for the protection of members of unions who may be suffering from arbitrary or discriminatory treatment.


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, yes, I am prepared to consider amendments to the Labour Code with respect to any matters that are prejudicial to union members and which can give the men protection. I might add, with respect to the hiring hall practice, as agreed to in the collective agreement between the SIU and the employers involved in this case, no opinion has been expressed yet that this practice is illegal in the context of the present Labour Code. But that does not mean, as I said at the beginning of my remarks, that there cannot be improvements. We are looking at them.



ALLEGATIONS AGAINST SEAFARERS' INTERNATIONAL


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I understand, in my absence during the past couple of weeks, that my name was mentioned in a taped report in which the Minister of Labour was involved. I understand that the Minister of Labour has had an opportunity to look at the tape and to seek the advice of cabinet and of the Prime Minister. As my name was mentioned on the tape, will the Solicitor General give me the opportunity to look at the tape and/or report, in order that I can take the matter up with the leader of my party and front bench members in the same way as the Minister of Labour was able to take up this matter with his colleagues.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I received no documents, tapes or evidence in which the hon. member's name was mentioned.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I have an important question to direct to the Minister of Transport. In his absence, may I direct it to the Prime Minister. As eastern Canada, particularly the Atlantic provinces, will face freight rate increases of up to 30 per cent for some rates on the termination of the freeze on January 1, 1975, and as this area depends heavily on transportation for its economic development, which will be severely affected by increases of such magnitude, will the minister tell the House the steps he has taken to alleviate this seemingly unfair burden on the eastern consumer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will have to inquire from the minister what the answer is. I know he has had many meetings with the transport ministers of the various provinces, including

December 16, 1974
Oral Questions
those of the Atlantic area, and I am sure he has very much in mind the considerations to which the hon. member refers.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Following the question I asked him two weeks ago and following the questions asked by many colleagues, including the hon. member for Vaudreuil, last Friday, concerning the very difficult situation in the textile industry where, as everyone knows, layoffs are more and more frequent, is the minister prepared to inform us of the representations he or the officials of his department received last week and to announce immediate measures to revive that sector of the economy?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, members of the industry have met with the Textile and Clothing Board. I have met with the Textile and Clothing Board and expect to have more to say at the end of this week.



PROPOSAL TO ESTABLISH TRADING AGENCY-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Considering that the very recent visit of the Prime Minister of Iran allowed us to notice once again the inefficiency of our trade structures, does the government intend to set up a trading agency which would channel the demands for supply and services which, if necessary, would gather financial and technical areas relating to trade and marketing?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to connect trading society, which is what I heard in the translation of the question, with the subject of textiles mentioned in the previous question. If the hon. member is referring to a trading company, the federal government does not plan at present to form a trading company. If the hon. member was referring to efforts to interest Canadian businessmen in selling to Iran-yes, we have plans and we have been making strong efforts to interest the Canadian business community in the enormous business opportunities in Iran.



OIL-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON PARTICIPATING IN SYNCRUDE PROJECT

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the discussions which took place this week end between representatives of the Canadian government and Syncrude, may I ask what has been the outcome of those discussions? I ask this particularly in view of the statement which the minister made over CBC television Saturday night in which he seemed to be very pessimistic about the possibility of developing the Alberta oil sands. He suggested we would increasingly have to depend on imported oil. Can the minister give us the results of those discussions and what decisions he means to take with respect to the government's future conduct in this field.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I regret I cannot do so today. I hope to be in a better position to do so tomorrow.



STUDY OF SYNCRUDE PROJECT BY ENGINEERS-REQUEST FOR PUBLICATION

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister about the study which was completed about three weeks ago by some 80 engineers. Has the minister seen this study with regard to the cost of the whole Syncrude project? Would it be possible for members to have access to that report to see whether these costs are being inflated in order to frighten the government away from the hope the minister expressed of the possibility that the federal government might become a financial participant in this program?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I, personally, am not familiar with the study in question. I will make an inquiry to see by who it was made and what availability there is.



POSITION OF ALBERTA ON POSSIBLE FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN SYNCRUDE PROJECT

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the minister whether there have been any approaches by him or his department to the government of Alberta regarding the possibility of federal participation in the development of the oil sands, and whether the Alberta government has refused to agree to federal participation.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the question has been discussed a number of times over the past months. We have in particular indicated there are federal funds available specifically for this purpose and that research in this area in particular represents a high federal priority. This has not evoked any response from the province of Alberta. Indeed, the provincial treasurer for the province of Alberta, as recently as today, stated that that government had

December 16, 1974

still to make a decision as to whether federal participation will be welcome in that area.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister's department approved the turn-over of approximately 40,000 acres of land within the Wood Buffalo National Park, including the land containing the gypsum deposit at Peace Point, to the Cree Band as a reserve?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, a request has been made for this land, but no decision has yet been made on this request.


Peter Elzinga: Will the minister please explain why information was received by one of my constituents from the department's regional office in Edmonton confirming that
40,000	acres are to be turned over to the Cree Band in the Wood Buffalo National Park.


J. Judd Buchanan: No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot, but I will be happy to look into the matter.

(



WEIGHTS AND MEASURES


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. It follows on Wednesday's announcement of the extension of the federal educational support program for instruction in the French language. I notice the minister is not here. Perhaps his parliamentary secretary can answer it. Is the minister giving any consideration to launching a similar aid program throughout Canada to assist school and college boards in meeting the cost of implementing the changeover to the metric system?


Mr. Gustave Blouin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the minister had to leave for a few minutes. So I take notice of the question and I shall ensure that the hon. member gets a quick answer.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State
Oral Questions
(Fisheries). The Fisheries Development Act and the 50 per cent subsidy to fishermen to assist them with regard to ice-making, ice-storing and other ice facilities will be phased out by the end of this month. Has the minister given consideration to extending that program which is so necessary to fishermen on the east coast?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising this point. I have checked into this matter. The normal period for applications would come to an end on December 31. However, there is a recommendation on my desk for a six months extension. I think our actions will be positive.



FINANCE


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
In view of the advantages offered by Iran which is prepared to lend us a considerable amount of money at lower rates than the United States and since this government refuses to call on the Bank of Canada to get the funds necessary for financing the public sector, would the minister inform the House whether he discussed with the Prime Minister of Iran the possibility of our borrowing from them?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, there were several discussions between the Prime Minister of Iran, the Prime Minister of Canada and other colleagues. In my talks with the Prime Minister of Iran I only dealt with a rather international and multinational matter, the problem of recycling petrodollars, to ensure world economic stability.



OIL-POSSIBLE PARTICIPATION OF CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION IN SYNCRUDE PROJECT

Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Have officials of the Canada Development Corporation had serious discussions with the government about participation of the CDC in the Syncrude project?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, no members of the CDC have had discussions with me. I will have to check with my officials to see whether any discussions took place at the official level.


James McPhail Gillies: Is it the position of the government to encourage the CDC to take active participation in this Syncrude project?

December 16, 1974
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think two comments might be made. The CDC in its decision-making is, of course independent of the government in terms of its investment. My recollection is that the chairman and president of that corporation indicated the CDC would prefer to invest in a resource area where it can get a control position rather than taking a minority interest.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. In view of recent concern in the United States about potential cancer producing substances in the drinking water, a concern which has led to major tests of the drinking water supply in New Orleans and now in Massa-chussetts, and in view of allegations that similar substances may be present in Canadian drinking water supplies, particularly the Ottawa River, the very water which is distributed under the jurisdiction of Mr. Speaker, is the minister prepared to assure the Canadian people that similar tests are being taken in Canada? If not, can the minister assure Canadians that tests will be initiated or that their drinking water is completely safe?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of the Environment):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There has been some step-up in the tests of drinking water to ascertain whether the chlorine content is in any way comparable to the chlorine content found in those regions of the Mississippi which, as the hon. member knows, is very high. This is being followed very closely by all experts who are concerned with this. One must not panic about this question however. The hypothesis which has been raised with regard to the Mississippi is based on levels of chlorine which are many, many times greater than those found in our waters or, as far as that goes, in the Mississippi itself.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns the release on December 13 of a report by a group of social agencies in the city of Calgary, accusing the office of the Department of Indian Affairs in that city of practicing racism and violating standards of professional social work in its treatment of native people. Would the minister arrange for an independent inquiry into these allegations so that such discrimination, if it exists, can be fully documented and brought to an end?


J. Judd Buchanan: It is my understanding that this report was prepared by the Calgary chapter of the Canadian Association of Social Workers. The national office does not have a copy but they are endeavouring to secure one and have undertaken to provide us with it. I would prefer to see that document before commenting.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Frank Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On November 19 he responded to a question regarding the depressed state of the forest industry. The minister said discussions were going on among various departments and that he would have an answer within one week. On Thursday, the parliamentary secretary took note of my further inquiry. Is the minister in a position today to give us an idea what action the government proposes to take?


Alastair William Gillespie: I referred to precisely this point in the course of my remarks during the budget debate and I would direct the hon. member's attention to what I said on that occasion. In effect, I listed a number of measures which the government has taken, many of which were included in the budget itself.


Frank Oberle: Is the minister now telling us that the government is not prepared to take any further action, such as amending the Bank Act so as to allow section 88 financing for some of these companies which are obviously going bankrupt?


Alastair William Gillespie: 

AGRICULTURE


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: My question, Mr. Speaker, is for the very modest Minister of Agriculture. In view of the announcement of Friday that the government will provide a support price of 23.2 cents per pound for slaughter cows, based on the past five-year average, and in light of the fact that this fails to reflect the current rapid increase in the input cost of cattle, I would like to ask the minister whether he would reconsider the floor price with a view to adjusting it upward to reflect more appropriately current input costs?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the price we now pay for cows from both beef and dairy herds is one that we think is realistic and was decided upon after making many inquiries in the industry
December 16, 1974

with all those concerned, with the farmers, the processors and the farm organizations. They all made some input before the decision was taken.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: In view of the fact that there is to be no adjustment, I would like to ask the minister whether he would consider expanding the program to take into account the calves or other beef products and whether he intends to announce a thorough inquiry into the beef industry as he promised several weeks or months ago?


Eugene Whelan: We have no intention of immediately expanding it, Mr. Speaker, but it is not beyond the realm of possibility. The inquiry should be announced shortly.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. Will the hon. gentleman ask his minister to end what I am advised is happening in the Governor General's Footguards in this city where women are being prevented from being members of the band? Will he suggest to the minister that this outmoded policy sets a bad example for the whole of Canada at the outset of International Women's Year?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Len Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: As the hon. member knows, no government in Canadian history has done more to promote women's lib than has the present government. I will refer the hon. member's representation to the minister.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: No other department of government has ever done so much to perpetuate discrimination than has been done by you or your minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Do I sense a note of argumentation?



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to a statement made publicly by an official of the Meat Inspectors' Union that veterinarians of the Department of Agriculture who oversee the carrying out of the regulations of the infectious and contageous diseases legislation are not qualified to inspect meat intended for human consumption. Would the minister take it upon himself to refute this entirely erroneous statement which is a slur on the worldwide reputation which the health of animals branch of the Department of Agriculture has always enjoyed?
Oral Questions


Eugene Whelan: I think the hon. member has answered the question himself. Their reputation is well known.



MONTREAL OLYMPICS, 1976-INQUIRY AS TO SECURITY MEASURES-POSSIBLE INVITATION TO QUEEN TO ATTEND OFFICIAL OPENING

Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Can the hon. gentleman give the House an assurance that adequate security provisions are being taken with regard to the 1976 Olympics so as to ensure that any head of state, any head of government, and, indeed, any visitor to Canada will be able to attend the games in safety?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. O'Sullivan:: A supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister. In the light of the assurance given by the Solicitor General, and since one of the rules under which the Olympics are held-rule 56-provides that the official opening shall be conducted in the presence of the Sovereign of the host country, can the hon. gentleman advise us whether he has extended an invitation to Her Majesty, and, if he has not, will he do so immediately so as not to play along with COJO officials who wish the invitation to be extended only when it is certain that conflicting engagements will prevent the participation of the Queen of Canada?


Mitchell William Sharp: I think it should be open to Her Majesty to decide whether it would be convenient to her, and I am sure the hon. member would not want any expression from parliament that would suggest anything else.
*' * *



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Statistics tabled in the House by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council indicate that the life expectancy of Indian people in Canada is 22 years less than that of the general population. In the light of this situation is the minister giving any consideration to the possibility of lowering the age of pensionable Indian people to correspond to this situation?


Marc Lalonde: I think the real answer is that we must do everything we can to improve the health of the Indian people.

Oral Questions NATIONAL DEFENCE



BEQUEST THAT DEPARTMENT DISCONTINUE REPAIRING PRIVATE AIRCRAFT-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence. Would the parliamentary secretary, in the name of the minister, assure the House and the country that the government, and particularly the Armed Forces, will discontinue the practice of repairing private aircraft in government installations to the detriment of operators in the private sector who are able and willing to carry out similar work?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: No, Mr. Speaker. I will not make any such commitment without consulting with the minister.



SAFEGUARDS ATTACHED TO SALE OF NUCLEAR REACTORS

Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. It deals with nuclear safeguards in connection with overseas sales of CANDU reactors. Bearing in mind the experience with India, can the hon. gentleman tell the House whether the government has considered as a condition attaching to overseas sales that all plutonium generated in CANDU reactors be returned to Canada for processing, or alternatively that purchasers accept a Canadian operating staff?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I might respond to that question. The government bas indeed, considered the first of the two alternatives suggested. By arrangement with the House leader I hope to be able to make a statement on the government's conclusions in this regard on Wednesday next.



HOUSING


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, this question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Would the minister tell the House what types of federal financial assistance are available to present home owners, designed to alleviate the burden of the increasing costs of home ownership repairs?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is no particular proposal for existing home owners, but we are introducing legislation under the new policy of the government to try to increase

housing stock, as well as to make it possible for lower income families to buy moderately priced houses.


Stan Darling: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the factors contained in the housing component index, such as repairs, mortgage interest and dwelling insurance, have increased astronomically over the past few years, and because there appears to be little or no effective assistance available at the federal level to present home owners who must bear the brunt of these increased costs, would the minister consider the implementation of a program whereby a certain portion of mortgage interest payments would be made tax deductible from federal income tax?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we considered that but rejected it in the last budget.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the fact that Canadian fruit and vegetable producers must now initiate plans for next season's crops, and in view of the frustrations of the housewives of Canada this year resulting from the crucial shortage of rings and lids for the wide-mouthed Mason jars used for preserving these foods, would the minister advise the House what remedial action the government is initiating to alleviate this shortage and protect the producers and consumers of western Canada?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce was listening, and being fully aware of his capabilities I am sure he will make sure that these important items are available for housewives in western Canada.


George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the fact that Canadian manufacturers of these lids and rings have found western Canadian markets inaccessible in the past because of cheaper U.S. imports, would the minister advise the House why Canadian manufacturers were not protected against this competition that eventually left Canadians vulnerable to United States shortages and the ensuing abandonment of the Canadian market?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take that question as notice.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka pointed out that shel-
December 16, 1974

ter costs had increased astronomically. The recent consumer price index puts it .7 per cent behind, but this included 1.3 per cent transport, 2.4 per cent-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I would like to revert to motions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There was an order of the House made at the end of last week that we would revert to motions at this time and proceed with supplementary estimates (C), standing, I believe, in the name of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien).



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Administrator of the Government of Canada transmitting Supplementary Estimates (C) with regard to sums required for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1975 and, pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, recommending those estimates to the House of Commons, was presented by Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.
Pursuant to the special order made by the House on Friday, December 13, 1974, I move that Supplementary Estimates (C) 1974-75 be concurred in.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to special order made Friday, December 13, 1974, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) moves:
That supplementary estimates (C) 1974-75, laid upon the Table this day, be concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Gerald William Baldwin: I think so, Mr. Speaker, but I wonder whether we could have a look at the estimates.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I gave a copy to the Table for distribution.


Mr. Speaker:: In accordance with the order made, there is no debate. However, I presume there will be a bill presented pursuant to the order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I am not objecting to it; I just wanted to know whether I could have a copy.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have given a copy to the Table for distribution, so I am waiting too.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Supplementary Estimates


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Chretien thereupon moved that Bill C-45, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1975, be read the first time and printed.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time? By provision of special order made Friday last, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Mr. Chretien thereupon moved that Bill C-45, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending 31st March 1975, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, before this passes I should like to make a couple of comments. First of all, I presume this allocation is made from the surtax that has been collected and relates to oil brought into Canada from outside for Canadian use and consumption.
The Ottawa Valley pipe line has been in existence now for some period of time, but we have yet to resolve what I feel is a major problem. Although the area east of the Ottawa Valley for a long period of time has had a very large advantage over the rest of Canada regarding offshore oil, the government has been considering extending the Sarnia pipe line to Montreal to bring western Canadian crude to eastern Canada via the United States.
This bill provides for payments to oil companies in eastern Canada to equalize the cost of gas and oil with the rest of the country, but I think we should seriously consider the construction of a national pipe line that would go a long way toward equalization of cost right across the country. As this supplementary estimate indicates, we seem to be operating on a day to day basis in solving Canada's petroleum supply problem.
More and more people in the United States are reacting, beginning with representatives from some of the southern states such as Tennessee, by suggesting that a surcharge should be applied to the Emerson-Sarnia line so that compensation can be paid to the United States in respect of the transmission of crude through the United States. This, to my mind, leads to a much greater problem.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. As I understand it, we have given first reading to a bill based on the supplementary estimate and we are now debating second reading. Should we not have copies of the bill?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The bill is being
distributed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is distributed on the government side but we have not got copies over here.

December 16, 1974
Supplementary Estimates


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The bill was distributed on the other side before this side.


Stanley Howard Knowles: What we have on this side is the pay increase bill, and I do not want that.


Mr. Speaker:: Is Bill C-45 the bill that has been distributed to hon. members?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is the bill based on the supplementary estimate.


William Arnold Peters: This just goes to show that I will not be out of order, at least until we get the bill.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member should wait to see the bill before he speaks, as he is creating the impression that he is talking about something of which he now knows nothing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If he can speak for 20 minutes without seeing the bill-


Some hon. Members:: Maybe for five hours.


William Arnold Peters: Don't tempt me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Perhaps I should remind the House that the hon. member is the first to reply following a government minister having moved the bill, so he has unlimited time.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about the amount of discussion that has taken place during the last few months between the federal and provincial governments on the allocation of our remaining reserves. There has been an indication that these reserves are much less than anticipated. Recent figures indicate that probably the supply of gas and oil from conventional sources in western Canada amounts to less than eight or nine years' supply.
We should always consider the quality of things, but it seems to me that we should earmark some of this money for the development of an all-Canadian transportation facility, which would allow us to move feed stocks of crude from the west to the east, and also from the east to the west when the necessity arises.
It is now estimated that oil will cost far in excess of anything anticipated when the oil crisis developed. We have now reached the stage where the Syncrude plant, which was to cost $800 million, is now estimated to involve something in the realm of $2 billion. As a result of the situation today we will be paying a great deal more for oil than $8.50 a barrel which is the Alberta suggested price for next year.
Because of the situation as it is developing, it probably will be financially advantageous to be able to move oil to western Canada as well as moving western oil to the east as is now the case. Having regard to this allocation of money to equalize the opportunities for consumption of oil as between the east and the west, we should be giving immediate consideration to the development of a trans Canada pipeline facility which is capable of reversing the flows so that we can pump crude from the Montreal harbour to western Canada if the need arises.
Canadians have always considered that we have an unlimited supply of petroleum. Most of us remember that only a few years ago westerners were begging us to increase our markets and to provide all kinds of concessions to allow the cheap export of petroleum to the United States. At the same time the United States was being pressed to buy our low cost oil. Americans were willing to pay the Louisiana price plus the cost of transportation. That price was being used as the yardstick for the cost of crude at the Sarnia refinery and beyond to eastern markets.
Canadians over the years have not been aware of the possibility of a shortfall in crude or that our oil wells would eventually run out. The idea has been developed in most parts of Canada that we have an unlimited supply, and that no consideration should be given in terms of developing a long-term program. We constructed the line from Emerson to Sarnia via the United States with the stipulation that the United States would get 50 per cent. It is my information that there is no additional capacity in that line even if we had the additional oil to move through a new Sarnia to Montreal line. I understand that we are not even meeting the needs of the Sarnia refinery and the requirements for Toronto.
With the changes that have taken place it seems to me that the federal government should be searching for a means of equalizing the opportunities for all Canadians in respect of the consumption of oil. Perhaps we need a totally owned Canadian line commencing at a deep sea port on the east coast. Surely we have the technical knowhow and the facilities to construct such a line. We have the know-how to keep the Montreal harbour open almost year round, so it would be possible to bring in crude to Montreal for transmission west. We could use our present icebreaking equipment for that purpose.
More and more U.S. House representatives are suggesting a surtax on the Portland to Montreal line, thus it seems that we require an alternative method of transporting oil to our refineries. If we project our minds ahead seven or eight years to the time when there is no longer a surplus of oil in western Canada beyond its own refinery requirements, leaving aside the Syncrude and synthetic production, it seems we should be thinking now about putting money aside for these other development purposes.
It would seem to me to be necessary, for us to establish a fairly reasonably sized pipeline across Canada to carry oil.
I think that we have the know-how, and we certainly have the ability to put in such an oil pipeline. We should start on this immediately because undoubtedly we will need to run oil from the eastern market to the western market, probably within the next ten years.
I see no reason why we do not face up the problem. It is a fact that Canadians will have to pay more money for gas and oil, and that we will have to develop immediately some type of alternative energy source in Canada to supply many of our needs. Most likely we will have to develop electricity and nuclear power generating stations, but we will also have to develop some totally new sources of energy. I think that one of sources will have to be coal,

December 16, 1974

of which we have an abundance, and which we should be developing. We should not wait seven or eight years until there is no more oil in western Canada. Of course it may well be that offshore oil will be found in the next seven or eight years, and it might be advantageous to pump it west through the line which we develop to pump oil east. We should allow for that eventuality.
I suggest that the moneys that we are receiving now to equalize payments to eastern Canada will only be of short term advantage for the east. I suggest that we should be using that money in other ways, and tell the public in plain, simple language that the day of cheap gas, cheap oil and cheap electricity is over. It may be good politics to wait seven or eight years to tell the public that, but I do not think that this is necessarily good for the patient.
There are some people who do not like to be kidded about the illness they have; they want to be told all the facts so as to make their decisions in the light of those facts. Sometimes it is much better for the person to know the full extent of his illness rather than to be told that it is not bad, that it will go away and that he will get better tomorrow, only to find out later that he will die shortly. Obviously that is true with respect to our oil. It has a predictable life span which might end shortly, and we should tell the Canadian public about this. I have no objection to equalized payments, but we cannot continue this for very long. I suggest that if Alberta had not knuckled under in the latest developments, we would be making that decision right now, and not a few years from now. We should tell the public exactly what the situation is, what the $365 million means, in terms of compensation to those east of the Ottawa valley line-does it mean 10 cents a gallon for fuel oil for heating purposes, 50 cents a gallon for gasoline or $1 for aviation gas-what does it mean in terms of developing alternative sources?
I think that one of the solutions would be a transmission line running through Canada only, which could handle any distribution of gas and oil, not gas in terms of natural gas but in terms of gasoline and petroleum in its various forms. That transmission line will be necessary to supply Canadian needs, because the more the American tail is stepped on, the louder the U.S. reacts. It seems to me that one of these days the United States will state that no oil can come into Canada via the Sarnia-Emerson line, and that a very large charge will be imposed on oil humped fram Portland to Montreal. If that happens, obviously we had better have an alternative and we had better put some money into developing it now. This may be the kind of money we need, and we should start on it right now.
I had the opportunity of talking to the senior officials of TransCanada Pipeline and I discussed that possibility with them. A year and a half ago the government asked TransCanada Pipeline to consider putting in a line from Toronto to Montreal. After considering it, the company said that in no way could they do it. The land on the north shore of Montreal would be too expensive, would have to be expropriated at a great cost. They made an alternative suggestion, that if the construction of that line was contemplated somewhere down the Macdonald-Cartier highway, it would have to cross the St. Lawrence River on this side of Montreal, along the south shore, and come down
Supplementary Estimates
across the river at Montreal to the east end of Montreal where the refineries are located. In no way, they said, could they afford to construct that pipeline on the north end of Montreal island because the property costs would be fantastic, in fact phenomenal. They advised that it not be done.
I agree that it cannot be done, and I also think it would not be any good doing it because there is no oil. It has been a long time, as the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen) knows, since they did very much flaming of gasoline in Sarnia. That was a common practice there. There has not been enough gas coming out of there to do that for at least the last 18 months. In no way could anyone get bootleg gas in Sarnia any more, because the refining capacity is being utilised for the regular markets and there is no excess. Previously there was an excess. This is how bootleg outlets were established in eastern Canada under various names, such as Economy and others. But this does not happen any more.
I suggest that a pipeline must be built across Canada, and I think the minister will agree that the government will have to build it, because a line from the west to the east is estimated to be needed for only approximately ten years. Then, I suggest, it will start working the other way; we will be pumping gas from offshore through that line to feed the refineries in Sarnia as well as in western Canada.
I suggest also that reverse flow pumps will have to be used on Trans Mountain Company and some of the other lines from the west coast as well. I think it is time that the minister told the public exactly where we stand. I am sure that the Canadian public are aware of the fact that time is limited, but they have been led to believe that by the time our reserves of natural petroleum run out we will be able to supply petroleum from an alternative source, namely, the tar sands. If, in the last two years, Syncrude costs have gone up from $800 million to $2 billion, then I suggest that by the time that plant is built we will be talking about $4 billion or $5 billion. The only way for this to be done is for the government to do it. Part of the money obtained from this source should be used in the development of these two projects.
The bill was not delivered before I started to speak, Mr. Speaker, so I can only go by the appropriations, but I presume the important part of the bill is the schedule which outlines the allocation. Perhaps we should allow gasoline to reach its proper price level in this country. I am certainly of the opinion that if we are to subsidize anything, we should be subsidizing heating oil because so many people depend on oil furnaces and there is no real alternative to them.
The day is rapidly approaching when there will have to be a restriction on the use of motor cars because of limited oil supplies. If we allowed the price of gasoline to rise rapidly and to the fullest extent, the public would be better aware of the situation and would be more concerned with the economies we will have to practise in the years ahead while there are still some resources available.
In a previous debate I mentioned the need to develop a smaller car in Canada. We are still building cars that use gasoline as if the supply were limitless, but of course we know it is not. This parliament has not said anything about limiting the size of cars, however. Maybe the answer

December 16, 1974
Supplementary Estimates
is to ration gasoline. If the public were made to feel the pinch I think it would help toward developing alternative sources of transportation. Officials have said that we have only seven or eight years supply of petroleum products from conventional sources left, if no more finds are made. It seems to me that our expenditures now should be put into developing the tar sands, or into a transmission line that will pump oil east or west as the economics of the day dictate.
As we cut off sales to the United States they will retaliate in the way easiest to them, and that is on the two lines that go through the United States, the one from Sarnia to Emerson and the other from Portland to Montreal. Part of this expenditure should be devoted to a reversible transmission line from Montreal to western Canada. Perhaps it need only be built as far as Winnipeg where there is a connection available, and it could operate from there with lines in Canada from Sarnia to the Montreal market.
With such a line, if some unforeseen development took place in another part of the world, then offshore oil would be used for the benefit of Canadians and we would be able to handle it and feed the Canadian petroleum industry. For too long we have allowed westerners to subsidize eastern Canada, but I do not think easterners are too aware that low cost crude is being fed to the refineries at the expense of the west, without any reciprocation.
Development of the tar sands may be a long way off, and in the long run that may be to the advantage of Canadians if a transmission line is built. I feel strongly that we should go ahead and build a completely Canadian reversible transmission line immediately, and that some of this money should be devoted to that purpose. Our present financial difficulties should be reflected in the price of gasoline, I think, so that eastern Canadians can be forewarned of the shortage and of the high cost of gasoline in the next few years when it comes from the tar sands and not from conventional oil wells.
This is a very small bill, Mr. Speaker, a supplementary estimate of $350 million, and I suppose it represents a transfer of funds collected from one source to be distributed to another, the consumers of eastern Canada. But, as I say, maybe eastern Canadians should be warned of an increase in the price of gasoline that could take place arising from capital expenditures to solve the problems of the next 40 or 50 years should the tar sands be developed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this matter before it goes to committee of the whole. This supplementary estimate of $365 million is for compensation payments to oil companies in order to provide us with oil east of the Ottawa Valley at a price commensurate with that in other parts of Canada.
It is quite apparent that the measure is before us because the government decided that Bill C-32, the petroleum administration bill, could not possibly be passed before January. I think the government is very wise to put off discussion of Bill C-32 until sometime after the new year. At the time I pointed out that it would be possible for the government to collect the export charge by way of a reasonable ways and means motion, and that a

supplementary estimate could be brought in to provide for cost payments until Bill C-32 was dealt with by the House. Therefore I commend the government for leaving this matter until sometime after the new year; in fact, I think the government ought to defer the bill until the meeting of first ministers is held. It should hold off until some of the provisions of the budget of November 18 have been thrashed out between the federal and provincial governments. I am referring particularly to the question of resource taxation.
We in the New Democratic Party will support this supplementary estimate. We have advocated all along and supported consistently a uniform price for oil across Canada, subject, to transport and handling charge differences. Although we shall support this measure, we think the government should tell us the basis on which this money is to be paid and the types of reports we shall be given on how it has been paid. I am surprised that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) did not make a statement when the supplementary estimates were first placed before the House. No doubt he will make a statement in committee of the whole.
Let me point out that the money for paying these compensation cost payments will come from the revenues the government derives from the petroleum export charge, not from general revenues. This money will come from the export charge which is collected by the government, at present at the rate of $5.20 on every barrel of oil exported from this country. It is important to keep this in mind. Neither the public in general nor the federal treasury will supply the money for these compensation cost payments.
We should recall that the oil producing provinces agreed to accept $6.50 per barrel. It was agreed, in the interests of all Canada, that the additional money should be paid into an export charge fund in order to make compensation payments possible. It should also be remembered that, originally, the oil producing provinces were to receive 50 per cent of the export charge. That was a lot of money. They had a claim on that money, because they were selling off a rapidly diminishing resource; they needed to set up this fund for future development. It was to enable them to find and develop new sources of energy. The provinces needed that money.
As the provinces had agreed to give up 50 per cent of the export charge-I have raised this question repeatedly with the minister-is it not fair to say that if any funds are left in the petroleum export charge fund they should go back to the producing provinces? To be fair to the minister, he has never ruled that possibility out, but neither has he ever said that it would be done. If the provinces have a legitimate right, they having made the major contribution-I suggest in effect the entire contribution to compensation cost payments for consumers east of the Ottawa valley-they should receive the residue of moneys in that fund if any are left after the compensation payments have been made. As things now stand a residue will be left in that fund.
The provinces agreed to give up 50 per cent of the export charge revenue because they, as good Canadians, supported a uniform oil price across Canada. That happened, of
December 16, 1974

course, before they were double-crossed by the budget which told them that the royalties they receive will no longer be deductible for income tax purposes. I imagine that the attitude of the provinces is somewhat different now; it is not the same as it was previously. Therefore I think the federal government should keep in mind several things.
If the oil producing provinces had not agreed to forgo any claim upon the export charge revenue, the federal government would have been required to compensate people east of the Ottawa valley line out of general revenue. That compensation would have involved a considerable sum of money.
The federal government must do something else. It must stop misrepresenting the resource tax situation to the Canadian people. In the House, on television and on the radio, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) keeps talking about the provinces eroding the federal government's capacity to get taxes from resources. That is a complete misrepresentation. The Minister of Finance ought to tell the people of Canada that the federal government is collecting 54 cents on every dollar of oil exported from this country, and that if Bill C-32 is passed in its present form the federal government will have power to set the price of oil at any level it likes and set the export tax at any figure it wishes. It can push the provincial governments right out of the picture; they may not be able to collect royalties from oil companies if they want those companies to stay in business in the provinces.

I think the minister ought to give the whole story to the public. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) did it on March 28 last in the House when he said that the goodwill and commitment of the premiers of Alberta and Saskatchewan had made the settlement possible, that they were great Canadians, and that that was a great day for Confederation. Surely the government should not now distort the picture and leave the general public with the impression that the oil producing provinces have grabbed every nickel they can get and that the poor, starved federal government is being pushed out of the resource taxation field. That is the wrong impression to leave, as at present more money from the sale of oil is coming under the control of the federal government than is flowing into the hands of the provincial governments.
I was disappointed in the minister's failure to make a statement-I hope he will make one in committee of the whole-because we need to know more about the basis upon which these compensation cost payments will be made. Bill C-32, the petroleum administration bill, contains a provision for regulations to be issued. But there are no regulations governing these supplementary estimates; therefore we need to know, before we give $365 million in three months to multi-national oil companies, the bases on which these payments will be made.
We know, of course, that one of the bases is that we will be paying for the difference in the price of imported oil compared with the price in Canada. However, what about the host country participation? How is that to be estimated? How are the tanker rates to be estimated? There is a real chance here for a gigantic rip-off by the oil compa-
Supplementary Estimates
nies. Most of the oil which is delivered into eastern Canada is delivered by the multi-national oil companies, Creole, Exxon or Aramco, which own their own tankers or have scores of tankers under charter. Many of the payments which they put on their books are simply transfers from a subsidiary to the parent company, or even transfers within a company from one department to another.
Will the government have access to the books of these multi-national corporations? Are we going to accept their figures or take the average tanker rate? There is very little value in estimating their cost on the basis of what a tramp steamer costs. There is no comparison with the gigantic tankers used by the multi-national corporations.
We need to know the basis on which we are going to make payments. What scrutiny will be involved to ensure the Canadian people are not being ripped off? Incidentally, the provinces have some interest in this fund from the export charge. They should know whether the money being paid to the oil companies under compensation cost payments is actually what they are entitled to rather than what they are asking.
I am supporting this supplementary estimate only because I think it ought to be nothing more than an interim measure to deal with a situation that we in this country have gotten ourselves into because of a lack of foresight and long-term economic planning. However, we ought to move quickly to the point where we will not have to make this kind of compensation cost payment to the oil industry.
We should have in Canada a mechanism, and maybe the minister is going to use the national petroleum corporation as the mechanism, for purchasing offshore oil and then distributing it, if the minister chooses, through the regular channels within this country. There is nothing magic about hiring tankers to bring oil. As a matter of fact at the rate the OPEC countries are nationalizing the oil industry, middleman is about all the oil companies are going to be doing.
Saudi Arabia has announced it is going to nationalize Aramco. What does this mean? It means that Aramco will simply be a middle man between a state petroleum organization in Saudi Arabia and the consuming public in North America. There is no reason why a Canadian petroleum corporation cannot be getting oil from these state oil companies in the Middle East and Venezuela, and shipping it to this country. That is the only way we will be able to scrutinize the cost and ensure that the Canadian people are not being ripped off, as they have so often been by the oil industry in this country.
Some time ago the Shah of Iran, who can hardly be described as a raving radical, said his country was prepared to reduce the price of oil provided they were dealing on a government-to-government basis. However, he said they were not prepared to reduce the price of oil if it was handled through the multi-national corporations which could increase the exorbitant profits they already make. Therefore, I want to stress that what we are doing now should be looked upon as a necessary interim step, but not a solution. The ultimate solution lies in importing oil into this country under the control of the government of Canada.

December 16, 1974
Supplementary Estimates
There is one final point I would like to make. When we get into committee of the whole I would like the minister to give some assurance that we will receive reports on a monthly basis regarding this expenditure which we are now being asked to approve. We should know each month the amounts that are paid out by the energy supplies allocation board. We should know the names of the companies and the amounts paid to them. The amounts should be broken down into how much is paid for crude oil compensation, transportation costs, host government participation, and petroleum products compensation.
I want to say something about petroleum products compensation. There have been reports in recent months, and I do not know whether they have been verified, that many companies which formerly brought crude oil into eastern Canada for the purpose of refining it and selling it to Canadian consumers have been bringing in petroleum products. They refine the products in the Caribbean, bring them into Canada and collect the compensation payment. This has resulted in refineries in eastern Canada not working at capacity.
I do not know whether this has been verified, but it was reported in a Montreal paper, I think it was the Montreal Gazette, that one refinery had closed. Therefore the government should give some thought to saying that compensation payments will be on crude oil, and compensation payments on petroleum products will only be made if the refineries are operating at capacity. There is no reason why we should be importing petroleum products and depriving Canadians of jobs if we can import crude oil and refine it ourselves.
I recognize that there are no regulations in effect which require the government to table these reports regarding payments, the companies to which payments are made, and a breakdown of the payments. I hope that when Bill C-32 finally passes, that will be provided for in that legislation. It does not now, but that is something we will try to get amended when the bill is before committee of the whole in the new year. However, before turning over to the minister and the energy supplies allocation board $365 million to be spent in a three-month period, I think we are entitled to ask for assurance that regular reports will be sent to members of the House of Commons so we can know how this money is being spent, to whom it is being given, and the basis upon which the payments are being made. Surely that is a reasonable request. If parliament is to be the controller of the purse, and if the Canadian taxpayers are to know what is being done with their money, we are entitled to that kind of report. If we don't get it, it simply means we are handing to the government large sums of money, and abdicating our responsibility as members to see that the money voted for supply is properly spent, and that the manner in which it is spent is thoroughly scrutinized by members of this House.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon-Mr. Penner in the chair.
On the clause 2-$365,000,000 granted for 1974-75.
Donald Stovel Macdonald: Perhaps I could explain to the committee the basis on which we calculated the amount which appears in the bill, and deal with some of the comments which have been made by hon. members. The figure of $365 million has been calculated in relation to clause 79 of Bill C-32. Hon. members will recall that Bill C-32, under clause 79, dealt with the last quarter of the current fiscal year, that is January 1 to March 31, 1975, and provided an appropriation of $430 million.
It has been estimated by the Energy Supplies Allocation Board, who are actually engaged in the administration of this compensation payment, that there will be about $65 million on hand under Vote 52A as at the end of December, 1974, which will be available to be expended in the new year.
It is estimated that compensation costs about $5 million per working day. It is calculated that there are about 13 working days on hand for the new year, hence the sum of $365 million represents the original $430 million minus the $65 million for that early part of the year. One element which will perhaps disturb the symmetry of the previous calculation, is as hon. members know, the decision at the OPEC meeting of last Thursday and Friday to increase the price of oil by 38 cents a barrel, the result of which is expected to be felt in Canada about mid-February and will require a further $35 million, a sum projected to be needed by the end of the last quarter of the fiscal year, 1974-75. It would appear, therefore, that there will be enough in the appropriation, at this point at least, to accommodate the anticipated claims for compensation plus additional anticipated claims as soon as additional overseas taxes start to take effect.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands raised questions about the administration of the compensation fund. I would remind him that on two different occasions in the standing committee, during the consideration of the estimates in the last parliament and during the consideration of Bill C-18, we have provided a description of the administration of this fund.
The only difference since then is that the administrative responsibilities have been transferred from my department to the Energy Supplies Allocation Board, that is to say, the Board is now responsible for the monitoring of these payments. A brief description was also given earlier in the session during consideration of the estimates in committee. So the regime described earlier by the officers administering the fund is substantially unchanged with regard to compensation. Clause 79 of Bill C-32, of course, provides rather more elaborately for the administration of petroleum compensation and certain changes are introduced, but of course it is not effective as this point. It might be useful, however, to reiterate a number of points with regard to the administration of the compensation fund so that they may be clear to the House.
Under Bill C-18, and in the payments under the various appropriation acts which have gone ahead this year, the government has been paying on three different bases by way of compensating eastern refiners, paying on the "host government take," which is a generic description of the various kinds of taxes and compensation payments which are levied by the governments of the producing countries. The increase in the take of host governments has been
December 16, 1974

substantially the reason for the increased costs of petroleum coming into Canada.
In addition, payments have been made to some, maybe to all, refiners who have had to make additional payments to the governments of the producing countries. The host governments' participation through acquisition of the whole or part of the companies additional price paid for oil as finally arrived at by the producing company and the producing country has required these payments to be made.
Third, compensation has been made as well to certain of the refiners in relation to additional costs the refiners have incurred in bunkering-tanker movements from the source of production to Canada, that is to say, the additional cost of bunker oil arising from the additional increase in host government tax against oil in the various producing countries.
So what is being compensated for here is not a flat amount in relaton to various companies. The company in any particular case, the Canadian refiner, has to file a claim with the government administration as to the amount it says is owing in respect of host government take, or host government participation, or bunkering. This claim is subject to verification by a system of auditing set up on the advice of private auditors retained by the government. Accounts also subject to scrutiny by the Auditor General.
We are dealing here, not with individual company margins but with increases in landed price due to the increase in taxes payable to the foreign government, which in every case is an amount published by that government. These are facts within the general knowledge of the petroleum community, and in no sense are they payments made privately to a company account. Therefore the claims made by companies from time to time are verifiable and can be set up against the international standard of tax obligation. So, with regard to participation, for example, while the participation amount may be confusing because the system differs in each country, and while the calculation may often be complicated, it is one which can be verified against the officially published figures of the producing country. The cost of bunkering, in the same way, is really a determination of a claim by a company which has had to pay an increased tanker rate because of bunkering charges. In turn, the bunkering charges were raised because of an increase in taxation imposed by the producing country.
It has been suggested from time to time that rather than paying the individual accounts of companies a flat rate should be paid across the board. I would suggest the committee pause and reflect for a moment as to whether this would indeed be an appropriate method of making such payments.
A flat rate across the board would give a premium to some companies which may not have had to pay as much for the oil that is landed, but on the other hand may deprive others who have to pay a higher level of host government take. Therefore the host government take was determined in every case, and in due course audited in the companies' own accounts by the auditing arm of the gov-
Supplementary Estimates
ernment, and has been the basis of general comparison, because of the known facts, of amounts payable to the foreign government in regard to taxation.
That probably describes, without going into the fine details of administration, and without indeed having the administrators available to answer questions as they were early in the year, the manner in which we have proceeded in this regard. In sum, it could be said that in no case have payments involved any excess of the actual cost increases that have occurred, though in many cases these have been less because of what we feel is a tightly run system for Canadian importers or refiners.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands raised the issue of petroleum products compensation and referred to the situation of two refineries, Gulf at Point Tupper and Golden Eagle at St. Romuald, opposite Quebec City. He asked whether they may have been prejudiced by reason of the fact that compensation was paid not only on crude oil coming to Canada but on refined products coming to Canada, whether from the Caribbean or elsewhere.
Earlier this fall we were faced with the claim by both Gulf Canada and Golden Eagle that we should, in effect, use the compensation system as a kind of tariff to give protection against low cost competitive heavy oil coming on to the Canadian market at that time. The reason that only two, and not all of the eastern Canadian refiners, made this claim was that these refineries had been designed, at least in part, for the re-export of heavy crude oil to the United States east coast. In the case of Gulf, they had a contract with their own affiliated company, and it was the refusal of the affiliated company to take delivery of the oil from Gulf Canada which put the company in the position of having on hand a surplus of heavy oil.
The Golden Eagle refiners were not quite in the same position. That refinery had been constructed as a so-called topping refinery for the purpose of re-exporting some portion of the heavy oil products from the refinery to the United States east coast. The drop in international prices, particularly for heavy crude oil in the summer and early fall of this year, meant that both Golden Eagle and Gulf Canada had trouble competing with other offshore supplies when it came to selling oil to the eastern United States market and in the Canadian market as well.
We were concerned that the industrial consumers should have most of the benefit of lower competitive prices, rather than introducing a tariff system that favoured these two Canadian refiners. The usual threats, of course, were made, such as that the refiners would close. Indeed, Golden Eagle did close up shortly after that comment was made, but there is some reason to believe that this was because of their annual refit, or whatever is the appropriate term in the petroleum trade. The annual refurbishing of the refinery was going on, and it is my understanding that it is now back in operation, and has been for some time. I also understand there has been no substantial interruption in the operations of Gulf at Point Tupper.
In effect, then, we have tried to keep the compensation system neutral as between imported products and imported crude, on the assumption that if there was, as turned out to be the case, a competitive situation arising in regard

December 16, 1974
Supplementary Estimates
to certain offshore products such as heavy oil used in Canada, the Canadian consumer would be given the benefit of foreign competition.
There was one other comment made by the hon. gentlemen which it seems to me does not necessarily follow, except marginally. That was his suggestion of a national petroleum corporation which would go a significant way towards reducing the cost of petroleum coming to Canada. I think there would be a marginal advantage only, not a significant one. The pricing changes proposed last week by the OPEC countries seem to give an advantage of at least 50 cents a barrel to independent companies who purchase from the producing countries rather than the multinationals. However, in general terms, whether you are talking about a multinational or national petroleum corporation, the producing countries have not in any substantial way promised to cut their price very far below the international price, which on the basis of last week's discussions is somewhere around $10.73. So if there is a marginal advantage-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I
think they suggested 5 per cent.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I think 50 cents would be the marginal advantage. Certainly there is not a great advantage, and I do not think we should be under any illusion that in this way we are going to gain any increasing benefit.
It seems to me that the better argument for seeking a role for the national petroleum corporation relates to security of supply which can be guaranteed. This may well be, in view of the increasing role played by the governments of the producing countries in the oil business, and the over-all general political and economic relationship between Canada and these other countries,-I suppose Iran would be a good example in terms of providing a basis for long-term supply of oil in Canada, rather than depending on the former arrangement between a corporation and its affiliate, its producing company in Iran or the company to whom the product is delivered in Iran, and the Canadian affiliate in this country.
So far as offshore purchases are concerned, we will have to make certain that our policy is guided in such a way as to make sure that Canadians enjoy the lowest possible cost, either through use of the existing system or through the establishment of a national petroleum corporation.
The hon. member for Timiskaming raised a number of questions. He suggested that in some way part of the Interprovincial Pipeline that now runs from Western Canada to Sarnia was not adequate to meet Sarnia's demand. That certainly is not the situation. Not only is the demand of the Toronto refiners being met, but earlier this fall about 50,000 barrels a day were being moved east of the Ottawa Valley line to the Montreal refiners. So there is no inadequacy of capacity in the Interprovincial Pipeline.
As for whether an all-Canadian route should be constructed now or should be delayed, as is the case-that is to say, an oil pipe line route through northern Ontario- the timing of this depends very much on the rate of discovery in Canada, both east and west. If we anticipate-and the National Energy Board report confirms

this-that by the mid-1980s there will be a substantial flow of frontier oil, we will have to ask ourselves this question: from what part of this large crescent that runs from the Scotian shelf to the south all the way up the Labrador coast, through the Arctic islands and around to the border of Alaska, is the oil going to start flowing?
I do not think we can answer that question now with sufficient firmness to arrive at a definite conclusion regarding where the next major pipe line connection should run. Probably the next major pipe line connection, once the line from Sarnia to Montreal has been completed, will run from a super tanker port on the east coast, through Montreal, with branches off to some of the United States refineries to the south of Lake Ontario, and possibly integrating with the existing pipe line that runs between Montreal and Toronto.
At this point I think it would be premature to say anything further. I can only say there have been discussions with a number of interested parties in respect of the completion of a more substantial pipeline east of Montreal to a super tanker port. At the moment these discussions are not definitive. I think I have answered most of the major questions raised by the hon. gentleman.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, there are a few matters I want to raise and I do not know that we can finish by five. If we cannot, perhaps we might consider encroaching upon the private members' hour. If not, we can complete this later.
I am under the impression that the hon. member for Timiskaming made a rather unfortunate choice of words when suggesting that the province of Alberta had knuckled under to the federal government. That is the type of statement I have seen in several editorials in newspapers in eastern and central Canada, and I do not think that sort of statement does very much toward resolving the tensions which have arisen. I do not need to take any side as I do not hold any particular brief for the premiers of Alberta, Saskatchewan or British Columbia, and I have certainly never been retained to hold a brief for the government of Canada. A very serious situation has arisen and has existed for some time, and I think statements of that description exacerbate and make worse the situation.
In attempting to let the tension out of the situation this House and the government came to a very wise decision, and this particular bill represents part of the agreement. I certainly intend to support it, but I do want to take exception to phrases of that type, and I suggest to the press of the large metropolitan areas in this part of the country that this type of statement does no good in our attempt to bring together the different parts of the country.
This has been, is now and always will be a federal system, and under a federal system there is provision for diversity and varying social and economic situations. In all the years I have been in this House I have seen the existence of this type of tension. I think we will always have tensions and stresses in a federal structure, where provinces have responsibility and certain sovereign rights given them by the constitution vis-a-vis federal respon-

sibilities. I have always felt that this is a healthy situation, but it has to be kept within limits. Often it has exceeded those limits, and I think it would be wise for those who have a responsibility for writing editorials and making speeches in this House to avoid using phrases like "knuckle under" and "capitulation" because this does no good at all.
I understand there was some $470 million paid under Governor General's warrants finally approved by Appropriation Act No. 3 in 1974 which covered compensation through September to October 30, 1974. That might have been the first amount, but I am not sure whether there was anything else paid. In addition to that, also in Appropriation Act No. 3 by Vote 52A there was a further sum of $330 million to provide for payment to and after November 1, 1974. The first appropriation was Vote 11A for $476 million.
There was no termination date in respect of the $330 million, except that the government assumed in its calculations that this would cover the amount required for compensation to importers to the benefit of the consumers in eastern Canada to the end of the year. I now understand that the $330 million will probably carry over until sometime in January, and I am fortified in that belief by the fact that this bill calls for the approval of a supplementary amount of $365 million whereas Bill C-32 provided for $430 million. It may well be that the experience of the government so far would indicate that the amount originally estimated will not match what is anticipated.
I do not blame the government as it is very difficult to anticipate what will be required in respect of consumption in eastern Canada so there will be a general equalization of price. This is a principle that has been acceptable to most Canadians, and certainly to most members of this House. Because of that difficulty, and pursuant to Vote No. 52A in Appropriation Act No. 3, 1974, we have a fairly complicated and complex set of regulations. I will not attempt to debate them, but there are some six or seven pages which I think the minister attempted to sum up in his response to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.
I would suggest that at the appropriate time in the new year there might be an opportunity for consideration of those regulations by the committee. I know that in due course they will come before the Public Accounts Committee, but that is after the event, and it might be that because of the difficulties and problems which arise from the government's attempt to meet this difficult and complex situation, it would be a good idea for this House, as the ultimate approver of expenditures, to consider these regulations and other problems that may have arisen. Perhaps this can be arranged between the House leaders.
I do not suggest there is any rush, but I think it is essential in the discharge of our duties that we arrange for such consideration. I am glad to see there is now a breathing space for the government of Canada and the governments of the provinces, through their first ministers, to get together. There is no doubt that in world development there will be some rather consequential changes in respect of oil prices and supplies. The meeting of the President of the United States and the President of France would indicate that they have proposals to make that may have
Adjournment Motion
some impact. I suspect it will not be enough to hold one meeting of the first ministers' as there are many problems to be put on the table for discussion.
I notice it is now five o'clock, and I wonder if there is a feeling in the committee to continue in order to get this bill through. I will not be more than five minutes.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would be much obliged if we could, as I will be away at a meeting this evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have at least two members who wish to ask some questions, so I think it is more than a five-minute operation.


Mr. Towers:: I would agree to have the committee go ahead to finish this.


The Deputy Chairman:: I appreciate what hon. members are seeking to do, but I do not think this is a decision we can make in committee. Ordinarily the committee consideration would now be interrupted so that we can deal with private members' business. I think the decision will have to be made by the House. If the committee will allow me, I will leave the chair and the point of order can then be discussed and an agreement perhaps reached.
Progress reported.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall)- External Affairs-Cyprus-Possible removal of Canadian contingent; the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert)-Industry-Textiles-Request for government aid to industry; the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation- Allegation of bias in reporting news event in Middle East-Government action.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as the mover of that bill, I would ask leave of the House to carry on the consideration of the bill in committee so that all those who want to ask questions may do so, to complete immediately, as agreed, its consideration.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if it can be done in five or ten minutes we would not mind, but we have at least two members who wish to ask questions and we do not think they should be under that kind of pressure.

December 16, 1974
Nurses' Retirement Age


Gerald William Baldwin: I only said five or ten minutes in reference to my own particular portion, an invaluable contribution, but the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), who will have the opportunity to discuss matters of some importance in the private members' hour, had agreed, if the committee sees fit, to allow the committee to encroach into his time as long as it is necessary to complete this bill. Of course we are prepared to give unanimous consent to continue with this debate until it is completed and encroach into the private members' hour as long as it is necessary. If there is any objection to that, then of course it is up to other members to express that objection.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this is a good week to stick to the rules.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not seem to be unanimous consent, therefore we will go on to the private members' hour.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills.


Mr. Lefebvre:: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find there is agreement to discuss private member's notice of motion No. 10 standing in the name of the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed that we stand all motions before motion No. 10 and that at the request of the government the preceding motion, there being just one, keep its position on the order paper, and that we proceed with motion No. 10 in the name of the hon. member for Red Deer?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Thomas Gordon Towers: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take immediate steps to provide that female registered nurses have an option to retire at age sixty and draw appropriate Canada Pension Plan benefits together with old age security benefits.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise at this time and address myself to this resolution which is of utmost importance to a large body of people who are working for the benefits of our society, namely, registered nurses. This motion, which would permit female registered nurses to retire and be eligible for all related benefits at age 60, was conceived when I spent many hours daily visiting a hospital recently during the prolonged serious illness of a member of my family. That was my first experience of observing, on a continuous basis, the varied and onerous aspects of the nursing profession.

A registered nurse, because of the type of vital responsibilities with which she is entrusted, must be vigilant, punctual, meticulous, untiring, obedient, dedicated, and have a calm and pleasant countenance every minute of every hour that she is on duty. The lives of patients, no matter how skilled is a surgeon or a doctor, depend on the nurses in the operating theatre, in the intensive care unit and elsewhere for the entire tenure of patients hospitalization. The mental strain of this pressure is multiplied when one remembers that strict adherence to details means life or death.
Added to this emotional strain is the heavy physical work involved and the daily hours which a nurse must spend on her feet. Because nurses must be on duty at all times, shift work is a necessity, meaning that a nurse must travel to and from work at varied hours, regardless of weather conditions, and be there on time to relieve her colleague on the previous shift. A registered nurse is also given the responsibility to teach nursing students, to supervise them in their training, and to oversee them in the performance of their duties when they graduate and join the registered hospital staff.
Because a nurse gives of herself unstintingly to others, performs unusually strenuous mental and physical tasks, often without any guidance, in my opinion she should be allowed to retire if she chooses when she attains the age of 60. I do not know of any profession which calls for such a variety of stressful responsibilities. Therefore such a policy could not be termed discriminatory. Society must understand that after years of strenuous efforts by nurses in caring for others in many cases their own health commences to deteriorate. That period of life from age 60 to 65 can become for them a real ordeal. Because they do not have any other means of support, why should we, as a society, make a demand on them that causes a hardship for them to fulfill?
I trust that hon. members will seriously consider the merits of this resolution and not talk it out, and I commend this motion to them for their support.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, an amendment to the Canada Pension Plan was recently before the House in the form of Bill C-22. One of the prime objectives of this bill is to provide full equality of treatment to all contributors to the Canada Pension Plan by removing all provisions of sex discrimination that existed within the plan. Today the hon. member for Red Deer proposes a special provision applicable only to female registered nurses, not to male registered nurses, not to registered nursing assistants of either sex. I see the provisions of Bill C-22 as an important affirmation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women in the labour force, a principle which all parties in the House have endorsed in one way or another. The motion before us seems to go against that principle.
Perhaps a broader issue even than that of equality for men and women is the proposal implicit in the hon. member's motion to make a special provision to extend Canada Pension Plan benefits for one occupational group of the labour force. This raises fundamental questions about the basic objectives of the plan, especially those that relate to benefit coverage, in this case the retirement age, and also about the relationship of the Canada Pension Plan to
December 16, 1974

private pension plans. I should like to quote from the 1964 white paper on the Canada Pension Plan as follows:
The plan is comprehensive in the sense of covering as many people as is practicable. It is not intended to provide all the retirement income or survivors' income which many Canadians wish to have. This is a matter of individual choice and, in the government's view, should properly be left to personal savings and to private pension plans ... The purpose of the Canada Pension Plan is to make reasonable minimum levels of income available at normal retirement ages, and to people who become disabled, and to the dependants of people who die. There will be scope for the continuation and extension of private pension plans to provide benefits over these minimum levels.
The Special Joint Committee of the Senate and the House of Commons produced a similar statement, and again I quote:
There should be scope for further benefits under private pension plans for those in a position to afford them ...
In April, 1974, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) presented a discussion paper to the Standing Committee on Health and Social Services, which included the following statement on the Canada Pension Plan:
(The plan) was conceived and structured as an important segment of a broad income maintenance system involving both the public and private sectors. It was assumed that the needs of the retired, generally, would continue to be met by the Old Age Security program, and that this program would continue to apply universally to wage earners and non-wage earners alike. It was also assumed that private pension and insurance holdings would continue to exist, and provide income protection for large numbers of Canadians who could afford to buy this protection and chose to do so. At the same time, however, it was concluded that there was a need for a public, universal, contributory plan, related to the amount of earnings, to provide a basic level of income protection in the event of retirement, disability or death.
The design of the Canada Pension Plan then as one tier of a three-tier public and private system-which, therefore, implies an important but limited role for the plan- has not changed since its inception.
Moreover, the thrust toward providing basic levels of income protection to wage earners on a universal basis has influenced the plan towards meeting common demonima-tor needs, and this places limitations on any tailoring of the plan to meet the needs of particular individuals or groups.
One might also say that the orientation of the plan toward broadly accepted income security needs facilitates public acceptance of the plan's financial arrangements which can involve significant subsidizing of one group of contributors by another.
It was understood when the Canada Pension Plan was established, that the plan would not fully meet the needs of specific individuals or groups of individuals. The year's maximum pensionable earnings (YMPE)-the employe-ment earnings on which contributions are made-was established at $5,000 in 1966, is $6,600 in 1974, and will be at $7,400 in 1975. Clearly a large number of Canadians now have yearly earnings in excess of $6,600 on which they are not permitted to contribute to the Canada Pension Plan. These extra earnings can be protected through private pension plans.
It was expected, and is still expected, that any custom fitting needed in the pension area would be carried out by
Nurses' Retirement Age
private pension plans or through other private arrangements made by contributors. Nurses, whether men or women, whether registered nurses or registered nursing assistants, generally work in situations where pension plans, other than the Canada Pension Plan, are available to them and to which management contributes.
For example, a table published by the Ontario College of Nurses for 1972 showed 75.1 per cent of employed registered nurses to be employed in hospitals where they would normally be covered by the Ontario Government plan. Nursing educators have access to the pension plan of the university or other educational institution where they are employed, and public health nurses have access to the pension plan of the municipality or other authority employing them. Only the small numbers in private nursing-2.3 per cent in Ontario in 1972-or in physician's or dentist's offices-3.8 per cent in Ontario in 1972-may be without a pension plan to which the employer contributes.
Women registered nurses often have a short work history before marriage and child rearing. When they return to work after their children are grown, they tend to increase their education-the diploma nurse in particular, often takes a baccalaureat. In Ontario the aim now is to have 20 per cent university educated nurses to 50 per cent diploma nurses and 30 per cent nursing assistants. [These figures are taken from the Report on the Activities of the Ontario Council of Health, published in 1969.]
There is also a small but steadily increasing number of nurses who take masters degrees, or doctorates in nursing, and these are sometimes mature women returning to education and employment.
Registered nursing assistants, too, are often mature women who take their training when their children are at school or grown. The life experience of the mature nurse often brings a particular richness and depth of understanding to the care she provides. However, the delayed re-entry, sometimes further delayed because of further education, certainly means that a woman nurse may have had limited opportunity to build up pension credits.
The Canada Pension Plan has to date required coverage and contributions of a universal nature that are tied directly to the earnings of the participant. Benefits also are tied to earnings, but not directly. One of the special provisions of the plan is the "dropout" feature, a feature available to all contributors after 1976 who have had ten or more possible years of contributions. This provision permits contributors to ignore years of low or no earnings when their benefits are calculated, and so enables them to increase the size of their benefits. For example, after 1976 contributors can qualify for full retirement pensions by contributing to the plan for only 85 per cent of the time between 1966 and their 65th birthday. This means that the wage earner who was 50 years of age in 1966 can qualify for a full Canada Pension Plan retirement pension after contributing to the plan for only 1234 years.
The Canada Pension Plan has an updating of earnings procedure which is also beneficial to the participant who retires at age 60. For example, the maximum earnings on which a person could contribute in 1966 was $5,000. Through the updating process, those earnings of $5,000 in 1966 will be credited to the contributor as $5,900 in 1974. And any retirement pension beginning in 1974 will be

December 16, 1974
Nurses' Retirement Age
calculated based on earnings of $5,900 in 1966 as opposed to actual earnings of $5,000. If the retirement pension were to begin in 1975, that $5,000 in 1966 would actually be credited as $6,533. Consequently, any person who retires at age 60 and receives the retirement pension at age 65 will have his or her benefit adjusted according to the updating calculations when that person reaches age 65. Once again this provision is available to all participants of the plan and is not restricted by sex or occupational group.
The universal character of the Canada Pension Plan has resulted in the participation in the plan of almost all wage earners as well as self-employed persons in Canada. Consequently the Canada Pension Plan has become the single largest group pension and insurance program in Canada. The participation of such large numbers of persons has allowed the plan to incorporate a number of desirable provisions which might not have been feasible if various occupational groups were allowed to adjust their contributory period. If the Canada Pension Plan were not mandatory, it would be most difficult for the plan to afford these features. The motion presented by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) would allow one particular group of persons to arrange their participation in such a way that they could draw substantial benefits at the expense of all other contributors.
Providing special provisions for female registered nurses goes against the principle of equal treatment for men and women. I have mentioned the relationship that exists, and that I think should continue to exist, between the Canada Pension Plan and private pension plans. I have mentioned the provisions of the plan that work in favour of persons who retire from the labour force before reaching age 65.
I should also like to consider the financing arrangements that would prevail for the kind of special coverage provision proposed by the hon. member for Red Deer. Would the financing arrangements tend to approximate current Canada Pension Plan funding arrangements, or would they tend to coincide with private pension plan funding arrangements? If current Canada Pension Plan funding arrangements are to be continued, the general body of contributors would be required to underwrite the special provision, and this would certainly be a major change in emphasis and policy. On the other hand, if private funding provisions were contemplated what is the need for providing special coverage under the Canada Pension Plan?
The special insurance needs of construction workers in the province of Quebec have recently been met by a privately established industry-wide pension program which has some interesting features. First, both the worker and the employer contribute; however, unlike under the Canada Pension Plan, the employer pays a larger share. The benefits provided are for loss of life, some medical expenses, loss of salary due to ill health, and retirement. The death benefit is $2,000 compared to a maximum of $660 under the Canada Pension Plan in 1974. The indemnity for long-term disability is $300 per month, as compared to the 1974 Canada Pension Plan disability maximum of $125.95. Voluntary contributions are allowed if the minimum number of hours of work are not met. The

normal retirement age is 60 with ten years of participation. With only five years of participation, retirement pensions are payable at age 65.
I am inclined to think that for nurses who wish to retire early, some kind of provision whereby a private pension plan is layered on the Canada Pension Plan base offers a better solution than requiring all benefits to be met by federal funds.
I see my time has almost run out, Mr. Speaker. May I conclude with a few words about protective labour legislation. Protective labour legislation has generally not proved to be in the best interests of women. In fact there is evidence to the contrary; there is evidence to show it has contributed to discriminatory hiring and promotional practices. Contemporary Canadian women want equal rights, not special provisions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Aideen Nicholson: Women are also more than willing to accept the equal responsibilities which go with equal rights.


Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) has presented a motion with the single objective of providing for the early retirement of female registered nurses who constitute a small and specific group in the over-all labour force. The hon. member's oversight in neglecting the male members of this profession is indeed worthy of regard, since it represents a rare instance of discrimination against the members of the male sex.
On the subject of early retirement there is considerable doubt as to how far it goes in promoting enjoyment of life. You all know of friends, I am sure, who looked forward for years to their well-deserved days of leisure, suffered through sentimental retirement presentations, and then dropped dead from heart attacks six months later. Others may take their honourable retreat comparatively early, then wander through city parks and streets dissatisfied with life and inactivity, and wishing they once again had purpose.
People about to retire are frequently unaware what their pension levels will actually be, and what fringe benefits and other provisions their retirement plans are able to provide. Very often they do not know what they are going to do with their new-found leisure, and have not planned ahead for an active retirement in keeping with their longstanding lifestyle. Most people under 60 have not yet really begun to think about retiring. There are many arguments for and against early retirement. Some of the very factors operating against premature inactivity include limited income, boredom, lack of planning for leisure time, higher risk of illness and the huge costs to government and industry as well as to individuals themselves in implementing retirement schemes for people still in the prime of life.
The thought of retirement at 60 sounds like a guaranteed income for a very small and select group of the female population. Were the idea to be approved in principle, it would behoove every group of employees in the country to insist upon similar provisions for their members. Certainly, initial havoc in existing plans would result and great
December 16, 1974

difficulty would be created for people in the business of providing retirement benefits, particularly in the insurance field, if compulsory early retirement measures of this type were instituted generally. Some of those who would be affected have already pointed out the problems that would be experienced in the extra funding required to pay out inadequate pensions five years early, the reduction in benefits for those who stay longer in the labour force and the inability to upgrade pensions now being paid which are locked into previously made arrangements.
The people most strongly in favour of early retirement are probably the labour unions. A number of early retirement provisions have been written into labour contracts, notably the UAW's "30 and out" provisions. The justification is primarily economic, to free jobs for younger and presumably otherwise unemployed workers. However, the UAW does not bother to supervise the promise made to retire from the labour force, and if they did they would undoubtedly find numerous allegedly retired persons who are actually holding jobs. Being inactive does not appeal to most people after a lifetime of work.
While there is some support by the public for the idea of early retirement, polls have shown that it is not the first choice for leisure and people generally would prefer a shorter work week and more flexible hours of work. It also appears that few are willing to give up financial advantage for any leisure option. No one seems to want early retirement if it means a pension reduction and living on narrowed means.
Perhaps the hon. member has noticed that International Women's Year commences on January 1, 1975. If so, his singular motion in support of the earlier retirement of female nurses only is a magnificent gesture to emphasize his support not only of women's liberation but also for a few working women in Canada. I am still, however, mystified by the way in which he has neatly detached a portion of one small group in the total labour force on which to focus his attention in what appears to be a classic example of tunnel vision.
Hon. members know that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) recently assumed responsibility for the status of women. In addition, the Department of National Health and Welfare has been responsible for the Canada Pension Plan since its inception in 1967. We should, therefore, feel flattered by this noteworthy expression of interest by the hon. member in what the Minister of National Health and Welfare is actively working to accomplish.
What we are trying to do is to ensure that all members of the Canadian labour force can retire with dignity, in the fullness of time, secure in the knowledge that their main needs and those of their families can be met without severe hardship. The thought of earlier retirement can create pleasant pictures in our minds. For hard working Canadians, during moments of stress and pressure in their jobs, it sums up happy visions of islands in the sun, days on the golf course, or sitting in a garden that never ceases to bloom, surrounded by friends and grandchildren. However, visions of leisure pleasure have proven to be barren
Nurses' Retirement Age
mirages to many people who have had to face the problems that retirement often brings.
One crucial factor that must be taken into account is that lowering the eligible age for government pensions under old age security or the Canada Pension Plan would soon affect the mandatory retirement age in the general work force. Certainly, when the age for retirement becomes involuntary and automatic at a certain age, regardless of a worker's wish to stay on in employment, a complex question is raised. Is it desirable to start the move toward a lower eligibility age, which may drastically affect the normal retirement age throughout the economy, before the capacity has been developed in the population to plan for retirement and the use of leisure time well before the age of 65?
Turning the possibility of early retirement into a reality works to the advantage, in particular instances, not only of the employee but, equally, the employer. Many people have family responsibilities which continue well beyond the age of 60, including the education of children, the care of parents or an ill spouse, the need to pay for homes and travel and new cars-all of which have become part of a normal way of life in our highly motivated society. However, if old age security at the age of 60 were an approved measure, employers could simply retire people on their sixtieth birthday without a single possibility of repercussion. Long-term employees, still actively wanting to continue working, would be forced into unwanted retirement. The fact is that most people do not want to retire before the age of 65: for example, despite the excellent pension plan available to qualified federal government employees who retire before that age, only 15 per cent of those eligible exercise their option and actually take early retirement.
What would be the impact on the economy if large numbers of people retired early in order to accept the benefits of a lowered eligibility age for old age security and the Canada Pension Plan? A large number of highly skilled and highly productive workers would leave their jobs either voluntarily or involuntarily. We must not underestimate the abilities of our older workers. Less and less of the work that is done in Canada is manually performed where the premium is on youth and physical strength. More and more, increasingly automated industries and agencies depend upon technical and administrative skills where long years of training and experience pay extra dividends and cannot easily be replaced. It cannot be proven by any reliable method of evaluation that younger workers are more able or productive than older employees, even in highly technological enterprises.
The condition of people in retirement must especially be considered. First and foremost is the income question. While government pension plans have been substantially improved in the last ten years, it remains a fact that these programs are designed to provide a basic standard of living. They cannot fully replace a worker's current salary. Nor can private pension plans completely fill the gap. For one thing, they cover only 40 per cent of the present labour force. They are also affected adversely if a worker has been very mobile, especially in his or her later career. Moreover, major adjustments would be necessary
2298

December 16, 1974
Nurses' Retirement Age
if these plans were required to provide for retirement at age 60 rather than 65.
Earlier retirement would obviously entail a significant drop in income and, if pension entitlements were small, social assistance would be needed. A drop in income also entails a change in status which must be assimilated by the retiring worker. Desirable or not, our society is strongly work-oriented. Individual prestige and high evaluation by others often result from a person's job. In older age brackets, this identification of work with social value is particularly strong. Early retirement, especially when involuntary, can drastically harm a retiree's self-image, pride and self-esteem.
Successful retirement depends to a considerable extent upon the amount of preparation for it, including the development of outside interests and hobbies which can replace the work focus. It is a fallacy to expect that "just relaxing" will satisfy people who have been active all their lives. Hobbies and artificially cultivated interests cannot simply be minor items but must have the potential of becoming full-time absorptions. Yet preretirement training is at present still a very underdeveloped field. The requirements of a new and younger-aged population would simply add to existing deficiencies and gaps in these services.
There is also the important question of social interaction. Work provides a daily set of human contacts and it offers friendship and shared interests. Retirement removes this meeting place and can bring great loneliness, especially for people who are alone as are some widows, widowers and people without close relatives. Both physical and social mobility are likely to be more limited as the period of retirement lengthens.
It is evident that all these factors can have an impact upon a person's physical and mental health. Loss of income, loss of status, loss of friends and loss of the sense of accomplishment are all determinants affecting the health of older segments of the population. Removing what has been the focus of life for 40 years and replacing it with a void can be extremely harmful. Moreover, dropping into retirement status, highly trained professional people like registered nurses who are younger, more vigorous, energetic and endowed with a highly developed social conscience may just accentuate the sense of alienation and uselessness which can become a malaise in our society. The stress and self-questioning which unfilled time can carry could well outdo the pressures of a busy and fulfilling job as causative factors in physical and mental illness.
An analysis of the personal factors involved in early retirement does not exhaust the administrative problems which arise. There is difficulty, for example, in determining whether or not a person is in the labour market. Would a person be permitted to work at all, or even part-time, without loss of old age security and Canada Pension Plan benefits? If so, what number of hours would be considered appropriate? What controls should be developed to ensure that people meet the criterion of not being in the labour market? And how should those controls be administered?
The probable effect upon the employment market of implementing the hon. member's proposal needs to be

weighed if possible. One justification for earlier retirement is that it would free jobs for younger, unemployed workers. In reality, fighting unemployment never involves a one-to-one relationship whereby one person leaves forever and is immediately replaced by a younger individual. Many people who retire do not wish to stay retired; they try to re-enter the labour force-openly or secretly-if not full-time, then part-time. In this way, retirement of healthy workers actually increases competition for jobs rather than reduces it.
In addition, managers might not replace every retiring employee. They may choose, instead, to consolidate positions and reduce production costs or automate some tasks. It may come as a surprise to think of a female registered nurse being replaced by a computer, but this is far from fantasy. Many routine laboratory tests are being done by automated procedures. Invoicing and patient records are now computer input. Drugs can be mixed and dispensed in computerized doses, and we are living in an age when computer diagnosis is fast becoming a reality.
I personally believe we have to keep our physical and personal assets in the labour force as long as it is feasible to do so. It takes many years of education and experience to build sound knowledge and good professional practice. It would be discriminatory as well as extremely costly and impractical to set the wheels of government in motion to provide for retirement five years earlier of female registered nurses, to the exclusion of their male colleagues and other women and men who make up the millions of Canadians in the living, working, human labour force. We owe them all fair treatment and the opportunity to work if they see fit, and are fit, without being faced with the necessity to retire.
I find myself unable to support this motion for early retirement of female registered nurses, for the wide variety of reasons I have just given. I would hope that other, more realistic measures can be planned to enhance the status of women, particularly during 1975 which the United Nations has designated as International Women's Year.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) for bringing before the House once again the question of pensions at age 60. I agree with the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) that my friend on this side of the House would be well advised not to limit his interest in pensions at 60 to female registered nurses. I do not think it would be very hard to persuade him to enlarge his interest in this matter. As I say, I agree with criticisms made by the hon. member for Trinity but I think it is a good idea that in every way possible the question of pensions at 60, on a voluntary basis, be discussed in the House as often as possible.


James McPhail Gillies: Conflict of interest.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) suggests that in my case there is a conflict of interest. Mr. Speaker, in two days I shall be 66 Vi, so when I support pensions at the age of 60 there is no conflict of interest. I appreciate the concern of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. December 16, 1974

Baker) for us old codgers who are beyond the 60 mark. I believe that as he takes an interest in the subject he will realize that it is much more of an issue in the country than he seems to think it is.
I have listened to the arguments that it is unfair to retire people at 60, leaving them with nothing to do. I was not ready for retirement at 60, so I stayed right on; I may not be prepared for it at 70. But as I go about the country, as I meet the people whom I see, I find there are many thousands of people for whom the rat race today is too much. They want the opportunity to retire at 60. No one is suggesting that retirement should be compulsory, but the opportunity should be there and provision for it should be made by law under the Old Age Security Act and in the Canada Pension Plan.
I am prepared to sit down with the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, social scientists and social workers in the field and discuss with them the problems associated with retirement. But I would point out that these problems are not solved by trying to stave them off. I am confident that with the coming of increased automation and cybernation, working years in the future will be fewer than they have been in the past. If people are forced to work until they are 65, it is even harder for them to make an adjustment than if they are able to retire at the age of 60.
I am glad to note the interest of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate in this subject. I hope he will pursue this interest and that before long he will make speeches containing answers to the questions he has raised. I do not believe I have ever talked out a bill or a motion put forward during private members' hour, and I do not intend to do so on this occasion, but I would like to take a minute or two to join the hon. member for Trinity and the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate in suggestion that there are other factors involved in the pension picture. If I might be permitted to digress for a few moments, Mr. Speaker, it just so happens that I received notice today that my question No. 16, which has been on the order paper since the beginning of this session, has been answered. So if anyone happens to read my speech in Hansard, I suggest that he turn to question 16 in the early part of the issue where he will find a series of questions and answers regarding private pension plans and escalation.
My hon. friend across the way said that only 40 per cent of the work force was covered by private plans, and he is substantially correct. I think the work force is of the order of six million or so, and according to the answer given me today, the number of persons enrolled in private pension plans is 2,822,000. So the figures are in the same ball-park. But here is the significant feature, as anyone can see by using the figures given in answer to my question No. 16. Of those persons who are enrolled in private pension plans, 93 per cent are in plans providing no escalation of benefits after retirement. Of the other 7 per cent, 5 per cent have an escalation limited to 2 per cent a year. That adds up to 98 per cent, leaving only 2 per cent of the people enrolled in private pension plans with an escalation providing for 3 per cent or more. So there is one of the real problems about retiring persons at age 60. If their pensions
Nurses' Retirement Age
are fixed, and stay fixed for the rest of their lives, the going gets pretty tough for them.
It is good that old age security and the Canada Pension Plan are being indexed and that the pensions of retired public servants and armed forces and RCMP personnel are also indexed. But with all these workers in our economy not getting any escalation of their pension, the situation gets tough for them as the years go on. The answer to that situation, if I may say so to my hon. friend across the way, it not to oppose voluntary retirement at 60; the answer is to campaign not only for voluntary retirement at 60 but for provisions that call for the escalation of all pension plans in Canada.


Mr. J. Larry Condon (Middlesex-London-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for the first time since I have been in this parliament to speak as an expert on this particular subject. The hon. member who proposed the motion mentioned the dedication of nurses, their obedience and selfdiscipline, and I must say that that is very true. My wife, Carol, is a nurse and I well understand the time and effort that she has put into her training at St. Michael's Hospital. During the last 16 years she has put in much time and effort to benefit people other than herself. I say that if you equate money with dedication, nurses should go to the top of the list. They are a very dedicated group and I hope their dedication will continue even though Ontario has changed its training system. In the old days, nurses went to training school, worked sometimes 12 hours a day and perhaps got one day a week off. Certainly they were unable to enjoy the social amenities enjoyed by nurses today during their three-year training period.
The motion presented by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) strikes me as being so manifestly in contradiction with the very principles of social justice that I am somewhat concerned that the hon. member would make such a proposal. When governments develop social security policies and, more so, when governments are in the process of planning social security changes, a most important consideration they must bear in mind is the equity of the measures they propose to introduce. I am talking about equity in the sense of avoiding discrimination by setting varying eligibility conditions and benefits based on artificial distinctions such as sex, which may be unrelated, or by occupation, which may be totally irrelevant. In other words, governments must strive to achieve equal treatment such as was recently demonstrated by the joint federal-provincial agreement to remove from Canada Pension Plan benefits sexually based differences: hence the position of the Government of Canada toward different retirement ages for men and women which would constitute discrimination.
If agreement is reached as to the validity of these principles, how then could the members of this House endorse the motion of the hon. member for Red Deer which advocates early retirement for female registered nurses at age 60 with full rights to draw appropriate Canada Pension Plan benefits together with old age security? Such provisions would be discriminatory against men-which, speaking as a man, I certainly do not want-discriminatory against other women and, indeed, would be discriminatory against registered nurses themselves, as I shall attempt to illustrate hereafter.
28626-11'/2

December 16, 1974
Supplementary Estimates
Moreover, there is no proof that even if such provisions were extended to all women, they would necessarily benefit women. From Canadian experience as well as from the experience of other countries, some of which do have earlier retirement age for women, three facts stand out: first, women live longer than men; second, their total time spent in the traditional labour force is, on average, shorter than that of men; third, they are generally paid at lower rates than men. However, I suggest that under the present government this situation is changing rapidly in light of the status of women report that has been presented. These considerations, particularly under a contribution-related social insurance plan such as the Canada Pension Plan and the Quebec Pension Plan, translate into a longer retirement period at a lower income for women than is the case with men. This is hardly to women's advantage.
The government is also reluctant to discriminate on the basis of occupation, as the motion in question implies. In addition to general opposition to the concept of occupational discrimination, the proposal to select nurses in particular raises a number of fundamental issues. Again I repeat that my own wife is a nurse, and I am sure she will be reading Hansard this week and will agree with what I say.
I notice that my time is about to be terminated when I should have another 15 minutes, Mr. Speaker, but as a last thought I might add that I and my Liberal colleagues are far from being insensitive to the problem that befalls older nurses, one indeed which is shared by many other Canadians both male and female and who, because they have not reached retirement age, must carry on working. I nevertheless firmly believe, as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) stated earlier in the House, that the solution lies not through bringing about a broad expansion or general lowering of pension benefits to those who are 60 or 55 years or age, but rather through a system of guaranteed income or income supplementation that is available to all regardless of age, former occupation, present condition or sex. This is what the social security review is all about.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour appointed for the consideration of private members' business having expired, before calling it six o'clock perhaps the House would agree to resume the work of committee of the whole on Bill C-45 and authorize the House to go into committee for that purpose. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration in committee of Bill C-45, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money

for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1975-Mr. Chretien-Mr. Penner in the chair.
On clause 2-$365,000,000 granted for 1974-75.
B. Keith Penner: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the committee took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Chairman, when the committee rose at five o'clock for private members' hour I had made a few comments and indicated to the Chair that I assumed the regulations referred to in vote 53c would be the same regulations which were promulgated in respect of vote 52a. The minister nods his head and I am glad to see that. I had assumed that was the case, and although the vote itself does not say what the regulations are, I assume they are the same. I would be glad if the minister would so indicate when he speaks. Although the regulations are complex, they seem to follow generally the same pattern that would have been contained in Bill C-32, plus the experience that the government has derived as the result of administering the regulations.
The only other thing I want to do now is refer the committee to the exchange of questions and answers between the hon. member for Calgary Centre and the Minister of Finance on Friday, December 13, as recorded at page 2232 of Hansard. It was to be expected, of course, that the issue raised by the hon. member would be reflected in the House. Although the Minister of Finance did not give a positive answer-and I do not expect the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources will be able to give us one today-I think I should put on the record my views and the views of other hon. members because they embody the principle pursuant to which the House worked out this arrangement by which we could proceed to provide to the government the authority which it needed immediately, without having to become embroiled in the challenges inherent in certain provisions of Bill C-32. I think that is a very sensible arrangement.
The hon. member for Calgary Centre asked the Minister of Finance about the intentions of the government following the actions of the Premier of Alberta, shortly before the premier indicated the initiatives the provincial government was taking vis-a-vis royalties and the need to provide incentives for provincial development, exploration and discovery of new sources of energy. One does not need to become particularly eloquent or to borrow words from the poets to say simply that there is a grave situation not only in Canada but in the world. That is difficult for us to get used to, accustomed as we are to being told about the vastness and greatness of our country and how much energy and other resources we have. It is now obvious that we are coming to a critical period which could mean shortages in the immediate and in the more distant future.
So there is a need on the part of everyone, particularly this government, to do what we can to act as a catalyst in
December 16, 1974

bringing together all those involved in order to ensure several things: first, that the search for and development of new sources of energy is accelerated; second, that measures are taken with regard to the conservation of our existing sources and uses of energy; and, third, these things are undertaken as a co-operative effort. It was with that in mind that the hon. member for Calgary Centre asked the Minister of Finance the intentions of the government with regard to the proposals contained in the amendment to the Income Tax Act which would have had the effect of disallowing royalties. The minister, as recorded at the bottom of page 2232 of Hansard, said:
Mr. Speaker, we will certainly analyse the figures very carefully to see what the situation is.
I conclude by saying that I hope that was a genuine statement of intention by the minister. I do not expect the government at this stage to say: We brought that program into effect; we proposed that type of amendment to the Income Tax Act because we thought we had to, but as the situation has now developed, we do not need to. I do not think they will say that right away. At one time provincial royalties were in the neighbourhood of 22 per cent or 23 per cent. Ultimately they rose to 65 per cent. Apparently this government said that 22 Vi per cent is acceptable as a royalty for a company to deduct in compiling its income tax but 65 per cent is not.
I will not deal with the potential constitutional issue nor with the political issue, although both arise on those two proposals. But it seems to me, and I recommend this very strongly to the committee and, through you, Mr. Chairman, to the government, that they should review the situation, because if we are to solve these problems we have to solve them together. I do not think this government is able to solve them by itself, and certainly the provinces by themselves do not have the constitutional or fiscal capacity to solve them. It has to be done through co-operative effort.
I should like to think that when the Minister of Finance gave his answer, he genuinely meant that the federal government was looking very hard at the situation. I should like to think, too, that there will shortly be a proposal for a first ministers' conference and that all the problems facing us will be on the agenda. There are many problems; I do not need to tell the minister that because he knows it as well as I do. One of the issues will be price, another will be the disallowance of provincial royalties, and tax. I hope that the answer given by the Minister of Finance means that the government is giving very serious consideration to this matter. It can be done without prejudicing legal rights. The minister is a lawyer, as I am, and he knows that if the federal government feels it has a legal position it can say it is doing this without prejudice, to reassert at a later date, if it has to, what its position is legally.
In a spirit of understanding and compromise, and with the need to act on behalf of the people of this country, I hope the minister meant what he said and that it indicates a genuine intention to review the government's position with regard to this proposal which I think is the greatest
Supplementary Estimates
barrier to the form of federal-provincial co-operation that we will need in the years ahead.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 
Gerald William Baldwin: And the amounts I mentioned?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The amount in effect under Supplementary Estimates (A) for 1974-75, vote 11a which was under the my own department, was $470 million; vote 52a, under the Energy Supplies Allocation Board-as I mentioned, the responsibility was transferred from one to the other-was for $330 million; being sought here, for the reasons I have mentioned, is $365 million-making a total, over the period, of $1,165 million.


Mr. Hogan:: Mr. Chairman, I rise to get a guarantee from the minister, if he will give it, on the question of the Atlantic provinces after the subsidy, so-called, ends on March 31. I understand that the government, through the petroleum corporation, will have something in place, but I want to be sure that those provinces will be looked after

December 16, 1974
Supplementary Estimates
even if other eastern provinces which are better off have to pay a higher price. This afternoon in the House we heard a discussion about increases in transportation costs and freight rates. These things are bothering businessmen in Nova Scotia. On top of that, if we have no guarantee that at the end of March we will be any better off, relatively speaking, in regard to energy costs-especially oil-then the Atlantic region will be in a mess.
The minister has suggested that Fundy tidal power may become available within the next decade or so. The harnessing of Fundy tides for electric power has been a topic of discussion for 60 or 70 years, as some senior members of this House know, but it remained an uneconomic proposition while coal, gas and oil were comparatively cheap and plentiful. All this has changed over the past two years, however. In addition, tidal power development possesses two other very attractive features-it is a constantly renewing resource and it is completely free of polluting effects. Some studies of Fundy's potential seem to have suggested since 1969 that the cost would be prohibitive. Then there is the changing situation with regard to oil, Arctic pipelines, and so on.
Dr. G. F. D. Duff, of the University of Toronto, is undertaking a study based on a new mathematical model which will bring into reality the Fundy tidal power development which has been so long sought by the Atlantic provinces. It may take another decade, however. In the meantime, because of the changing energy situation-as the minister knows far better than I-the Cape Breton coal industry is likely to develop. Heretofore it was just a sorry tale of pouring money into that area and not getting a return in energy. I think it would take three or four years to put into operation three or four new coal mines in the area, to say nothing of what may be done in Cumberland county and other parts of Nova Scotia. I understand the reserves are there, but up to now the safety factor in the Cape Breton area has been a problem.
The day may be drawing closer when Fundy tidal power will replace other polluting sources of power, although much work needs to be done on the project. The government must also spend money in Cape Breton developing more coal mines which will be economically viable. In the meantime, the Atlantic region must be given the guarantee that after March 31 it will not be hit with oil prices so high as to undermine the region's precarious economy. We have already been told that the 30 per cent subsidy on transportation costs which we have enjoyed is to disappear. We may also lose the benefit of other freight rate charges.
We are concerned about the decline of an industry which has been important in the Atlantic region since even before confederation. One of the more serious statistics to emerge from the Atlantic region involves the decline of groundfish landings for the first nine months of this year. I point this out in order to emphasize to the minister that the Atlantic region must be treated as fairly after March 31 as it is being treated at present. In Nova Scotia, groundfish landings this year were down by 20 per cent over the same period last year, that is, they were down to 252 million pounds from 315 million pounds. In the maritimes in general the drop was much higher, about

35 per cent. The effect of the diminished landings showed up in the annual reports of National Sea Products, the largest fish processing company in the maritimes, with ten plants and around 50 trawlers of over 100 feet. They declared no dividend this year, as the Minister of State (Fisheries) knows: he sent a special task force to look into fisheries problems in eastern Canada.
In my constituency an important fish plant is working only three days a week. If you couple this fact with the very high level of unemployment in the Atlantic region, the optimistic forecast of the Minister of Finance looks ridiculous. As recently as yesterday the chief economist of the Bank of Nova Scotia questioned the premises on which the budget was based. The economist said that we can no longer expect growth of 4 per cent; he says we will be lucky to see growth of 2 per cent. This means that unemployment in the Atlantic region will be even higher than it is now. It may go as high as 20 per cent in Newfoundland, 14 per cent in New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, and between 9 per cent and 11 per cent in Nova Scotia.
The people of the Cape Breton area were shocked when the Canstel report on the establishment of a steel industry in eastern Nova Scotia revealed that last January unemployment in the Cape Breton area was over 25 per cent. We had been led to believe, on the basis of LIP grants which had been made on the basis of unemployment in the area being at over 4 per cent, that the actual rate was much lower than the figure quoted. For instance, in my riding unemployment was running at more than 15 per cent; it was at around the same level in the constituency represented by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but in the riding of Cape Breton-The Sydneys it is running at between 20 per cent and 25 per cent.
I bring these matters to the minister's attention because I want to hear some guarantee that, come the end of March, the maritimes, being the poorest part of Canada except for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, will not be worse off in relation to the rest of the country than it is now.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, to answer the hon. gentleman's questions, it is government policy to so arrange crude oil prices in Canada that over a period of time all Canadian consumers will pay a roughly comparable price, subject only to differentials for quality, handling and transportation. We anticipate that the price of oil will move up; the government intends the price to move up in stages so that the impact on the consumer will be moderated. It is difficult to guarantee to consumers, in this case those of the Cape Breton Island area, that they will not pay a less favourable price by the middle of January than the one they are now paying, because I cannot even assure them that this bill will pass by then. Authority is provided only until March 31 and, while there is a measure before the House for keeping the price down, I cannot guarantee that the House will pass it by that time although the government intends to do so.
My second comment concerns the suggestion made by various people across Canada that the price of oil should rise to between $10.50 and $12 a barrel. We will seek to keep the price below that level, but the price in the period between the present and one year from now will be higher. I can only say that if the price is higher, the Atlantic
December 16, 1974

provinces will not be disadvantaged in relation to other regions of Canada which will also meet higher prices.
The hon. gentleman referred to Fundy tidal power. Although such power would be an important source of energy, there are cyclical difficulties. The tide rises and then ebbs. After it has risen or ebbed, power cannot be generated. In the period of slack water there can be no power generation with the system. Given the present state of technology, Fundy tidal power cannot be base power but must be a supplement to either thermal power or another form of hydroelectric power. The thermal or hydroelectric plants would provide power in times of slack water and the Fundy tidal power plant could come into operation as the tide ebbs or flows.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question? Is he aware of the studies Dr. Duff of the University of Toronto has undertaken, which are based on a new mathematical model? Further, are these studies being conducted under the auspices of the minister's department, or under those of private industry?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, I cannot confirm whether that particular professor is acting for a consortium which includes the federal government and provincial governments. Of course, his are the kinds of studies which will be needed to bring the project to fruition. I have dealt with the hon. member's questions. I cannot give him the guarantee he seeks because I cannot be sure when parliament will act. Secondly, we must recognize that by this time next year basic oil prices, after discussions, will probably be higher than they are at present.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, at the second reading stage I raised certain questions with the minister which I wish to pursue further. The first has to do with clarifying the basis upon which the oil companies are to be paid under the compensation cost program. The minister told me the same things he told the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. I am not yet convinced that the government has assured us that the costs we are paying are actual costs, not inflated costs. Clause 77 of proposed Bill C-32 provides for the setting up of regulations. These are explicit. The Gazette, on November 18, I think, set out some of the provisions of the regulations. However, it still seems there are a great many loopholes, and a great many payments will be made without being able to verify actual costs.
Taking average tanker costs, host country participation costs, prices presented to the government by an affiliate of a parent company which can make its profit through its parent company sales to the affiliate, I am not yet satisfied that the government has been able to plug these loopholes. It may well be that you cannot because in many cases it would mean having access to the books of these large, multinational corporations. I doubt whether they would make that material available to the government or to the Energy Supplies Allocation Board. They might make the books available of the subsidiary, but they will not make them available from the parent company. There will be a
Supplementary Estimates
good deal of transfer payments from the company to the subsidiary, or even transfers within the subsidiary. That is why I argued the case for some kind of mechanism to buy imported oil using the national petroleum corporation, if and when it is set up, or some other mechanism.
The minister's answer did not satisfy me. He said that if you set up such a mechanism, all you would do would be to save 50 cents a barrel. I think that is the right figure. I think you can deal with the OPEC countries and save 50 cents a barrel. If you look at the tanker costs and cut out some of these transfer payments, it might be larger. However, even taking the figure of 50 or 55 cents a barrel and importing, as we did last year, 950,000 barrels a day-and we may be importing over a million barrels a day next year-we are talking $180 million to $200 million a year. That is a lot of money.
That is not my main reason for suggesting we have some type of national mechanism. I ask the minister to note the words I used when we were in the debate on second reading. I said that setting up some type of national mechanism for importing oil is almost the only way we can be sure that there will be brought under full public scrutiny the moneys being paid out by way of compensation in order to maintain a single price across the country. That is really more important than the money saved, although if you save $100 million to $200 million that is not to be sneezed at.
Clause 94 of Bill C-32 requires:
The minister shall as soon as possible after the end of each fiscal year prepare a report on the administration of this act during that year containing a statement setting out therein
(a)	the amount of revenue derived by Canada for that year from the charge imposed pursuant to part I, and
(b)	the aggregate amount of compensation authorized to be paid pursuant to part IV during the year, and shall cause such report to be laid before parliament forthwith upon the completion thereof ...
We will discuss this when Bill C-32 is before us. It seems to me that this committee of the whole, and parliament, has a responsibility to insist that if we are going to give the minister $365 million to be spent by the Energy Supplies Allocation Board, we are entitled to a much better reporting system than a report at the end of the year which will go to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts or the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works to examine expenditures that are 15 months old. All we will get is the amount of money raised from the export tax and the amount paid out in compensation cost payments. Surely we ought to know the amount paid out each month, to whom it is paid, the amount paid to each company, the amount paid for compensation in oil, the amount paid for tanker rates, the amount paid for host country participation and the amount paid for petroleum products compensation.
If we are going to discharge our duty as real scrutineers of public expenditures, we have no right to let this money go through without some assurance from the minister and the Energy Supplies Allocation Board that they will issue a monthly statement setting forth the type of information I have just suggested. I hope when Bill C-32 comes before the House and committee of the whole that that will be inserted in the bill and clause 94 will be amended accordingly. I would like assurance from the minister that we will get something better by way of a report on the

December 16, 1974
Supplementary Estimates
expenditure of this $365 million than we would get if the minister merely followed the provisions of clause 94 of Bill C-32.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Chairman, with regard to satisfying the hon. member on the question of whether we are getting adequate information from the industry, and his suggestion of, in effect, having the national petroleum corporation or some type of mechanism for importing oil, I think that might be relevant for debate after March 31, 1975. We do not, of course, have any mechanism in existence now: we are operating on the present system.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: That is why I suggested this was an interim measure.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: It is definitely an interim measure in that sense. On the question of whether we are being hoodwinked, I would in all honesty have to say we cannot be absolute about this. I just remind the hon. member we are not paying on the company's margin. We are paying against details of actual shipments, say from Ras Tanura in Saudi Arabia to Irving Oil in Saint John, with a bill of lading as to the volume and source. The Saudi Arabian tax regime is a little obscure because all details have not been determined. We know the amount of tax that would be payable on such shipment of oil; that is what we pay against, not on the margin that might be picked off by the affiliate company at sea or in the course of transfer. We are as close as we can possibly be to getting a good fix on the actual tax paid. It is on that we compensate.
On the question of reporting, the hon. member was distracted a moment ago when I responded to the hon. member for Peace River. I mentioned that I sought permission from the governor in council and obtained it to appoint the Auditor General to scrutinize the companies' accounts and prepare a report on the operation of what is in effect the first period involved in this the first Appropriation Act. I would expect to have a report available within a few days and to be able to lay it on the table of the House. I would ask the Auditor General to go in again for the purpose of checking the second period and, in due course, this period as well.
I agree with the hon. member that some scrutiny is necessary. However, since what is involved here is a detailed examination of the procedures and the companies' accounts, I prefer to go by the vehicle of having the government's auditor go in and check rather than laying the full information on the table. That is the proposal we intend to follow throughout the earlier years. I can give the undertaking that I will seek the same authority with regard to the funds to be spent under this appropriation. There might be a further debate as to the terminology of Bill C-32 when we once again get back to discussing that measure.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I would like to be very clear about the understanding we have here. I heard the minister say the Auditor General would deal with the finances of the allocation board, but that does not really cover the point I had in mind. It seems to me the Standing Committee on National
(Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands).]
Resources and Public Works ought to have a report monthly, or quarterly at least so that we might know just how much money was paid out to each of the companies. I agree with the minister that there cannot be a flat rate paid to the companies; they must be paid on the basis of provable cost.
In these circumstances, I see no reason why the information cannot be supplied to us. It is done all the time in the public accounts committee. We have lists of contractors to whom payment has been made, together with the amounts of the payments, and I see no reason why the minister cannot assure us that reports will be available at the end of March and thereafter, or for the entire quarter, along the line I have indicated. This is the only way in which we and the public will be satisfied. I am not questioning anybody's honesty or integrity. But, surely, if parliament means anything, it means that members in one committee or another have an opportunity of examining large expenditures of this kind. On the basis of this $365 million, we are talking about something like $1,600 million to $1,800 million for the full year.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: One thousand million for a full year.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I said $1,600 million to $1,800 million. That is a tremendous amount of money. Surely, when huge expenditures of this order are being made to large and wealthy oil companies, we ought to be given a lot more detail as to how it is being put out, who gets it and for what reasons the companies are receiving it.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: What I am proposing is to appoint parliament's representative, namely, the Auditor General, to scrutinize the claims made and the payments made in an over-all manner and then to determine whether everything is being done in accordance with the authority conferred by parliament. The argument which is put to me is that companies might be placed at a disadvantage if their competitors knew who was running what crude oil and at what times. Surely, the interests of parliament would be met by having parliament's servant, the Auditor General, scrutinize these transactions, report on the program in general terms and recommend any changes in the practice he may find advisable. In other words, the report I am talking about has been prepared and will be made available. I have not seen it myself.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I do
not want to hold this up. However, I wish to express my dissatisfaction with that answer. The minister says the Auditor General will verify these transactions and determine whether they conform with the will of parliament. Well, the will of parliament is not very specific in this supplementary estimate. The same will apply even to the new legislation when it is passed. The will of the government is set forth in regulations, and even those are not too specific; they are open to a great deal of varied interpretation.
This is not what happens in other committees. The Auditor General does not look at all the contracts put out

by the Department of Public Works and give us a global figure stating so many millions were spent to reimburse a certain number of companies. We are given a breakdown telling us which firms have carried out construction work, geophysical services, and so on: each firm is mentioned, together with the amount of money it was paid. I cannot believe that the figures showing what a company was paid in compensation for costs incurred, two or three months after the money has been paid, could possibly be of value to competing companies. I have listened for years to the oil companies using this mystique, inferring that if we get any information about what it costs to produce a barrel of oil the whole oil industry will be wrecked. That is sheer nonsense. They probably know more about each other's business than the government or the public knows about it.
We cannot make the minister change his mind, but I am not satisfied to accept the global figure as to the amount the government is taking in via the oil export charge and the amount paid out by way of compensation. The Auditor General cannot discharge my responsibilities as a member of parliament or the responsibilities of any other member of this committee. We have a responsibility to be satisfied that this money is not squandered or paid out in excessive amounts to companies which do not really deserve it under the program. I wish to register my protest and say that when Bill C-32 comes before us we shall continue this battle to get a more satisfactory reporting system.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 and 4 agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Order. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), seconded by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), moves 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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, be concurred in.
Electoral Boundaries


Stanley Howard Knowles: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, where is the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp)?


Thomas Lefebvre: He is on his way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Then how can he move a motion when he is not here?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I will move the motion on his behalf, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 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, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this bill. It has been a most difficult process to arrive at the terms of the bill. Each province would like to keep what it has, and in addition there was the increase in the size of the House. Essentially, the difficulty lay with the slow-growth provinces which already had floors and with the application of floors to other provinces which did not have them: these are Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland. Then, again, there was the question of how to fashion a method of redistribution that would be reasonably fair to the faster growing provinces such as Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.
Having introduced the bill, the government put forward the amalgam theory which divided the provinces into three groups-small provinces, intermediate provinces and the large provinces of Ontario and Quebec. On the whole, the idea was a reasonable proposition which was generally accepted, at least for this redistribution, but it did leave the intermediate provinces somewhat short in their representation. The intermediate provinces, being neither large provinces nor small provinces but something in between, suffered a disadvantage which the government has attempted to rectify to a considerable extent, at least so far as Alberta and B.C. are concerned.
It is obvious from the 1971 census that the average constituency size in British Columbia is as great as or greater than the largest province, namely, Ontario. Although Ontario has been growing rapidly, because of its large number of seats the relative increase has not been as great. The amalgam theory at least has the advantage of being a basis to work from, though in many ways it resembles an ad hoc approach and leaves something to be desired so far as future redistribution is concerned. It is based on certain projections of population growth which may not materialize, particularly if our birth rate contin-
2306

December 16, 1974
Electoral Boundaries
ues to drop and immigration slows down. Similarly, if immigration speeds up this could create various anomalies.
Therefore, one suggestion which partly emanated from this side of the House but which I think was acceptable to all sides was that for the parliament of 1979 there be an automatic review, which I think is a step forward. Instead of stopping the clock, as we did this time, and losing a good six months to a year in drawing the new boundaries based on the 1971 census, the parliament of 1979 will be charged with looking into the matter. On receiving the population statistics in July, 1982, they will then have three years to study this problem; they will know pretty closely what the population of Canada is going to be and take immediate action. Certainly, I think they will have a great advantage over us in this parliament in dealing with the question of redistribution.
While the addition of 17 seats will strain the confines of the House, the increase is still within reason. Having had experience of these additional seats, the parliament of 1979 will be charged with making the decision whether or not to continue the amalgam theory which seeks automatically to increase the size of the House in step with population growth. I believe the present legislation is acceptable. Some useful amendments were made, and most of all we have left the door open to give a future parliament adequate time to consider the over-all problem. However, I am sure that the problem of redistribution will continue to be a perennial and difficult one.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I join the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) in welcoming third reading of this bill in the hope that we can put the issue behind us for a while and turn our attention to other matters. I rise for only a few minutes to indicate once more, for the sake of the record, why we as a party voted against the bill on second reading and why this party is prepared to accept the bill at this stage as a compromise solution.
Our first and most serious objection to the bill as a party was to its provisions calling for an increase in the size of the House of Commons. We do not feel, as a party, that the efficiency or effectiveness of the House of Commons or the parliamentary process in Canada is enhanced by an increase in the size of the House. In addition, the method as adopted not only calls for an increase now but has built into it a structure which automatically increases the size of the House of Commons at every census and increases the size in a rather erratic manner, if I may use that expression.
The increase projected after the 1981 census, based on the figures available to the committee in the last parliament, would have a House of Commons with 294 members. As a result of the newer projections on population growth by Statistics Canada, the House of Commons would increase in size to 307 members, an additional 13, even though the total population of Canada as now projected would be even less than the figures we worked with originally. So there is something structurally wrong with the method. I think I have identified the structural inequi-
ties of this method, and that was another reason we voted against the bill on second reading.
The third reason we voted against the bill was the fact that it was plainly inequitable to the two westernmost provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. There were two other reasons. The fourth reason, in my opinion, was that we had insufficient opportunity to examine the proposed method of redistribution, that is, the amalgam method or, indeed, any other alternative before the bill was brought in.
The fifth reason we were against it was in respect of the over-all and more general question of representation of the regions in Canada. At some time we will have to address ourselves to this problem of how the regions should be represented. We are neither a unitary nor a federal state. There is a growing tendency in this country-it is of concern at least to some of us-on the part of people living in regions remote from Ottawa to look less to their central government for guidance and redress of grievances and more and more to their provincial governments. One of the consequences has been the increased importance of federal-provincial conferences in terms of a political forum and, indeed, in many ways parliament has become secondary to this forum. This, to me, is a distressing trend and a problem which is ultimately associated with representatives in the House of Commons and in the Senate and with the activities of members of the other place. This is something we will have to pay attention to at some stage.
As the hon. member for Dauphin pointed out that there were some important amendments introduced at the committee stage which now make it possible for us to support the bill. One of the important amendments was the redefining of intermediate provinces and the manner of calculating the number of seats that Alberta and British Columbia shall have. This was redefined in an equitable manner and resulted in these provinces getting one additional seat each above the original proposal.
More important than that, although that is of considerable importance, there is an automatic review called for by the 1979 parliament. I think that is very important. It is disappointing to me that the committee did not see fit to adopt an amendment I had proposed, which would have had the effect of eliminating this automatic increase in the size of the House. We will have to leave this to the 1979 parliament. But this puts that parliament in the position of having to act in a negative manner rather than a positive one. That was a mistake and I am sorry that is the way it was left by the committee.
There are other vitally important questions which remain. The question of representation of the regions of Canada is something we had no opportunity to discuss and I think that is regrettable. I hope there will be some opportunity during this parliament to discuss this important matter prior to the emergence of even greater divisions within our confederation than those which now exist. I think it is worth while reiterating, for the record, that we in the Progressive Conservative Party regret and oppose the increase in the size of the House of Commons. We do not believe the people of Canada will be well served by this increase, but in view of the amendment calling for

a review by the next parliament we are prepared to pass this bill at third reading, hopefully this evening.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I want to take just a moment to emphasize my dissatisfaction with the bill as it has come back from the committee. I recognize the work done in the committee and I agree with my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), that the addition of one seat each for British Columbia and Alberta does repair an inequity in the bill. However, my basic objection to the bill is reinforced as the debate goes on. I oppose the bill on third reading because the precedent we are about to establish in enlarging the House of Commons after a census is, in my view, a very bad one. I recognize there will be a review in 1979 after the next census. Parliamentarians at that time will have to analyse the situation, but I wish we were not giving them this precedent to fall back on.
I have to ask myself whether the people of Canada will be better served by having more members of parliament, and in my opinion the answer has to be no. I cannot see how they will be better served, if there is any question regarding better service for the people of Canada, we would be far better to pay some attention to enlarging the facilities here for the present members of parliament. The offices, in too many cases, are cramped and the staffs are too small. The time available for members to do their research and prepare their material is far too short now because of the small staffs, and simply enlarging the House of Commons by having more members will not, to my mind, improve the quality of the performance of members. Enlarging the quantity does not necessarily improve the quality. The Canadian people have a right to the very best service we can give them, having regard to the extreme complexity of the matters that come before us.
I believe we could have served the people of Manitoba and Saskatchewan, who are certainly affected because of their population situation, by amending the present act to give them a floor so that the number of representatives would not fall below the present level.
To add it all up, I want now to put on record my continued opposition to this bill. I hope that the people of Canada do not get the idea that every time we are faced with problems we will solve them by enlargement. There is already a psychology of government that when people face problems of an economic order we respond to them by creating new programs which add to the budget the Canadian people ultimately have to meet. This is a wrong philosophy and psychology: it creates dependency on government and it makes government far too big. I feel that somebody, somewhere, has to blow the whistle on this practice of enlarging everything in sight. I wish we could keep the House of Commons at its present size.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate at third reading very briefly. My main purpose is to indicate that in our party we welcome and approve of the two amendments made by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections when it considered Bill C-36. In doing that I must apologize to the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) for some faulty arithmetic on my part on Monday, December 2. I do that not because I am so anxious to be humble in offering
Electoral Boundaries
an apology, though I do not mind doing so when I make a mistake, but I do it also to emphasize a point.
The principles as laid down for Bill C-36 were very clear, there was to be one formula for the large provinces, a formula that was to be slightly better for the intermediate provinces, and a formula a little better still for the smaller provinces. When the hon. member for Calgary Centre said that the results for the intermediate provinces were no better than for the large ones, I felt he could not be right. Somehow or other the quick arithmetic that I did proved my point rather than his. But my arithmetic was wrong. Now it turns out that this is one of the points that has been corrected by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I assume that it would break my commitment to be brief if I set out to describe the two formulas, the one that was before the committee and the one that is now in the bill. I am prepared to say that I understand the two formulas. At any rate, the result is that under the formula that is now in the bill the two provinces that are presently in the intermediate group, namely, Alberta and British Columbia, get a slightly better deal than Ontario and Quebec, and then the other six provinces get a deal that is still better. In terms of how you solve the problem of representation when you have some provinces that are very small in population and some that are very large, I think this arrangement makes pretty good sense. We are pleased that the committee was able to arrive at this compromise and we approve of the amendment.
I also welcome, on behalf of my party, the amendment that calls for an automatic review of the question of where we go from here. Some time after the next election-the date is fixed in the amendment but it would seem that we will be doing it in the thirty-first parliament-we shall review the plans for the future. In other words, we have blown the whistle on the automatic process of continuing to enlarge the size of the House. I think it was inevitable that that would be looked at again, anyway, in the next parliament, but it is good that we show our good sense by writing it into the bill that is now about to be passed.
There is just one other thing I would like to say, and it was one of the reasons I asked where the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) was when this bill was called. I am glad to see that he has come in. In his speech on second reading, as recorded at page 1847 of Hansard, he made a comment concerning the Northwest Territories. He said: The bill does not contain provisions respecting the representation of the territories. In recognition of the very special factors affecting the adequacy of their representation, the government intends to introduce at an early date, after this bill has become law, a separate bill to increase to two the number of members to be elected from the Northwest Territories.
I would appreciate it very much, and so would my friend who represents that tremendous empire in the north, if the minister would reconfirm that intention now that the bill has come back from committee. He has given his word several times, both in and out of the House, and that should be good enough, but the figure that two or three speakers have used tonight about the number of members in the next House does not seem to include that. They are talking about an increase of 17. On top of our present 264,
2 8626- 12'/2

December 16, 1974
Electoral Boundaries
that would make 281 and if I can trust my arithmetic, again, I do not think that includes two seats from the Northwest Territories. It would have to be 282 seats for the Northwest Territories to have two seats. On behalf of my colleague from the Northwest Territories and of the people up there, I hope the minister will confirm that intention tonight. Otherwise, we are prepared to let this bill have third reading at this time.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few comments during the consideration of the bill to show to the cabinet the importance given by my constituents to a fair representation of rural residents in the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, the electoral boundaries of the Bellechasse constituency were greatly altered in 1965 as a result of a readjustment. During that same year, Parliament passed a legislation appointing an independent commission in each province responsible for reviewing representation in the House. This year, the present bill provides some change which, I hope, will satisfy the citizens of rural constituencies. Before 1968, my constituents were represented in the House by three members, that is in the constituencies of Dorchester, Montmagny and Bellechasse.
It goes without saying that the citizens of Dorchester and Montmagny constituencies have been frustrated because the names of their ridings have been removed, but I understand that there has been some development, that some changes are imperative. It is necessary to bring about certain changes in representation, not only in the House, but throughout Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I would like much that the few considerations I want to make tonight be kept in mind in order that, after the bill has been adopted, we can effectively attempt to make verifications that would be fair to rural populations.
I think that the first factor is as follows: the changes should be reduced to a minimum between the redistribution of electoral districts and the changes at the ridings' boundaries, and I will tell you why. Since men are the slaves of their own habits, we should, as far as possible, avoid radical changes in constituencies. I think that is a basic principle we should consider in order not to overly upset the habits and lifestyles of a given environment.
We must rather seek a relative permanence and set the limits so as to facilitate the adaptation of electoral districts to an increasing population, and ensure that the least amendments possible will be necessary in the future. I think we are crossing a line; what we are doing through this bill is setting up patterns of living for generations, at least for the twentieth century, and I would like us, in the amendments that will be made in the future, to avoid upsetting the customs too soon, as I said previously, in a given territory.
The main factor to be considered when electing a member to the House of Commons is to have members who are truly representative of the region. They must respect the social and economic patterns of living of the people in the ridings they want to represent. In recent months, I personally consulted some of my constituents and found that a very great majority were aware of the

important element of cultural, geographical, economic and social unity or identity, which means that in a rural environment such as the riding I represent people want to keep customs, the possibility of better knowing one another in a given territory so the established customs can continue to be part of their lives to the benefit of everyone and those customs will be guaranteed by an act of Parliament that will not upset every 10 years the already established habits and customs.
Following the remarks that were made to me and from the experience I acquired in this House since I came here, I often find that members representing rural ridings are overloaded with work compared to members representing urban ridings. I would say the same thing if I were a member representing an urban riding because one only has to look at the way things are done to realize that.
Since the last redistribution rural riding were geographically enlarged, as everyone knows, which forces the member representing them to travel miles and miles every weekend if he wants to keep in close touch with his constituents. This contact is becoming increasingly more necessary if we want hon. members to make necessary representations knowingly and in due course.
In view of these difficult times, it is more and more important for an hon. member, within a limited area, to know the individuals and families he represents, their trades, professions, living conditions and incomes, so as to be in a position to make in the House representations which are likely to help them avail themselves more of the material, cultural and social opportunities available in this country.
This is why, following the adoption of this bill, I am asking that the officials who will be appointed to carry out the distribution in line with the date contained in this bill avoid, as much as possible, changes which might alter the living conditions of some foreign parishes in rural areas when they are moved from one constituency to another.
Finally, I wish we would take advantage of quotients and of the percentage of the difference as mentioned in the bill, in order to provide for larger or smaller constituencies, and to assure them that they will get a fair and just representation in this House if they really are still to be heard in this House, so that their rights may be recognized and defended, and farmers may tell Parliament when they want to have an act amended or to be granted some privileges, and enjoy some sort of security.
Mr. Speaker, if that is not provided for, I think we shall be doing Canadian people as a whole a bad service, and more and more rural citizens will have to complain of being denied the advantage of having enough members in the House of Commons to voice their appropriate claims. If we deny them that, there will soon be more and more members of Parliament who will be totally ignorant of the problems of rural citizens, and we shall then bear the consequences of such a bill because, whether we like it or not, agriculture is and will always remain the main industry in our country, since it aims at providing each and everyone of us with food, at meeting the food needs of the whole Canadian population. I should therefore wish the few representations I wanted to make tonight on behalf of rural citizens from Quebec and throughout Canada would be remembered.


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Coast Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, as a new member serving on the committee that brought this bill forward, I should like to go on record as paying tribute to members on both sides of the House as they piloted through a somewhat difficult bill. Although it is not satisfactory to all, I feel it is nevertheless a step in the right direction. As a newcomer to committee work, I must say that I found members on both sides of the House most helpful. Some with many years seniority were most helpful on a non-political basis. I should like to express my personal feelings because I have a particular interest in this bill and I hope it will be completed this evening.
I should particularly like to pay tribute to two colleagues on the other side, Mr. Speaker, who were most helpful, the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) and the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston). The hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) also played a prominent part in the proceedings. I just want to put this on record, Mr. Speaker, and say that I very much appreciate the work of everybody concerned with this bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the minister rising on a point of order, or does he wish to speak?


Mitchell William Sharp: I rise to make some brief comments, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I think I am meeting a difficulty at this time. Third reading of the bill has been moved by the President of Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). In my interpretation of the rules, this is considered as participating in the debate. I would hope that the House would allow the minister to make his remarks by consent. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I did not know that my colleague had performed this service for me. I thank the House for giving me leave to make a few comments. I want to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I can reaffirm the undertakings I have made, that we have every intention of delivering to the House, without delay, a bill to increase the membership of the Northwest Territories by one, bringing it to two.
I should also like to thank hon. members who have participated in the debate and worked so actively in the committee. It has been a most useful exercise, and I admit that as a result of comments of hon. members on all sides this is a better bill than it was when I presented it.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
Health and the Environment ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS ACT


MEASURES TO PROTECT HUMAN HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT FROM CONTAMINANTS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, December 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp (for the Minister of the Environment) that Bill C-25, to protect human health and the environment from substances that contaminate the environment, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry; and the amendment thereto of Mr. Fairweather (p. 2251).
George H. Whittaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to take part in the debate on this bill to protect human health and the environment from substances that contaminate the environment, and to support the amendment moved by my colleague the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) that this subject matter be referred to committee for study. This evening a severe storm is raging outside the House. An abundance of pure, white snow is falling. We know from experience that after a couple of days, because of the salt and the sand the municipal authorities will put down, the streets will be dirty and slushy; they will have been contaminated.
I am pleased to participate in this debate because the environment together with concerns regarding the contamination of the environment are uppermost in my mind and in the minds of many of my constituents. Our concern, of course, stems from the problems we are encountering in the Okanagan Valley of British Columbia where pollution is threatening to contaminate our beautiful lakes.
The parliamentary secretary said in his speech on November 19 that in his view it is much better to prevent environmental damage than to go around cleaning it up after it has occurred. I agree with that statement, provided we are doing the proper things to prevent contamination. We must not lose sight of the fact that there is already a great deal of pollution in the world and we must do a great deal of cleaning up. For that reason, the water basin study of the Okanagan Valley, B.C., was commissioned. It was completed about a year ago. The purpose of the study was to determine what pollution had already been caused in the Okanagan and what could be done to prevent more pollution taking place.
One must remember that people create pollution of all sorts. Great concentrations of people in a given area create pollution. Therefore, certain things have to be done if we are to prevent much of this pollution contaminating the environment. The study previously referred to was comprehensive but told us what most people already knew, namely, that an extensive effort must be made in future if we are to keep this beautiful valley from being overpolluted and contaminated by the various elements which cause pollution of the environment.
What bothers me more than anything is that little or nothing has been done in the past year since the water study was finished; that is to say, very little has been done of which people are aware. We have only done what the people have tried to do themselves. The municipalities and cities have been trying to do things for themselves; how-

December 16, 1974
Health and the Environment
ever, as to the over-all implementation of the recommendations of the water basin study we have heard very little.
I realize that an implementation task force was established early in the year. It was made up of one member of the provincial government and one member of the federal government, with the manager of the Okanagan water basin board sitting in as an observer. What also bothers me is that none of their findings or recommendations has been made public. It appears to me that very little is known by the people in the Okanagan about the work of this task force.
It appears to me that this subject is too important for only two people appointed by two levels of government to look into. Certainly, local people should sit on this committee, as they could report back on what has been going on and on what is being decided by the committee. I understand that it has produced papers or recommendations, but these are marked "secret". I also understand that meetings are taking place between the two governments, even at the deputy minister level; but, again, no local representatives who can help and advise are involved. They could tell the people of the area what is happening.
I hope that this task force will not act like a secret body which is to report back to the two levels of government so that they are the only ones who will know what should be done. I hope the people will not be left in the dark; will not be denied information about what is happening. The people of the Okanagan Valley are too concerned to tolerate that type of thing. Perhaps because of the costs involved, governments do not want .to tell the people what is happening. Perhaps they are not telling the people for fear they might have to become involved in this matter.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the federal government has a responsibility to become far more involved in this whole situation than it has so far. This is a unique situation in that our valley and lakes and the way they are situated cannot be duplicated anywhere else in Canada. We need a high degree of prevention as well as some clean-up to take care of pollution which has resulted from the population increase of the last few years. Because people realize what a wonderful climate we have and what a nice place our area is to live in, the population is increasing steadily and something has to happen quickly.
For these reasons, on November 25 I sent a letter to the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) and explained to her some of the things I know about the water basin report. I said that I had been reluctant to play politics with this subject, contrary to what many people have done in the past. I will not indulge in such activity, because this subject is far too important to me. I also asked the minister to visit the Okanagan Valley and look over the situation first-hand, because I believe what she will find will be unique in Canada. I am sure the people of the Okanagan will give her a warm welcome and see that she receives a comprehensive insight into the problems of the area. I will be happy to assist in the arrangements, and assure the minister that no politics will be played on my part.
The minister, in her speech on November 30, referred to pollution in the Mississippi area. I suggest that it will not be long before she will be able to refer to the Okanagan

area in the same way: she will not need to refer to the Mississippi area. In her speech the minister said that this piece of legislation is also proof of the modern ideas of this government, and that it will not let economic development and environmental concerns develop on parallel lines. I suggest that the government must play a larger part than that involved in proposing legislation. We realize that existing legislation deals with direct contamination of air and water and contaminants coming from industrial sewers and plant chimneys, but we also realize that such laws do not consider what happens when large concentrations of people live in an area like the Okanagan Valley.
I read with interest the minister's apparently lighthearted speech made during the White Owl conservation award presentation in the Queen Elizabeth Hotel, Montreal, on December 6. I suggest to the minister that a much firmer stand must be taken on the question of contaminants in the environment, pollution in the environment and on the environment itself in the next few years if we are to survive in this world. I note that the United States government grants municipalities 75 per cent of the funds needed for clean-up and pollution prevention.
The environment of Canada is delicate. We are fast approaching the maximum population which this delicate environment can tolerate. Already we have gone a long way in polluting it. We must take a much stronger stand. Let us look at oil. In 50 years we have almost depleted this supply of energy. It was because of the discovery of oil and the use of oil as energy that we were able to take advantage of the increased standard of living we have achieved in the past 50 years. Let us look at the next ten years. In the next ten years, we have been told that we will have almost depleted this supply of energy and will be going downhill. So let us look at what has happened in 60 years. In 60 years the people of the world have effectively used up most of this energy which enabled us to make great advances in our standard of living.
What is going to happen after we deplete this supply, if we are not able to find more supplies of oil? What will happen next? How long will it take us to deplete our next form of energy? I suggest that when we use the next form of energy, be it nuclear energy or whatever science finds for us, we will have a great many contaminants from it, maybe even more than we have already. It almost scares me, Mr. Speaker, to think that we could deplete the next form of energy in half the 60 years it has taken to deplete our oil resources. We could find the net tightening faster around ourselves, contaminating the environment at faster rates and in fact shortening the time that we can use scientific discoveries which give us the energy to live in the way in which we have become accustomed.
It is for this reason I endorse my party's stand that this bill does not go far enough or fast enough in finding out about contaminants that could pollute our environment. I endorse the remarks which were made by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) on this bill in the interests of the prevention of which we will need a great deal in the years to come.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to see so many members from Brit-
December 16, 1974

ish Columbia in the House this evening. I am speaking of members on both sides. These members should be here, because British Columbia has been endowed with a most spectacular environment, one of the most spectacular in the world. If there is not adequate legislation to protect the environment, we have the most to lose; therefore, we must speak the strongest on this bill.
Those who think this bill has anything to do with protection of the environment had better read it again. As you read through the bill you find there is a lot that needs to be added before it will be anywhere near adequate. I will start by going back four years. On April 15, 1970, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in a speech to the Canadian Press in Toronto:
If part of our heritage is wilderness, and if the measure of Canada is the quality of life available to Canadians, then we must act should there be any threat to either. We must act to protect the freshness of our air; we must act to protect the purity of our water; to conserve our living resources. If necessary, we must offer leadership to the world in these respects and withstand the cries of complaining interests.
After four years of trumpeting, what has this government come up with? It has come up with a toothless lion, a paper tiger. What does this bill say about the remarks of the Prime Minister, the leader of the government that is sponsoring it? In my opinion, it is despicable hypocrisy, unworthy of the intellect and the integrity of the Prime Minister, let alone the minister who claims to be the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve). Why is it so? There are many reasons. The hon. member from British Columbia should be listening to every word. How he could sit through caucus and let this bill reach the floor of the House in this condition, I will never know.
Let us look at the teeth, or lack of teeth in this bill. We are talking in terms of a maximum penalty of $10,000. That would not even pay for the lawyers who would take the matter to court, let alone the damage to the environment or paying for a solution to the problem. It would be cheaper to destroy the river or the lake than pay the $10,000, that is, provided the necessary information can be gathered to follow through with a charge and prosecution. I have never before seen a bill with, for example, a subclause such as 8(6), page 12, line 4, which provides that one year shall be the time in which to gather information after a charge has been laid. It would take that long to lay a charge, let alone to gather material. There should be a minimum time of two years. Such a precedent was set on another occasion.
This bill has no teeth. No matter what the minister says, the bill has no meaning. Indeed, it is a discredit to the minister, her department and to the government which presented it. When the minister introduced this bill, I thought, "She is a new minister. She has only been in office a few short months."


Jeanne Sauvé: Years.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: All right, a year. I thought perhaps even that was too short a time to expect her to come forward with a philosophical statement, a statement of vision, a statement with some direction and leadership for her department. Perhaps it is too soon. Possibly she will think about this and come through with some lofty statements such as those made four years ago by the Prime Minister,
Health and the Environment
which have not been heard since. Possibly she will speak in terms used by Canadian writers such as Roderick Haig-Brown who, when talking about rivers and waters, said:
A river is water in its loveliest form; rivers have life and sound and movement and infinity of variation. Rivers are veins of the earth through which the lifeblood returns to the heart.
The minister must have that kind of heart for the environment, particularly our water resources. The late Blair Fraser, who through most of his distinguished journalistic career tried to capture the meaning of Canada, put it this way:
It is no coincidence that our national emblem is not a rising sun, a star, a hammer, a sickle, or a dragon, but a beaver and a maple leaf. Nor is it coincidence that there are more paintings of wilderness lakes, spruce bogs, and pine trees on more Canadian living room walls than in any other nation on earth. We may scoff, we may deny, but the wilderness mystique is still a strong element of Canadian ethos.
How does our minister respond to statements like those of environmentalists such as Barry Commoner, director of the centre for biology of natural systems at Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri? Where is the challenge to this statement, challenging it as wrong or to give us a course of action to meet the statement? We hear environmentalists making statements like this:
The environment which as an integrated whole supports human life is being stressed to the point of collapse.
I believe we are approaching, in our time on this planet, a crisis which may destroy its suitability as a place for human society. His point is that our high, modern, industrialized society is subjecting our air, water and land to a myriad minor stresses which either as multiple or as individual stresses, or in the form of yet unrecognized combined stresses, may drive the eco-system into selfaccelerating changes and ultimate collapse by overstressing at a particularly vulnerable spot. I would suggest one of the most vulnerable spots is the area of water. What does the minister say about this? What does she say about this vulnerable resource, water? When I ask her questions in the House, she says, "Water policy? We have no water policy."


Jeanne Sauvé: Yes, to sell to the United States.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Oh, regarding the export of water! Do you have a policy with regard to water generally? Do you have a general policy for water as it relates to the environment?


Jeanne Sauvé: Oh, yes.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Well, I look forward to hearing it, because I have not heard it stated in the House as yet, and if I could get that for a Christmas present I would sure like it. To hear the minister make a water policy statement is something for which I have been waiting for six months. It would be nice to hear. What do we get, instead? We get a piece of legislation which is after the fact-legislation which leads from crisis to crisis and acts after the pollution has happened. What does it do after that? It says: Be a nice boy and don't do it again or we will charge you maybe a maximum of $10,000. What a pathetic statement!
Why doesn't the hon. lady tell us how this fits into the over-all environment policy of the department? That is

Health and the Environment
what I want to hear from her. That is what the Canadian people want to hear. Water development decisions are made as though rivers are simply pipes carrying water to the sea, pipes into which taps and elbows and extensions could be added as long as enough water kept flowing through them and as long as some sort of salesmanship and financial manoeuvring made it possible to sell the idea of all those fixtures to the public. Fortunately, rivers and streams are not like that at all, and manipulating them as though they were can be disastrous. Alberta biologist Dennis McDonald put it this way:
Rivers are extremely complex. They have evolved over millions of years and it is this complex web of life, this interrelationship between vegetation along the river and the organisms within the river which is often severely damaged by man's activity.
This is the kind of protection we are looking for. We seem to take the attitude in Canada that we have an overabundant supply of water; that it does not matter what we do to our water supply, it will just keep flowing and cleansing itself and we will never have to worry about it again. But the matter of supply and demand in Canada is often overestimated; it is often taken for granted, and it is this taking for granted that leads to the fear that 1 have for the water system of Canada.
It is the same type of thinking that told us we had barrels and barrels of oil, enough to last us for ever, ten years ago. Whoever heard of an oil shortage five years ago? But now it is upon us we recognize we should have acted sooner, that we are late. The whole issue of water as it relates to the environment is the issue that is now being missed. It is not being talked about; it is not being worked on. The minister has a department full of fine experts. I have talked to some of them. They are competent and they know what they are talking about. I say to the minister, "please listen to them."


An hon. Member:: It is their bill. Let it go through.
Mr. We run an: Please hear the word from the department and expand and strengthen it so that in some way we can get a firm policy developed. Anyone with any kind of environmental expertise will relate man and water and air and tell you-


An hon. Member:: It's their bill.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: It's their bill. It's the start of their bill, but I would suggest there has been some tampering with it and I hope it hasn't been by yourself or through your influences, be they political or whatever. The ideas behind the bill were good, there were some good concepts, and I am looking forward to your standing up and speaking in the same way. And I believe the members over there from British Columbia who are so critical know I am right; they know the bill is inadequate, that the penalties in it are inadequate.
Relating to supply, I am concerned about the overexaggeration of the supply of water and the general apathy regarding the fresh water of Canada. Newspaper accounts often credit this country with 25 per cent, even up to 40 per cent of the world's fresh water resources. Such estimates are not merely misleading, they are inaccurate. Most of the world's water that is not found in the oceans or locked up in polar ice or glaciers, is stored underground.
(Mr. Wenman.]
Canada's over-all ground water situation is not known with any degree of reliability, but what we do know is not especially promising; too much of our northern land is bared of soil cover, impregnated with permafrost and underlain with impermeable crystalline rock or saline formations for ground water potential to create great expectations other than on a local scale.
Where Canada does excel is in its lake area, perhaps greater than that of any other country in the world. Lakes are invaluable for regulating the flow of rivers to the sea, but ours are for the most part the legacy of an ice age which ended several thousand years ago. Lakes are not renewable except at a cost to the rivers which fill and drain them. The only real measure of a country's water supply therefore, is its renewable stream flow. On an average annual basis, Canada's rivers discharge, not 40 per cent, not 25 per cent, but slightly less than 9 per cent of the world's renewable water supply. Set against the Canadian population which is less than 1 per cent of the world's population, this is a generous endowment. Set against a territorial area which is about 7 per cent of the world's land mass, however, it is not so disproportionate.
Also, these national data must be tempered with the knowledge that they disguise wide variations of water availability in time and place. Much of the Canadian west is not well watered. Indeed, almost two-thirds of our run-off is carried northward into the Arctic Ocean. On the demand side, there are similar misconceptions. A conventional determination of future water demand in Canada might add up to projections of present uses for domestic, industrial, irrigational, electrical and recreational purposes in terms of discrete quantities. But these are not the sum of our uses of water in Canada. The full impact of such uses on the complex equilibrium of flows, sediments, plant and animal community, the lifestyles of human settlements which have adapted to this setting, the impact on the quality of our magnificent recreational opportunity, their impact of our national sense of what these waterways mean to us as Canadians, have not and cannot be so neatly calculated.
In the wider scheme of things, Canada's water must emerge as more than a commodity to be harvested, processed and transported like a bushel of wheat or a barrel of oil. It is an integral element of our environment. It is, therefore, basic to our national identity and to our understanding of what this country is all about.
May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I am a little disappointed that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) had to leave the chamber, and even more disappointed that the distinguished member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), the parliamentary secretary, is not in his place. Had he been here I would have extended in a personal way my sympathies to him, as a member of parliament from New Brunswick, on the very tragic events of last weekend in the city of Moncton.
My purpose tonight is to express concern at the continuing presence in Cyprus of Canadian troops. Whatever else may be said about the presence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, no one can say that when the chips are on the line he is not capable of saying it like it is. Too many years ago, in pursuit of what at the time was something quite proper I suppose, namely, some degree of international honour and glory in the area of peacekeeping, we permitted ourselves to enter into contracts, which in essence were bad contracts from Canada's point of view, regarding the presence of Canadian forces offshore. We entered into a number of contracts, going back as far as 1948 and 1949, which continue to require the presence of Canadian troops as well as the performance of roles that are no longer useful. They are not performing any discernible function in terms of the original concept that sent them there.
I say this because over the years-I shall not bore the House with the figures-it has cost us many lives and countless millions of dollars to pursue less than useful roles offshore. The concept of peacekeeping is one thing; the concept of peacemaking is another. When we went to Viet Nam, I think we went with the right approach-as a way out. We went for a definite period of time and we said that if it was not apparent to us that we were doing the job that we went there to do, we would leave-and we did leave. In doing that, we broke away from the traditional type of contract which has existed for so long in the past and which I submit is essentially bad.
This brings me to the kernel of the few points I want to make tonight in regard to Cyprus. Cyprus is exactly one of those areas that we entered in all good faith but under the guise of what can only be termed a very bad contract. We have not way of getting out; there are no ground rules, no guidelines, no nothing. We are there essentially to keep the peace, not to make the peace, and it is very difficult for us to intervene in the conflict between the Greek and Turkish Cypriots in the area of peacemaking. Certainly we cannot keep the peace and make the peace without conflict.
This evening I want to ask, particularly in light of the statements made quite recently by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, whether or not at this point in time Canada should say very clearly to the parties involved, as well as to our partners in NATO and our allies and friends in the councils of the United Nations, that it is indeed the intention of Canada to get out of Cyrpus at the end of the current six-month term of service unless we become satis-
Adjoumment Debate
fied during the next six months that meaningful progress has been made toward a lasting peace on that island. We have now been there 11 years. Failure to make this progress in 1975 will render our role there almost totally useless in the eyes of Canadians, and they will with justification have the right to require the return of those troops.
I ask whether we could not put this question forward because I think it would provide the type of stimulus to bring the parties on the island in question closer to a meaningful settlement, and it might spur our allies in NATO and the UN to get on with urging these two great countries to end their differences in respect of Cyprus. I suggest we can do this with some meaning on this one, simple ground: our allies and friends around the world will now listen to us. We told them we would get out of Viet Nam if we were not seeming to perform the useful role for which we were contracted to go there; we did get out of Viet Nam, and I think the councils of the world will now listen to us. Nations that are at loggerheads will listen to us.
I am not talking about threats; I am talking about the deployment of our troops in the most useful way possible, not only in this particular situation but in other situations that come up from time to time. I pose that question and I will be listening with interest to the response by the government spokesman.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, first of all I think it must be said that the hon. member knows very well we were dealing with a different organization in Viet Nam than we are dealing with in respect to Cyprus, namely, the United Nations. We are members of the United Nations directly and are dealing there in respect of Cyprus. We were not a member of the organization heading up the Viet Nam situation at the time.
The hon. member asked a question about the Preserver. It is classified as an operational support ship, designed primarily to replenish ships at sea. It has a strictly limited passenger capability and is not designed to carry troops. It does not carry troops from Cyprus or anywhere else, except for crew. The Cyprus mandate, as the hon. member knows, has recently been renewed by the Security Council for a six-month extension terminating June 15, 1975. The Canadian government, however, has not yet received a formal request for Canadian forces' participation. When it does, the request will be given careful consideration and an announcement on the decision will be made in the normal manner.
The Canadian airborne regiment has been serving in Cyprus since early last summer, some members since April 1974, and the decision was taken by the Department of National Defence to replace the regiment with the First Battalion of the Royal Canadian Regiment, based at London, Ontario, in keeping with the policy of a six-month tour of duty for peacekeeping forces in the Middle East. The replacement of troops in Cyprus was completed earlier this month and it was carried out by Canadian forces aircraft, which is the normal method of transporting Canadian forces for peacekeeping and other overseas duties.

December 16, 1974
Adjournment Debate
While speaking of the Canadian forces in the Middle East, I would like to take the opportunity to mention that early in the new year service women, approximately 50 in number, will be joining the Canadian contingent at Ismailia, the headquarters of the UN forces in the Middle East. They will be employed in supporting tasks such as teletype operators and supply technicians. The minister has also recently announced that the ceiling on the number of women in the forces has been removed and they are eligible for 82 of the 121 existing trades and classifications. In effect, the only trades precluded to women are those in the category of seagoing duties, isolated postings and combat roles.
It should also be noted that women in the forces are paid similar rates as men and officers and that they enjoy the same leave and mess privileges. These facts make a mockery of the uninformed and vindictive remarks the hon. member made in this House during the question period this afternoon.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I should like to enter a caveat at this point. I will rise on a question of privilege in the House tomorrow. What the parliamentary secretary has said should be withdrawn, as he knows it is absolutely untrue.


INDUSTRY-TEXTILES-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT AID TO INDUSTRY
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, on Friday of last week I asked if the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) was considering immediate action to bolster the Canadian textile industry. Four weeks ago the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard), when pointing out to the minister the lay-offs in the textile industry, was advised that eight or nine textile products were to be referred to the Textile and Clothing Board for urgent examination. The same subject was raised the following day and again two days later when, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), the minister said:
I am not aware of any dumping at present or undervaluation of imports.
He did admit to being aware of distress selling on the part of foreign producers of textiles and that this was seriously affecting the prospects of the Canadian textile industry. On November 1, the newspaper La Presse reported:

The Canadian textile industry is in a very bad way. In the last six months, 4,000 layoffs have been registered throughout Canada. In Quebec alone, 1,300 workers lost their work during this period.
... in the last eight months, the government has relaxed its quota policy for imports.
In a telegram sent to the Prime Minister of Canada ... the Canadian Federation of Textile Workers ... requested immediate action on the part of the government to protect the textile industry which, directly and indirectly, provides 100,000 jobs in Canada.

Today, the minister stated that he had met with the Textile and Clothing Board and expected to have more to

say at the end of this week. I would remind the minister that action is already too late for many in the industry who are facing a bleak Christmas without employment. In my constituency of Vaudreuil a huge construction project by the Dupont Company, worth in excess of $40 million, is now in jeopardy. It should be unnecessary to point out that such a construction program has an impact upon the Canadian economy many times greater than the 1,000 or so jobs that would be directly created.
I cannot miss this opportunity to point out that this particular project was conceived without any financial assistance from the federal government. Its viability was directly related to profits in the industry. More than 100,000 persons, or 6 per cent of all manufacturing workers in Canada, earn their livelihood producing textiles; 50,000 of these employees are located in Quebec. In the province of Quebec, the industry is the third largest employer of labour. The gross value of production of the industry exceeds $2.5 billion. Capital investment by the industry over the past decade has exceeded $1.5 billion. Annual wages total over $600 million. About 80 per cent of the industry is Canadian-owned.
During the past three months there has been a rapid and continuing increase, week by week, of lay-offs in the industry for indefinite periods, declining hours of work, uneconomic levels of capacity utilization and a reversal of planned investment decisions made earlier. The industry's share of the Canadian market has declined steadily and imports now account for more than half of all the textile products sold in Canada. Voluntary export restraints or quotas are applicable to less than 10 per cent of total imports. Canada should not be made to suffer for the volatile nature of production and trade in textile products and distress selling caused by the lack of planning and control by other countries.
Our relatively generous import policies must not be used to make us the disposal ground of the world in times of crisis. Unco-ordinated, erratic, insensitive imports are adding substantially to the confusion. Unless action is taken-and rapidly-permanent, irreparable damage will be caused. The Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin made a statement on textile policies on May 14, 1970, when he was minister of industry, trade and commerce. In part, he said:
The government will be prepared, in cases ol serious injury from "low cost" imports, to accord special protection-unilaterally when necessary-in order to facilitate adjustment to or strengthening of the more viable lines of production.
Mr. Speaker, that action is absolutely essential today.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, the minister met with the labour-management committee of the Canadian textile industry on November 15, 1974, to obtain first-hand knowledge of the situation. Following this meeting he requested the Textile and Clothing Board to undertake concurrent inquiries into the following products identified by the committee as being the most seriously affected by imports: broadwoven man-made filament fabrics; double knit and warp knit fabrics; polyester filament yarn; polyester-cotton fabrics, and worsted fabrics. He requested that the board present the results of its inquiries and any recommendations as soon as possible because of the urgency of the situation.
December 16, 1974

The board, in announcing its inquiries into these products on December 6, 1974, emphasized that briefs should be submitted as soon as possible and in any case not later than January 6, 1975. It also drew attention to section 17(2) of the Textile and Clothing Board Act permitting it to make a written report to the minister recommending that special measures of protection be implemented immediately on an interim basis. During recent weeks department officials have had intensive discussions with representatives of the industry and with officials of other departments and of the provincial governments most directly concerned. They have been gathering the information necessary to assist the board in conducting its inquiry and to support any recommendations made before the textiles surveillance body of the international textiles arrangement.
All of these steps are in accordance with the provisions of our textile policy and are necessary to meet our international obligations under GATT and, specifically, the ITA. They will, however, take time to carry out and, considering the depressed conditions facing the primary textile industry worldwide, it is unlikely that effective action can be in place to prevent lay-offs prior to Christmas.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-ALLEGATION OF BIAS IN REPORTING NEWS EVENTS IN MIDDLE EAST-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, on December 13 the Minister of Communications (Mr. Pelletier), with that haughty arrogance which is his trademark, indicated to me that I had addressed a question to the wrong minister. If he feels, under section 3(d) of the Broadcasting Act, that he is not responsible for the fair and impartial broadcasting of news, that is his confusion, not mine. In any case I am very happy to have the distinguished and learned Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mr. Blouin) answering my question tonight.
Surely the Middle East crisis, a continuing threat to the peace and security of the whole world, is "a matter of public concern" to Canadians. The Middle East conflict is difficult and dangerous enough, and Canada's role therein and attitude thereto sensitive enough to preclude any unhelpful contributions from the CBC or other media. The open letter to the CBC president from Ms. Donna McDuff was a thoughtful, carefully worded and obviously well-researched presentation. I do not know this lady but I, too, heard the programs to which she took exception.
The "Capital Report" program to which she referred was outrageously biased and the part which was supposed to capsulize the editorial opinion of Canadian newspapers was grotesque in its distortion. This I say having made a very careful study of press comment on the very important issue of hearing the PLO representative at the United Nations. She also refers to the CBC's failure to carry Yasser Arafat's speech at the United Nations. No one expects the CBC or any other media to become an apologist for the PLO-although they have ridden many hobbyhorses in times past-but I think whether we like it or not, his appearance was an important news event. I think the people of Canada might have been trusted to hear and see the PLO chief and make up their own minds.
Adjournment Debate
If, as Ms. McDuff alleges, her complaints were countered by the statement from a prominent CBC executive that she was "anti-Semitic", then we enter the area not only of the improper but of the reprehensible. There is no place for this kind of unworthy sneering on a matter of such importance. She does not engage in anti-Semitism if she urges that the Palestinians have rights and that one of these is the right to be heard. To say the least, anti-Semitism is a strange accusation against one who desires greater justice for the Palestinians or other Arabs since they, too, are Semitic peoples.
The CBC coverage of the Middle East situation has for a long time been characterized by lack of impartiality and refusal to allow the Palestinian case to be aired. When the members of the PLO were here recently, I listened in vain for CBC radio to give an in-depth story about or an interview with these three people-men, incidentally, of varied and interesting background-a poet, a lawyer and a mayor recently ousted from his municipal duties in the West Bank. But CBC radio was, in my view, most inadequate in its coverage.
Perhaps this media, especially the CBC, may be directly or indirectly influenced by the example of ministers of the government. How many times have I heard secretaries of state for external affairs in answer to questions state that Canada supports UN Security Council resolution 242, which calls for secure and recognized boundaries for Israel, and then sit down with an expression of sublime satisfaction. But what SC resolution 242 says in this connection is:
Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for an acknowledgement of the sovereignty territorial independence and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force.
It also calls for "withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories of recent conflict and the achievement of a just settlement of the refugee problem." Thus, a good deal more than the security of Israel is involved in the resolution to which we have long been committed. It is misleading to suggest that it is a commitment to only one side of the confrontation in the Middle East. We do less than justice to our own people, to our international friends and to the peace of the world when we deal in partial truths or concealed truths.
It is necessary that we bring objectivity and an evenhanded approach to the Middle East crisis. This country has been a friend of Israel for a long time. Nor would I wish to see that friendship diminished. But that friendship cannot, and need not, be based on the assumption that never, on any issue at any time, can there be any right or justice in the cause of the Palestinians. There is no reason in the world why Canada should not maintain and strengthen its ties of commerce and friendship with the 20 states of the Arab world.
If we are, as we claim, unbiased in this crucial question, we should be objective in our news dissemination. The death of Israeli civilians at the hands of Palestinians is to be deplored, but the death of women and children in refugee camps as the result of Israeli armed attacks must also touch our conscience. There can be no discrimination

Adjournment Debate
as to the terror and violence. In the interests of fuller information on behalf of the CBC audiences, I believe the serious, carefully documented charge of Ms. McDuff should be fully investigated.


Gustave Blouin: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) for his kind words. As usual, the hon. member has a way of getting to the bottom of things. The office of the Secretary of State obtained the following information from the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation: The CBC utterly rejects the accusation of bias in its coverage and reportage of events in the Middle East. It is always possible to take something out of the context of programming and show it as favouring one side or the other.
The CBC has received formal visits from delegations of Jewish organizations strongly complaining about CBC programming being anti-Israel. It has also received formal visits from delegations of Arab organizations strongly complaining about CBC programming being anti-Arab. The corporation, Mr. Speaker, is always fully prepared to have meetings of that kind and to listen to expressions of concern about coverage and reporting of the Middle East situation.
In this coverage the CBC yields neither to Arab nor Israeli pressures but yields only to what is fair and balanced. To do otherwise is a distortion of the CBC's fundamental responsibility of providing information to Canadians. Any divergence from this approach would be instantly corrected. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, it should be noted that the American network and the BBC did not carry the Arafat speech live.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:27 p.m.

Tuesday, December 17, 1974