1974-12-02

PRIVILEGE


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, arising from the point of order raised Wednesday last by the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) as recorded at page 1710 of Hansard. I regret that this is my first day in the House since the statement was made. The minister stated:
... it was alleged that he had in his possession a classified document belonging to the Unemployment Insurance Commission. This could have constituted an offence under the Official Secrets Act.
I feel I have two points which must be made. First, who was my accuser and how was the accusation made? Why was I not told about the accusation? Surely, any citizen, and perhaps particularly members of this House, is entitled to know when and if they are under investigation, for what purpose and who the instigators are. Surely, an investigation of this sort is not made on the basis of an anonymous phone call. I am confident it was not started by the RCMP themselves but, rather, on the direction of someone within the cabinet.
Second, with regard to the Official Secrets Act, what classified documents relating to the Unemployment Insurance Commission could possibly be construed as "prejudicial to the safety or interests of the state"? Surely, the collection of funds from employers and employees across Canada, adding contributions from government and distributing the same to the unemployed, could in no way be construed as a security matter. It might well be, as has been shown, evidence of monumentally inept bungling on the part of the UIC administration; but surely all Canadians, particularly members, have a right to know what is happening to their money. The disclosure of such a document might be prejudicial to the safety or interests of the government, but that is far removed from an offence under the Official Secrets Act.
Is the Solicitor General, the second highest ranking legal officer in the government, in fact confessing that he is perverting the Draconian provisions of the Official Secrets Act to the uses of the government rather than the state? In light of the serious statements made by the minister, I feel I have a bona fide question of privilege. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith):
That the subject matter of this question of privilege be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has raised some important questions. I was not the minister responsible at the time, but I would
be pleased to look into the questions he raises. I might say that I said it could have constituted an offence because the police did not know what the nature of the document was at that time. I think, if I remember correctly, the hon. member himself said in a television broadcast that he had a document. Who had asked for the investigation, I am not sure; but I will check into that. I also went on to say in my statement last week that once the RCMP had checked with the hon. member they found there was no ground for any charge and dropped the case immediately. But the hon. member raised some important questions at the beginning of his remarks and I will check into this matter and give the information to him and to the House as well.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If there are no other contributions on the question of privilege of the hon. member for Hastings (Mr. Ellis), may I say that the hon. member did give the Chair notice and, as a result, gave us an opportunity to examine the merits of the case. I do not want to dwell on the matter at great length. It is a somewhat unique situation in view of the fact that the matter first arose in the House on Tuesday, November 26, the day before the minister's remarks, when the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard) was putting questions to the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) about RCMP investigations.
In the course of this exchange, the Solicitor General made replies which indicated that members of the House, or others, would not be investigated unless they were suspected of some breach of security or alleged criminal activity. At that point, the hon. member who has just raised the question of privilege rose in his place on a point of order and said, basically-I will paraphrase his words which are, of course, reported in Hansard-that, having been subject to an investigation without being suspected of any criminal activity, he challenged the answer of the Solicitor General. In due course, the Solicitor General made further remarks which indicated that in light of the hon. member's remarks, he would check further and report to the House.
In view of the fact that it was the hon. member himself who raised the question and put it in issue, namely, that he was at one time the subject of an investigation as a result of some connection with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, and it was not the Solicitor General who first raised it, and in view of the fact that the Solicitor General then undertook to report to the House- and did report to the House-the following day indicating that, as the hon. member had indicated, the reason for his investigation had to do with the possession of a document connected with the Unemployment Insurance Commission, with the result of the inquiry being that there was no criminal activity or breach of security connected with the

December 2, 1974
Transport and Communications possession of the document, the investigation was dropped.
Under the circumstances, I think it is appropriate for the House to address itself, with concern, as to whether or not the investigation should have taken place in the first place. In that respect, I am sure all members of the House are grateful for the undertaking of the Solicitor General to look into the matter and to report further. Indeed, as the Solicitor General said to the House, he was not the incumbent of this office at that time, and I am sure his undertaking will be pursued to the comfort of members of the House.
But the question before us at this moment is not that one particularly but, rather, whether the remarks of the Solicitor General to this House constitute a question of privilege. In view of the fact that it was the hon. member himself who first intervened in the proceedings the previous day to put these facts on record, I am unable to find that any action by the Solicitor General constitutes a breach of the privileges of the hon. member, therefore, of any other member of the House. Therefore, I have to find that there is no prima facie question of privilege at the moment.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. John Campbell (LaSalle-Emard-Cote Saint-Paul) moved: that the second report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, presented to the House on Thursday, November 21, 1974, be concurred in.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I think this particular report raises some procedural points and I wonder if Your Honour would like to hear argument on them.


Mr. Speaker:: 
Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion stands.


COMMUNITY EMPLOYMENT STRATEGY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and
Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, under Standing Order 41(2), copies in both official languages of the joint communique on Community Employment Strategy agreed to by the federal government and the province of British Columbia in Vancouver last Friday, November 29, this being the first we have signed with any provincial government.

William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when we established the position of correctional investigator one year ago, I promised to table the annual report of the correctional investigator even though there was no statutory requirement to do so. I should like, now, to table in this House the first annual report of the correctional investigator.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: It is an open
government.
December 2, 1974


Mr. Stanfield:: Open as a sieve.


Mr. Wagner:: An open penitentiary.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. This matter concerns the unprecedented spread between the low price paid to the beef producer and the high price paid by the consumer. No inquiry to date, including that of the Food Prices Review Board, has been able to explain this spread, although it is of vital importance to the underpaid producer and the hard pressed consumer in these days of escalating food prices.
Mr. Speaker, I have documentary evidence that leads me to believe that this low producer return and high consumer price problem has been caused by malfunction of the government-administered grading system. I plead with members to support my motion asking that the government inquire into this matter of such great concern to all hon. members and to the public. I shall be glad to appear before any inquiry with my documentary evidence.
With consent, Mr. Speaker, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the government immediately inquire into this serious matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have considerable reservation whether this matter, although important, contains any ingredient of immediacy or pressing urgency. In this case, because the full details of the hon. member's presentation may leave some question as to whether the necessary degree of immediacy or urgency is present, I will inquire of the House whether there is unanimous consent. The hon. member's motion, presented pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, requires the unanimous consent of the House if it is to be debated. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous agreement, the motion cannot be put at this time.
Attendance of Members HOUSE OF COMMONS


LEAVE OF ABSENCE GRANTED MEMBERS UNDER STANDING ORDERS-PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT TO WINNIPEG
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, rather than relying on Standing Order 43, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 5, which reads:
Every member is bound to attend the service of the House, unless leave of absence has been given him by the House.
Sir, it has been announced that at the invitation of Mayor Juba of the city of Winnipeg, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is to attend a centennial dinner in my city this Thursday, December 5. Because I am one of the Winnipeg members, and because all of us feel that he should be there, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That the Prime Minister be granted leave of absence from the House of Commons on Thursday, December 5, 1974, under the provisions of Standing Order 5, for the purpose of attending a centennial dinner being held in the city of Winnipeg, provided that at that dinner he announce the early commencement of work on the new air base facility promised to Winnipeg during the recent election campaign.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Notwithstanding the clear provisions of the rule which may or may not affect the right of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), without the leave of the House, to attend this or any other ceremony or function which may be considered as part of his duties, the fact is that the provisions of that rule do not contemplate any motion as substantive as the one now being presented to the House without fulfilling the requirements of notice that pertain to every other substantive motion. I know that no one in this chamber is more aware of this provision than the hon. member who has just got his point across without conforming to the rules.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If my motion is not put and granted, does that mean the Prime Minister does not have the right to be absent on Thursday?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member does not move, in the same motion, that I be given permission to absent myself to go to Washington. Surely, important though Winnipeg is, the relations between Canada and the United States are also very important.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, if there is unanimous consent, I shall be glad to add Washington to Winnipeg in the text of my motion.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, does the hon. member also want to ask the House to approve the unanimous instructions that he would want me to carry out in Washington?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I could try.



December 2, 1974
Order Paper Questions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce an extremely urgent motion.
In view of the grain inspectors' strike, the impending end of the shipping season and the eventual scarcity of flour and feed grain in eastern Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the government take immediately the necessary steps to cope with those conditions.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such a consent?
253, 285, 369, 379, 393, 407, 435, 436, 512, 546, 577, 579, 611, 623, 675, 678, 686, 697, 730, 768, 791, 820 and 867.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


GOVERNMENT GRANTS TO CANADIAN COUNCIL FOR RESEARCH ON EDUCATION
Mr. Allard: Does the government subsidize the Canadian Council for Research on Education 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?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: In
1971 the Canada Council gave a grant of $1,637 to the Canadian Council for Research on Education for the organization of a conference on future co-operation among Canadian education organizations.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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

[English]	.


FORT-FALLS BRIDGE AUTHORITY ACT MEASURE TO REMOVE REQUIREMENT FOR ACT OF U.S. CONGRESS BEFORE COMMENCING CONSTRUCTION
John Mercer Reid: for leave to introduce Bill C-367, to amend the Fort-Falls Bridge Authority Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, this bill will amend the Fort-Falls Bridge Authority Act to bring it into conformity with an enabling act passed by the United States Congress. There were some discrepancies between the two acts. This act will bring ours into line with theirs and allow a new bridge to be built at Fort Francis international falls.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 105, 136, 146, 215, 233, 239,


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


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: (a) 562; (b) 48; (c) One.


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


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: (a) Over $20,000-378; (b) Over $30,000-19; (c) Over $40,000-Two.


Mr. Howie: What was the number of (a) the authorized strength (b) the actual strength of the Armed Forces on January 1 in each year 1972, 1973 and 1974?


James Armstrong Richardson: 1. (a) Authorized strengths of the Canadian Armed Forces are established on the last day of the fiscal year. For the years in question authorized strength was as follows: March 31, 1972, 81,350; March 31, 1973, 82,320; March 31, 1974, 82,320; (b) On March 31 of the same years the actual strength was: March 31, 1972, 82,879; March 31, 1973, 81,443; March 31, 1974, 80,639. The actual strength of the Canadian Armed Forces on January 1 for the years in question was as follows: January 1, 1972, 83,339; January 1, 1973, 81,359; January 1 1974, 80,519.
December 2, 1974


Mr. Reynolds: Is the winter uniform still issued to Armed Forces personnel, particularly those on northern duty and, if not, does the Minister of National Defence intend to re-issue same instead of a second lightweight uniform currently issued at such locations as Cold Lake, Alberta?


James Armstrong Richardson: Heavyweight dress uniforms of the current style of uniform have never been issued to Armed Forces personnel. However, heavyweight material can be purchased from Department of National Defence clothing stores by individuals who wish to have a uniform tailored privately. Thermal underwear and sweaters are issued to all male personnel and in addition those working outdoors are provided with heavyweight protective outer clothing.
Female personnel are issued with heavyweight jackets and skirts.


Mr. Hurlburt: What is the dollar value of repairs and capital cost improvements to military bases in (a) British Columbia (b) Alberta (c) Saskatchewan (d) Manitoba (e) Ontario (f) Quebec (g) Prince Edward Island (h) Nova Scotia (i) New Brunswick (j) Newfoundland for the fiscal year 1971-72?


James Armstrong Richardson: The dollar value of repairs and capital cost improvements to military bases by provinces in Canada for fiscal year 1971-72 was as follows:
Construction	Maintenance

(a) British Columbia	6,168,694	5,545,135(b) Alberta	4,752,700	6,631,206(c) Saskatchewan	486,192	2,000,876(cl) Manitoba	627,514	1,972,564(e) Ontario	10,732,992	19,811,069(f) Quebec	14,810,095	8,255,027(g) Prince Edward Island	91,434	1,816,376(h) Nova Scotia	6,659,784	8,852,674(i) New Brunswick	3,769,695	4,130,584(j) Newfoundland	284,983	285,89748,484,173	59,301,418


Mr. Herbert: 1.	During the last year for which figures are available, what was (a) the highest (b) the lowest rate of interest on new loans approved by the Industrial Development Bank?
2.	What was the average rate of interest on all new loans in this same period?


John Napier Turner: 1. (a) Highest, 13.5%; (b) Lowest, 9.5%.
Order Paper Questions
2.	Average, 11.29%. The above figures apply to the bank's fiscal year ended September 30, 1974.


Mr. McKinnon: Has a distillery known as Central Canadian Distillers Ltd. of Wey-burn, Saskatchewan (a) recently been sold to American interests (b) been the recipient of Department of Regional Economic Expansion grants or loans and, if so (i) how much (ii) is the government taking any steps to recover such loans or grants?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of Privy Council):: I am informed by the Foreign Investment Review Agency and the Department of Regional Economic Expansion as follows: (a) Control of Central Canadian Distillers Ltd. of Weyburn, Saskatchewan was acquired by L.J. McGuiness and Co. Ltd. of Toronto late in 1973 and reported in the Toronto Globe and Mail on February 16, 1974. L.J. McGuiness and Co. Ltd. was acquired in 1970 by Standards Brands Limited of Montreal which in turn is controlled by U.S. interests; (b) The company has been the recipient of a grant from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion: (i) the grant totalled $603,911 and was provided under the authority of the Regional Development Incentives Act; (ii) no steps are being taken to recover the grant since the sale of the shares of Central Canadian Distillers Corporation Ltd. occurred after the expiry of the legally authorized control period. The incentive offer was accepted by the company in March, 1970, and the facility brought into commercial production on May 31, 1971.


Mr. Dick: Is the government considering a change in the regulations under the Income Tax Act to allow a person to claim a deduction under the title of moving expenses, being legal expenses for purchasing of a new home?


John Napier Turner: A number of requests have been received from the public urging an amendment to the Income Tax Act to give a deduction for expenses incurred in the purchase of a new home. These requests are receiving careful study. However, as such an amendment would be a budgetary matter, it would be improper to indicate whether or not such an amendment will in fact be proposed.


Mr. Rynard: 1.	What are the names of the companies owned by the Canada Development Corporation and what is the percentage of control for each company?
2.	What is the amount of holdings of Connlab held by the Canada Development Corporation and what was the net profits of this Company for the years 1970, 1971, 1972 and 1973?
3.	How much stock of the Gulf Oil Company is held by the Canadian Development Corporation?
1830

December 2, 1974
Order Paper Questions
4.	What was the cash value of all companies held by Crown corporations (a) on date of purchase (b) as of October 1, 1974?


John Napier Turner: 1. As of
December 31, 1973: Polysar Limited, 100 per cent; Texas-guld Inc., 30.4 per cent; Connlab Holdings Limited, 100 per cent; Venturetek International Limited, 35 per cent; Ventures West Capital Ltd., 49 per cent; Innocan Investments Ltd., 40 per cent; Gas Arctic-Northwest Project Study Group, 3.7 per cent.
2.	The CDC formed Connlab Holdings Limited in June 1973 with initial resources of $35 million. At December 31, 1973, the last fiscal year-end, Connlab's assets amounted to $69.5 million. Connlab registered a profit of $41,000 in 1973.
3.	None.
4.	(a) Not available. Some companies held by Crown corporations were established by them and thus on the date of incorporation had no cash value (e.g. Air Canada's subsidiary Airtransit Canada Ltd., a number of subsidiaries of CN such as Canac Consultants Limited). Other companies held by Crown corporations were acquired as the result of their business failure where the government had guaranteed all or part of their debts (e.g. Canadian National Railways holds in trust the government's investment in the Canadian government railways, such as the Inter Colonial). It is not feasible at this time to make an appraisal of the value of an asset acquired, in some' instances, (b) Not available. Since a cash value is the amount a willing purchaser would pay a willing seller, it can only be obtained by either calling for tenders if the company is to be sold or by having an appraisal estimate made by a qualified appraiser.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is the government aware that the annual circulation of Selection du Reader's Digest is up to three million?
2.	Does the government have any concern about the cultural influence of the magazine and has it met with representatives of the Government of the Province of Quebec to discuss this matter?
3.	Are there other magazines of such circulation in the Province of Quebec?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. According to a statement of the Audit Bureau of Circulation which appeared in the November 1974 issue of Canadian Advertising Rates & Data, the average monthly circulation of Selection du Reader's Digest for the second half of 1973 was 268,772 copies. This would indicate that its annual circulation is up to 3 million.
2.	(a) Yes, the government is concerned about the cultural influence of this magazine, (b) No, it has not met with representatives of the government of the province of Quebec to discuss this matter.
3.	Yes there are other magazines of such circulation in the province of Quebec: namely Chatelaine (French language edition) at 248,612, and Famille d'aujourd'hui at 220,350. These figures were taken from the same source as cited in reply to Part 1.


Mr. Lachance: Do any banks, acting under orders from the Bank of Canada, refuse to honour the Olympic Coins having a legal tender below $20 and, if so, does the government intend to correct this situation which could create anxiety among the numismatists of the world and among Canadian taxpayers in general?


John Napier Turner: The Bank of Canada has not issued any orders to banks to refuse to accept Olympic coins.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 435-Mr. Ellis:	[DOT]
What were the travel expenses for the Regional Director (Director General) (a) Quebec (b) Ontario of the Unemployment Insurance Commission for 1972 and 1973?
Mr. William Rompkey (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1972: Ontario, $5,775; Quebec, $1,983; 1973: Ontario, $4,966; Quebec, $2,106.


Mr. Ellis: What staff were removed by the Unemployment Insurance Commission from Belleville in 1973 and 1974 to date?


Bill Rompkey: 1974 (to
	1973	October 30)
Removal out of Belleville	36	14(including promotions) Removal into Belleville	27	18(including promotions) Released on Probation	0	0Released for Incapacity of Incompetence Termination of term (casual)	0	0employment	105	40


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government giving consideration to allowing a farmer to deduct, for income tax purposes, wages or salaries paid to the farmer's spouse for work done in connection with the farming operation?


John Napier Turner: The government in the past had considered permitting an unincorporated farmer as well as a small commercial businessman to deduct wages paid to his spouse for demonstrably useful labour, and to allow the wife to report this income. While such a deduction is fair in principle, it was determined that the establishment of the validity of the claim would give rise to administrative difficulties. An unwarranted splitting of income would be unfair and would give rise to tax avoidance. It is to be noted that a farm which is incorporated can pay a salary to any employee including the wife of the owner. It should be realized of course that
December 2, 1974

an individual farmer with low income has lower tax rates than corporations and is entitled to special averaging provisions.


Mr. Herbert: Is it the intention of the government to revise the conputer systems used by the Department of Manpower and Immigration to provide up-to-date information on (a) the precise number of persons drawing unemployment benefits (b) the number included in this total who are drawing (i) sickness benefits (ii) maternity benefits (c) the number of persons whose eligibility period for benefits has expired?


Bill Rompkey: In so far as
the Unemployment Insurance Commission is concerned: Statistics Canada is the official source of statistics on the operation of the Unemployment Insurance Act. Negotiations between Statistics Canada and the Unemployment Insurance Commission are currently under way to specify the precise computer systems requirements for the publication of statistics on the actual number of beneficiaries of the various types of benefits under the program and termination of claims. These data can be expected to appear in Statistics Canada's publications in 1975.


Mr. Herbert: Will the Minister of Finance consider financial assistance to the small farmer by premitting a limited direct deduction from federal taxes of paid municipal and school taxes?


John Napier Turner: Farmers like businessmen may deduct municipal and school taxes paid from their income to the extent that these are a business and not a personal expense. Therefore, no consideration is being given to provide a direct deduction from federal taxes.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Are chartered banks prevented by the Bank Act from acting in a
fiduciary capacity?	.
2.	Has the Minister of Finance received any indication that banks exercise control in such a capacity over pension funds and the funds of other investors?


John Napier Turner: 1. It would be deemed beyond the powers of a bank under the Bank Act to act in a fiduciary capacity.
2. No.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What was the maximum rate of interest that was determined on October 1, 1974 under the small Businesses Loans Act?
2.	How much money was lent under this Act in July and August of this year?
Order Paper Questions


John Napier Turner: 1. The
maximum rate of interest was 10 per cent.
2. In July $1,897,537 and August $1,756,760 was lent under the Small Businesses Loans Act. (Figures are as reported by lenders up to October 18, 1974).


Mr. Beatty: 1.	What was the cost to the Canadian Transport Commission of the survey of individuals in Southwestern Ontario described in the third part of the Midwestern Ontario-Bruce Public Transport Study?
2.	What was the purpose of identifying respondents in the survey by electoral district?
3.	On what date was a copy of the report first transmitted by CTC to the Minister of Transport?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: 1. The
total cost to the Canadian Transport Commission of the survey of individuals in midwestern Ontario was $29,300. It was made up of the following elements: Fieldwork, $19,600; Data processing, $4,750; Administration, co-ordination, questionnaire designs, etc. $4,950.
2.	Respondents in the survey were identified by Census Enumeration Areas (the smallest rural statistical geographic unit for which census information is available, thereby providing the best basis on which to locate respondents and conduct analyses). The coding numbers for enumeration areas are duplicated within electoral districts; therefore the electoral districts must be known to identify the enumeration area and hence the respondent.
3.	A copy of the third part of the study was first transmitted to the Minister of Transport on April 24, 1974.


Mr. Horner: In the freight rate freeze that was announced at the Western Economic Conference (a) what was the total amount paid to the transportation companies because of the freeze (b) how much did each company receive (c) were these companies subsidized under the same formula as the Freight Rate Reduction Act and, if not, what formula was used?


Jean Marchand: (a) The
total amount paid to the transportation companies because of the freeze is $40,689,251.45 in accounts of year 1973. (b) The following companies received the following amounts: Canadian National, $27,000,000.00; Canadian Pacific, $13,000,000.00; Ontario Northland Transportation Co., $51,526.00; Northern Alberta Railways Co., $634,536.00; Napierreville Junction Railways, $3,189.45; Total, $40,689,251.45. (c) No, they were paid in respect of lost revenues.


Mr. Jones: 1.	Has the Canadian Transport Commission received an application from the City of Moncton for rail-line relocation and, if so, what steps have been taken to act on the application?
2.	What financial assistance is available to the City of Moncton for rail-line relocation?
28543-47Vi

December 2, 1974
Order Paper Questions


Jean Marchand: 1. An application to give notice that the city of Moncton was desirous of taking advantage of the proposed legislation previously announced was submitted in the form of a resolution by the city of Moncton in 1972. No supplementary application amplifying the resolution or further application has been received by the CTC.
2. Financial assistance is available under the Railway Relocation and Crossing Act for: (a) Preparation of the transportation plan and the urban development plan. The act provides for a grant of 50 per cent of the cost from the Ministry of Transport for the transportation plan and 50 per cent of the cost from the Ministry of State for Urban Affairs for the urban development plan, (b) Railway relocation. The grant shall not exceed 50 per cent of the net cost of railway relocation and this grant is authorized by the Minister of Transport. In addition to this grant the act
Annual
Community	1967	1968	1969Ellershouse	1,688	1,743	1,895L'Ardoise	866	825	1,824Judique	1,196	2,184	2,329Iona	2,139	1,997	1,870Larry's River	1,179	1,347	1,403St. Andrews	1,204	1,226	1,213Hopewell	2,358	2,373	2,598Mosers River	2,378	2,764	2,804Upper Musquodoboit	3,838	3,832	3,787Port Howe	1,337	1,339	1,041Barss Corners	2,495	2,591	3,211Port Mouton	880	1,504	1,965Tancook Island	1,196	1,309	1,422Arcadia	2,328	2,488	2,140Barton	1,244	1,392	1,573Middle West Pubnico	1,580	1,723	1,864Salmon River	2,012	2,074	2,328Shag Harbour	2,078	2,313	2,438Lower East Pubnico	1,459	1,628	1,528


Mr. Stevens: 1.	(a) How many acres of carpeting have been laid within Terminal Number 2 at Toronto International Airport (b) is more carpeting planned and, if so, how much and on what date will it be laid?
2.	What was the aggregate cost and the cost per square foot of the carpeting laid?
3.	Who manufactured the carpeting and the underpadding and, in each case, was it entirely a Canadian product?
4.	Was the carpeting and underpadding purchased directly from the manufacturers and, if not, who were the middlemen and what commission, mark up or other remuneration did they receive in the aggregate and on a square foot basis?
5.	Who laid the carpeting and underpadding and what was the aggregate cost and the cost per square foot for such work?
6.	(a) Were tenders called for and bids submitted (b) was any contract let to other than the lowest bidder and, if so, for what reason (c) who, by name and address, were the lowest bidders and what were their bids?


Jean Marchand: 1. (a)
5.4752 acres of carpeting have been laid in terminal No. 2. (b) Additional carpeting is planned in the public arrivals

provides for assistance from the railway grade crossing fund for grade separations which may be required.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	In what areas of Nova Scotia have standard revenue post offices been constructed during the past eight years?
2.	By community, what has been the annual revenue for these post offices?


Mr. Raynald Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. In the following constituencies: Annapolis Valley, Cape Breton-East Richmond, Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, Central Nova, Cumberland-Col-chester North, South Shore, South Western Nova.
2. The communities and available annual revenue figures are indicated on the attached list.
Revenue
1970	1972	1972	1973	19742,008	2,379	2,770	3,044	Revenue2,117	3,033	3,821	4,276	figures3,022	4,056	4,884	5,500	not available2,379	2,887	3,734	11,849	3,642	5,829	7,377	8,032	1,453	1,757	2,273	2,676	2,601	3,028	3,531	3,947	4,155	7,162	9,036	9,864	3,811	4,984 .	6,325	6,912	1,156	1,713	2,404	2,366	4,215	4,262	5,435	5,315	2,097	2,747	3,236	3,440	1,491	1,992	2,265	2,487	3,058	4,357	4,884	6,048	1,706	1,853	2,203	2,529	2,009	3,223	4,294	4,940	2,569	3,394	4,074	4,935	2,775	4,414	5,469	5,993	1,539	3,475	4,599	5,182	
area, and is to be laid in 1977. Approximately 11,000 sq. yds. will be required.
2.	The aggregate cost of the carpeting laid is $441,490, (tender price plus supervision and consultant's design fees). The cost per square foot is $1.63.
3.	The carpeting was manufactured by Kraus Carpet Mills Limited, 565 Conestogo Road, Waterloo, Ontario. The fibre was produced by Dupont of Canada in Kingston and was fibre rufted and space dyed by Kraus in Waterloo, Ontario. No underpadding was used.
4.	No. The tender price of $416,400 from the Robert Simpson Company Ltd. included the cost for the supply and installation of the carpet.
5.	The Robert Simpson Company Limited laid the carpeting at an aggregate cost of $416,500. This cost is all inclusive. The rate per square foot is $1.54.
6.	(a) Yes. (b) no; (c) (1) The Roberts Simpson Company Limited, 49 Gerbais Drive, Don Mills, Ontario, $416,500; (2) Precision Contract Interiors Limited, O/A Precision Contract Carpet, 153 Bridgeland Avenue, Toronto, Ontario, $461,000.
December 2, 1974


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is a public servant from a distant city, who enters and wins a competition for a position in the National Capital Region, transferred at public expense?
2.	Is a public servant in the National Capital Region ineligible to enter a similar competition in a distant city by reason of transfer costs?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: 1.
Yes, paragraph 1.04 of the Treasury Board Relocation Directive, December 1973 states: "When an employee is transferred or his place of duty is changed to another location and, in the opinion of the deputy head, payment of part or all of an employee's relocation expenses is warranted, the deputy head may authorize a relocation under the terms of this directive.'* Paragraph 1.05 states in part: "Once a relocation has been authorized; (a) the employee shall be reimbursed his reasonable and justifiable relocation expenses.-" Paragraph 1.07 states: "Where a relocation results from a transfer between departments, the cost shall normally be borne by the receiving department. However, costs may be shared by the receiving and sending departments where it is to their mutual advantage and prior arrangements have been made."
2. No, a public servant anywhere may enter any competition.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	In each year since 1950, what was the number of new companies or corporations incorporated, first under federal jurisdiction and second under provincial jurisdiction?
2.	How many active incorporated companies or corporations were there as of March 31, 1963, 1973 and 1974 and, in each year, how many were incorporated under federal provincial or foreign jurisdictions?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. Statistics regarding new provincial corporations have not been regularly maintained by the government of Canada; however, the following figures for new corporations were supplied by provincial authorities for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1973: Newfoundland, 563; Nova Scotia, 1,097; Prince Edward Island, 200; New Brunswick, 949; Quebec, 8,450; Ontario, 12,489; Manitoba, 1,206; Saskatchewan, 985; Alberta, 4,642; British Columbia, 9,422; North West Territories, 93; Statistics regarding new federal corporations have been maintained only for fiscal years ending March 31: 1954, 876; 1955, 879; 1956, 883; 1957, 816; 1958, 788; 1959, 864; 1960, 941; 1961, 878; 1962, 865; 1963, 852; 1964, 917; 1965, 897; 1966, 1,018; 1967,1,085; 1968,1,207; 1969, 1,552; 1970, 1,797; 1971, 1;897; 1972, 1,678; 1973, 2,116; 1974, 2,481.
2. Statistics regarding active provincial or foreign corporations are not maintained by the government of Canada. Statistics regarding active federal corporations are available only as at March 31: 1974, 24,982; 1973, 22,501.
Oral Questions


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): What is the total estimated maximum capacity of existing plants in Canada, both in service and idle, for the production of (a) neswprint paper (b) book and writing paper (c) wrapping paper (d) paperboard (e) other paper products?


Gaston Clermont: The 1974 total productive capacity of existing paper and paperboard plants in Canada, both in service and idle, is as follows: newsprint paper, 10,560,000 short tons; book and writing paper, 1,275,000 short tons; wrapping paper, 700,000 short tons; paperboard, 2,658,000 short tons; other paper products, 1,175,000 short tons.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	As of March 31 in each year 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974 (a) how many were employed by Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships 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 (ili) $50,000 or more?
2.	What was the salary or the salary range for each of the five highest paid employees of the Corporation.


Jean Marchand: As of
March 31, 1968, 1970, 1972 and 1974. 1. (a) Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Ltd. was an inactive company which had no employees; (b) Not applicable; (c) Not applicable.	.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Andre (Calgary Centre): 1.	Does Boeing Computer Services of Seattle perform the administrative computer services for Northern Transportation Company Limited?
2.	Are all of the results of the Travacon Study of Transporation in the North commissioned by the government stored in this Seattle based computer facility?


Jean Marchand: The
Northern Transportation Company Limited advises as follows: 1. No.
2. No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is for either the President of the Treasury Board or his predecessor, the Minister of Public Works. Has the procedure adopted by the Department of

Oral Questions
Manpower and Immigration for the approval of LIP grants, which includes among other things provision that no grant will be approved without the approval of the so-called regional minister, received approval of Treasury Board?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, of course the administrative procedures are always approved by the Treasury Board.


Mr. Andras:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The implication of the words-I am sure it was inadvertently given-of the Leader of the Opposition, that this is a matter of procedure, is in fact incorrect. As I have indicated in this House and publicly, and will continue to indicate, we have sought a wide-ranging consultation about the appropriateness of particular projects as to whether they should or should not be approved. We included a reference to ministers in different parts of the country as well as to members in different parts of the country. While ministers are all members of the particular party which forms the government, hon. members are members of all parties on all sides of the House. That consultation, I think, was totally legitimate in the sense we wanted to be sure that the projects, to the best of our ability, were in fact meeting the needs of the community to which they were assigned, as well as providing employment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I based the question relating to procedure on a memorandum prepared for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration by his deputy minister. I quote from page 2: "No project is approved without the concurrence of a regional minister." I ask the President of the Treasury Board when it was reported by the Auditor General that LIP grants to the extent of many thousands of dollars had resulted in benefiting private property and whether Treasury Board inaugurated inquiry into procedures being followed with regard to the authorization of LIP grants.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I asked the officials of my department to prepare a statement on the Auditor General's comments. They should give an account of every case he raised, and if need be we will remedy the situation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the fact that the Auditor General made a complaint to the government over a year ago and received certain undertakings from the government with regard to this matter, can the President of the Treasury Board assure me that investigations were made by Treasury Board to ascertain how in fact these moneys have been used for the benefit of private properties and to ensure that no further such authorizations will take place?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I cannot report to the Leader of the Opposition on this particular point. I shall

look into the matter and report to him later. The problem has not been drawn to my attention in these terms.


LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR GOVERNMENT INVESTIGATION INTO OPERATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In light of documents revealing that the process of consultation on LIP applications with members of the House generally was superseded by a special process of clearance by key ministers and Liberal members, would the Prime Minister tell us whether the government will set up a full investigation and public inquiry into the operations of the LIP program; and also would he tell the House whether, in view of serious misinformation given on this subject by the Minister of Manpower, he has requested that minister's resignation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not
admit the premise of the question, and therefore I reject the conclusions.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: A supplementary to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In the winter of 1972-73, as stated by Mr. Des Roches, Deputy Minister of Manpower and Immigration, in a memorandum of January 25, 1973, did certain regional ministers have the power of final approval over LIP applications? Was a special information group set up in the hon. gentleman's office to act as a clearinghouse to hear representations from regional ministers and Liberal members? Finally, was the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources the minister designated to approve Ontario projects?


Robert Knight Andras: No minister was given authority to veto or to approve LIP projects in 1972-73, 1973-74 or, as far as I am concerned, in 1974-75 except the minister responsible, who happens to have been me in the last two years. The consultation process which I described a few minutes ago is the fact of the matter, and I see nothing wrong with that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Every member of the House should have the right to stand on a point of order at this point and object to continued inaccurate and misleading information being given in this chamber by the minister of manpower when documents from his own department prove he is not telling us the facts. I think it is a disgrace that the minister should tell us that what these documents say and what his officials say is not the case.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows well that the ground covered by his point of order has been covered several times. Complaints about the quality of answers received do not constitute points of order. Complaints about inaccuracies, if those inaccuracies are alleged to have been deliberate, should be accompanied by a specific charge, the consequences of which we all know.
December 2, 1974


OIL-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO ENSURE CONTINUED EXPLORATION TO MEET FUTURE NEEDS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding announcements by some of the subsidiaries of United States' oil companies operating in Canada that they intend to reduce their expenditures on exploration for oil. The minister has characterized these statements as blackmail, and quite properly so in my opinion. What steps does the government intend to take to ensure that oil exploration in Canada shall continue at a rate sufficient to meet the needs of the country in 1982 and 1983 when, according to the National Energy Board, we shall face a critical situation?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: The budgetary measures announced by the Minister of Finance are an indication of the room to move made available to the oil industry, in a financial sense, so that it can carry on its exploration. It seems to me that the timing and manner of the announcement on the part of the various companies was unwise.


ATHABASCA, ALBERTA-GOVERNMENT PARTICIPATION IN TAR SANDS PROJECT
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Having regard to statements by Imperial Oil and Gulf Oil that they are re-examining their financial commitment with respect to the construction of the Syncrude plant in the Athabasca oil sands, does the minister intend to ensure the construction of this and other oil sands' projects through public participation or in conjunction with the provinces and any of the oil companies which are willing to participate? Does he intend to take any action to ensure that in 1982 or 1983 the forecast of the National Energy Board that oil will be forthcoming from the oil sands will in fact be realized?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have no policy specifically directed at federal investment in the oil sands. The provincial government of Alberta, which has full responsibility in this area, has been at no little pains to state that federal participation is not welcome.


OIL PIPELINE SARNIA-MONTREAL-RESULT OF DISCUSSIONS WITH COMPANY REGARDING CONSTRUCTION
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Last week the minister said discussions with Interprovincial Pipe Line regarding construction of a pipeline from Sarnia to Montreal had reached a stalemate and he was making certain recommendations to his cabinet colleagues. Has any decision been arrived at and, if not, can he tell us how soon an announcement will be made regarding this project? When is it contemplated that construction will begin?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: A decision has not yet been made. I
Oral Questions
would hope that within a week one will have been reached.


SASKATCHEWAN COURT RULING ON OIL ROYALTIES- INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT INTENDS TO APPEAL
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is on the same subject and is addressed to the Minister of Justice. It arises from the negative decision handed down by the Queen's Bench Court Bench in Saskatchewan on the claim of a plaintiff that high royalties imposed by a province interfered with the rights of the federal government in connection with interprovincial trade. Does the minister plan to appeal this decision or to help the plaintiff in this case-an oil company-to appeal to a higher court?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: It is anticipated that an appeal will go forward, and because of the importance of the constitutional issue involved, we would expect to intervene.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Has the
minister, or have any of his officials, made any contact with the oil company up to this point?


Otto Emil Lang: There may well have been discussions. I would have to check into these details and report to the hon. member.


MANPOWER
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the LIP matter and ask the minister of manpower whether those members of parliament who set up advisory groups and tried to work with his department to get programs approved were told, as a matter of courtesy, that their representations would be subject to review, appraisal or veto-whatever word the minister likes to use-by a regional minister, whatever that term may mean?


Robert Knight Andras: In the early 1972-73 programs there were no constituency advisory groups. There was an arrangement for consultation within communities which people selected, for the most part, by members of my department. This was good, as far as it went. But I established advisory groups in 1973 and have carried the system on, and members who decided to go along with it were given an opportunity to recommend appointments. So the position has changed considerably in the last two or three years.


Mr. Fairweather:: Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting answer to a question I did not ask. Were members of parliament informed of the review by regional ministers, or were they not?

December 2, 1974
Oral Questions


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the reviews by ministers in various locations in this country were not on a formal basis in that they did not have the power of veto, so it is not relevant.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisguoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can he assure this House that, during the time he gave his ministers to put their affairs in order in relation to the conflict of interest guidelines-


An hon. Member:: Order.


William Heward Grafftey: Just be quiet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Heward Grafftey: They are obviously very sensitive, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister assure the House that no minister transferred to his or her spouse assets which, if held by the minister in question, would put him or her in conflict of interest under the rules of the guidelines?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not investigated that possibility.


HOLDINGS OF MINISTERS' SPOUSES-KNOWLEDGE OF PRIME MINISTER AFTER MAKING PERSONAL INQUIRIES
Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to come back to a question which the Prime Minister neglected to answer the other day. I ask him now whether he has made any personal inquiries into the holdings of spouses of ministers, or into the contents of frozen trusts of ministers, so that he personally as head of the government may now be aware of any conflicts that may exist?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In the case of frozen trusts, Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes. In the case of the spouses of ministers, the answer is no except in so far as ministers in some cases did consult me about certain private businesses which their wives were involved in, or holdings which they were involved in, and told me about them.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in the case of that kind of consultation, or any consultation that resulted from th Prime Minister's invitation to his ministers in July, 1973, to meet with him to discuss any possibility of conflict, was there any condition or situation brought to his attention which might have involved a conflict of interest? Was there any such situation brought to his attention either through consultations or from information received from any other source and, if so, will the Prime Minister advise the House, first, if the conflict which might have existed has been resolved and, second, who were the ministers concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the question in so far as I do not know if it relates to holdings by spouses or by ministers. Perhaps the hon. member would rephrase his question.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in any kind of conflict of interest, whether it is a conflict in respect of a direct interest held by a minister or a conflict in respect of an interest that might affect the minister because it is held by a spouse or any other person close to the minister. Has any evidence of a conflict been brought to the attention of the Prime Minister and, if so, what action has been taken as a result of that evidence; and, in each case, who was the minister concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in so far as potential conflicts are concerned, of course the whole purpose of the guidelines was to do away with such potential conflicts. I can say that I know of no actual conflict of interest. Of course, there were potential conflicts of interest under the general practices which have been followed for time out of mind by ministers and members of parliament, in so far as it was not prohibited under our rules or customs for ministers or members generally holding shares or public stocks. It is precisely because of potential conflicts of interest that I promulgated the guidelines and demanded of ministers that they depart themselves from the administration of such stocks or other forms of property.


REQUEST FOR IMMEDIATE REVIEW RATHER THAN AWAITING COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF GREEN PAPER
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Privy Council. In view of the necessity of having an immediate review of possible conflict of interest situations involving certain cabinet ministers, and the need for strengthening the guidelines laid down for cabinet ministers on July 18 and December 18 by the Prime Minister, will he indicate why he has chosen, in government business Item No. 7, to have the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs first consider the green paper on "Members of Parliament and Conflict of Interest", and then only after the committee has concluded its deliberations and submitted its report may it consider and make recommendations on the subject matter of ministers and conflict of interest?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated the argument for this procedure before, but I will repeat it briefly. We are all members of parliament whether we are cabinet ministers or backbenchers. I think it is important, if we are to proceed in an orderly way, that we first of all decide, as members of parliament, what should be the rules in relation to conflict of interest. Upon that foundation we can improve the guidelines for ministers and public servants. I really believe that if we were to begin otherwise we would be asking members of parliament to look at the question of conflict of interest of ministers, or in relation to ministers, before they had searched their own consciences.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in view of the minister's reply and the fact that members of parliament are not privy to knowledge other than public knowledge, while cabinet

December 2, 1974

ministers have continuing, ongoing knowledge of matters not in the public domain and are taking actions daily of public interest, and in view of the fact that guidelines in respect of cabinet ministers currently do not cover the activities of their spouses, nor is there even full disclosure required, will the minister indicate whether he is at least willing to change the order of reference to the committee so that the guidelines in respect of cabinet ministers could be considered first and without delay?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I would say to the hon. member, through you, that at the present time there are no rules applying to private members of parliament such as apply to cabinet ministers. These rules now govern our conduct, whereas private members of the House of Commons are free of almost any restriction whatsoever. That is the reason my predecessor in office put forward the guidelines, which I hope will commend themselves to hon. members and others. I would just repeat what the Prime Minister has said: what have we to hide?


An hon. Member:: What are you covering up?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What are you trying to hide?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, in view of reports that millable wheat may have to be rationed among our customers, I should like to ask the minister in charge of the Wheat Board whether he has received from the Wheat Board an estimate of how much wheat falls into the millable class; and in view of large amounts of grade 3 and 3 utility can the minister say whether any of this wheat will be able to be put into the milling trade both in Canada and overseas?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, there is no question of rationing but, rather, of arrangements the Wheat Board may have to make in its selling program. In view of the amounts and qualities of wheat available-fairly large quantities of No. 1CW and 2CW, the usual milling grades-the Wheat Board has been analysing the lower grades to determine milling qualities and has recently found that because of markets and the lower prices, these may represent a desirable commodity.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Canadian commitment of one million tons of food, can the minister say how much of this is expected to be wheat and what grade or category this would likely fall into?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we would anticipate that the approximately one million tons would, in fact, be wheat in the ordinary course. The grade would depend upon the desires and tastes of the receiving countries and the arrangements which may be made between them and CIDA. I should say to the hon. member that in addition to the wheat which has already been committed for aid and
Oral Questions
for sale there is an additional quantity still available in respect of which further commitments can be made.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that we have now gone through two quarters with zero growth rate in our GNP, the major component for this being slowdown in the export of manufactured goods-which indicates a failure of the government's program for two-year, fast write-offs to stimulate the economy-I ask the Minister of Finance whether he intends to introduce any new programs or proposals to stimulate the economy, and particularly manufacturing in this country?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman is right when he refers to the second and third quarter of this year as being two flat quarters after, I should draw to his attention, a period of very strong growth. We are now in a period of slower growth caused primarily by a fall-off in housing and exports, reflecting a stagnant international situation particularly in the economies of our three largest customers, the United States, Japan and the United Kingdom-in that order. It was because of that threat of a recession reflected by those factors that the stimulus was added to the 1975-76 fiscal year in the budget presented in this House two weeks ago.


U450) STEPS TO DIVERT FUNDS TO JOB-INTENSIVE INVESTMENT TO CREATE EMPLOYMENT
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there is now an increase in unemployment, and one of the problems is that a great deal of investment is going into capital and machinery, I ask the minister whether he is considering any new measures to direct business capital into job-intensive, rather than capital-intensive investment for the sake of creating jobs and stimulating the economy.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, during the period to which the hon. member refers, regarding which he is disturbed about the two-year write-off, manufacturing employment increased substantially for the first time in several years. The total number of new jobs created by Canadians for Canadians in 1973 was 420,000 and in 1974 it was 380,000-over three-quarters of a million; in fact, over 800,000. As a result of these write-offs and the stimulus provided, new jobs for the three-year period ending in the next fiscal year should be well over one million. If the hon. gentleman would compare the growth of the economy in October in this country-about 4.6 per cent-he would see that the negative growth is about minus 3 per cent of the United States and perhaps he could then put his comments in perspective.
1838

December 2, 1974
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville on a final supplementary.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the statistics the minister has enumerated before, such as on budget night, but the concern I have now is the slowdown in the last quarter. There is a slowdown in business capital expansion by corporations. I ask the minister whether we can expect any new programs that would encourage the corporations of this country to spend more money on labour-intensive industries than on capital-intensive industries.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, because of the risk of slowdown in the economy which is reflected in the current figures, the stimulus was added on budget night for the 1975-76 year. I did point out to the House on budget night that because of the current thrust in the economy for 1974-75 it is expected that business capital investment will be intensified. Later calculations which we have, thanks to the survey taken by my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce as late as July, and recent indications, show that business capital investment is holding up.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, I should like to put a question to his parliamentary secretary.
Will there be any changes in the family allowances cheques from January 1975, that is, will the social insurance numbers of parents or husband and wife appear on these cheques?


Miss Coline Campbell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure there will be a change according to the cost of living index, so far as the family allowance is concerned, if the existing legislation is followed. So far as the second part of the question is concerned, I shall fake notice of it.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour arising out of the implications of the grain inspectors' strike and the availability to eastern consumers of western grain. Would the minister agree that this is a very serious situation, and would he tell us what steps he is taking in view of the closing of the Seaway, which compli-

cates the problem, to settle the dispute in a fair and equitable manner so that eastern consumers will not be unduly affected?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member may be aware that the President of the Treasury Board is responsible for the negotiations in respect to this particular dispute. I am sure that he will be pleased to answer the question.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary may I put the same question to the President of the Treasury Board? While the minister is on his feet, would he mind outlining to the House what measures he intends to take, or has taken, in respect of this matter?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I told the House last Friday that a mediator had been appointed on Thursday. He has met both parties and the negotiations are still going on. We hope that he will soon be able to bring the union and the government to an agreement. But there is not much we can do at this moment, since these workers have the right to go on strike under a legislation of the Parliament of Canada. Depending upon the report Mr. O'Connor will make to us within a few days, we shall see what other steps could be taken.


TRANSPORT
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. Would the minister outline to the House what means he has taken, or what contingency plans he has, to facilitate the movement of grain this winter-particularly in view of the imminent closing of the Seaway-in order that eastern consumers will not find themselves in an undersupply situation? What specific plans does he have?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be in the public interest to reveal the plans we have at this stage.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that there has been no growth in the last two quarters, is the minister revising his estimate of the rate of economic growth of the country, or is he sticking with the 4 per cent or 4 Vi per cent figure?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am still sticking with the estimate I gave of real
December 2, 1974

growth for the year 1974, of between 4 per cent and 4 Vi per cent. I should say to the hon. member that if the real growth were to be zero in the fourth quarter and no revisions take place in other quarters, the year over year growth for 1974 would still turn out to be 3.9 per cent.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance claims his is an open government, in relation to the various allegations made prior to July 8 and just recently respecting the hon. member for Hamilton East, my question to the Solicitor General is, can he tell us, of his knowledge, how many investigations either by the RCMP or other law enforcement agencies have taken place in respect of those allegations?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned last week following the charges made by Mr. Schulman, the Minister of Labour and the deputy minister requested an investigation. The RCMP were asked to investigate those charges. They did that. They went to see Mr. Schulman last week, and Mr. Kerr, and also visited the offices of the Toronto metropolitan police. Just as I came into the House I received an interim report from them: the investigation is still under way. That is the stage of the investigation so far.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Could the Solicitor General inform the House if there have been investigations other than within the last 12 months in respect of the allegations made relating to the hon. member for Hamilton East?


William Warren Allmand: There was no investigation of allegations made against the hon. member for Hamilton East. The investigation that is being made is at the request of the Minister of Labour following the charges made by Mr. Schulman. So far as we know, the RCMP has no other investigation under way on this matter. It arose simply from allegations made by Mr. Schulman last week.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Nor have there been any.


William Warren Allmand: Not by the RCMP. I cannot answer for the OPP or the Toronto metropolitan police.


MANPOWER
Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration.
Since unemployment in 1975 promises to be severe, especially for young people under 25, and that high school and
Oral Questions
university students are already quite concerned about the very serious difficulties with which they will very likely be faced when they seek employment next summer, can the minister advise the House whether the Opportunities for Youth Program, in its present formula, will be extended to 1975, or whether, in view of the well founded criticisms which have been levelled at the Opportunities for Youth and Local Initiatives Programs, we can expect his department to adopt a new procedure in this area and, if so, when will the minister be in a position to make public the new program decided upon?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the question having to do with a student summer employment program is under active consideration now. Announcement of the decision concerning our programs or the content thereof will be made shortly. I might also add, for the edification of the hon. member, the further report that the evaluation process with regard to the Opportunities for Youth Program and the Local Initiatives Program has indicated these have brought great benefits to the people concerned and to this country.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Postmaster General. I join in the praise given by the minister to both the Toronto police and fire departments for the efficient manner in which they brought last week's disastrous post office fire under control in that city. I ask the minister whether, because of the fact that initial investigations have determined the cause of the second fire at Bay and Front Streets to be of a deliberate nature and that arson has not been ruled out in the major fire, he could advise the House if there is any federal inquiry into this matter and, if not, is the minister now prepared to initiate such special federal inquiry?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, we are waiting for the report of the fire marshal in the city of Toronto to ascertain precisely the reason for the major fire.


Otto John Jelinek: I should like to ask the minister the following supplementary question. Because of the fact that the fires involved federal employees and took place in federal buildings, destroying or damaging thousands of pieces of mail which fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government, is the minister suggesting that no federal body or agency is involved in determining the cause of the fire?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: No, Mr. Speaker, but at the same time we do not want to leave the impression that we have no confidence in the ability of the fire marshal of the province of Ontario.
28543-48%

December 2, 1974
Oral Questions FINANCE


LOSS TO TRUCK DEALERS RESULTING FROM BUDGET-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON REIMBURSEMENT OF TAX
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: My question is supplementary to the one put on Friday by the hon. member for Edmonton West to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that truck dealers across Canada will lose approximately $20 million, amounting to $19,000 per dealer, due to tax policy changes announced in the budget if there is not a total refund of the tax already collected on trucks that are not sold, and the fact that dealers in Red Deer, like many dealers across Canada, will lose up to $25,000 each, will the minister guarantee to this House that all dealers will be reimbursed for tax paid?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have received many representations from members on all sides of the House about this particular item, and I intend to ask the government to provide relief from federal sales tax for tax paid inventories of trucks and other transportation equipment affected by the sales tax exemptions proposed in the November 18 budget speech. The relief, which would be provided by way of an order in council, would apply to inventories of new transportation equipment on which tax has been paid and which were being held for resale. This is a particular exemption because of the specialized nature of the equipment and because a good deal of equipment is custom built.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It concerns the Rome Food Conference and Canada's reallocation of $50 million in CIDA funds as a commitment at that conference for assisting developing countries to raise their agricultural production limits. Subsequently, I thought the Secretary of State for External Affairs made it clear in the House that the purpose of this allocation of $50 million was to assist the developing countries. However, on November 14 the minister replied to a question of the Leader of the Opposition and said that the $50 million had been set aside to purchase about 250,000 tons of grain for emergency food relief. My question therefore is: are there two $50 million commitments and, if not, is part or all of the one $50 million commitment being diverted from development assistance to emergency food assistance?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the commitment made at the Rome conference was to reallocate $50 million for the current year for purposes attached to the food conference itself. The package of programs is being put together at present and I hope to be able to advise shortly on the specific purposes for which that money is being diverted.


William Herbert Jarvis: With relation, then, to the minister's response on November 14 to the Leader of the Opposition regarding the $50 million that could be used to buy almost
250,000	tons of additional grain, is that a separate allocation entirely from that committed at Rome by the Canadian delegation?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I would have to check that exchange with the Leader of the Opposition, but I think in referring to that particular sum I was relating it to what could be done at present and the amount of.grain it could purchase if it were totally directed to grain. Probably it was with reference to the same sum of money.
[DOT] * *


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is addressed to the Solicitor General. I understand that the Solicitor General last week received a brief from the Civil Liberties Association in the national capital region, supported by 16 other Civil Liberties Associations throughout the country and by the National Indian Brotherhood, the Native Council of Canada and the Innuit Tapirisat of Canada, concerning the incidents of violence which took place on Parliament Hill on Monday, September 30, 1974, 'and urging an independent inquiry. My question is whether in view of the detailed nature of the evidence presented and the request of these responsible organizations an independent inquiry will be held to determine whether, in fact, there was unnecessary violence on that occasion and, if so, who was responsible for it.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, it is true that I met with the head of the Civil Liberties Association for Ottawa last Thursday, I believe, and he had certain people with him supporting his brief. He gave me this brief, which was rather thick, containing many affidavits and documents. Following the meeting I referred it to officials for study. The study is not yet completed. In the brief he raised many questions and I told him that I would answer his questions as soon as possible.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Will the minister be good enough to advise the House, when he makes up his mind, what response he will give to this request?


William Warren Allmand: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture being absent, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Justice who is responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board.
December 2, 1974

In view of the contradictory news which has appeared in newspapers concerning the supply of feed grains in eastern Canada, can the minister advise the House whether the current stocks of feed grains in eastern terminals are sufficient to meet the needs of farm producers during the 1974-75 winter?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, not enough grain is in position in eastern locations for domestic or export movement for the winter. Ordinarily, the volume of grain would be moving into these positions throughout the lakes and the Seaway; but that, of course, is not possible at present because of the grain inspectors' strike which is going on.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary.
Can the minister promise this House that provisions will be taken in order to see to it that eastern Canadian farmers can be assured that sufficient supplies will reach them in time so as to avoid speculation which is already starting to take place in that region?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think that my best course at this point, while assuring the hon. member that we all attempt to look at all possibilities and avenues, is to join in the answer given a short while ago by my colleague, the Minister of Transport, to a similar question.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put my question to the President of the Treasury Board.
Owing to the difficulties encountered by the egg and poultry industry because of the grain inspectors' strike, would the government be willing to restore the grants program in operation last year when there was a railway strike, grants intended for feed-grain producers who are compelled to supply themselves from suppliers in other provinces, for instance?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we have not taken any definite decision on the plan to evade the difficulty. I take due note of the hon. member's suggestion but I am in no position to give him a reply right now.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question.
Is the minister aware of the danger that this situation might easily degenerate to the point where Canadians might watch on television the nauseating spectacle of chickens dying by the hundreds, and maybe also dying cattle, for lack of feed?
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of this danger, but I am bound by the laws voted by Parliament, which gave to those employees the right to go on strike.

e (1510)


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and concerns the role of the Canada Development Corporation in these depressed times. Is the minister taking steps to use the expertise and resources of the Canada Development Corporation to promote industries in the slow growth regions of the country-which in these days is practically all of the country-and, particularly, is he considering using this corporation to promote a coal and steel industry in eastern Canada? Does the minister consider this to be practical?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to draw this representation to the attention of the president of the Canada Development Corporation. The minister who reports to parliament for the corporation has also noted the representation.


CONGRATULATIONS TO MR. SPEAKER AND WIFE ON BIRTH OF DAUGHTER
Mr.   Sean@: Mr. Speaker, before asking a question, may I express, on behalf of my colleagues and, certainly, on behalf of all members, our salutations and congratulations to you and to Mrs. Jerome on the occasion of the birth of your child. We hope she will bring as distinguished a contribution as her father's to the public affairs of Canada.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr.   Sean@: My question is directed to the Solicitor General. I should like to ask about an investigation to be conducted by the RCMP into a matter which caused widespread concern in the Hamilton area and elsewhere over the weekend. I am referring of course, to the matter raised on Friday in connection with drug smuggling into Hamilton international airport. At that time the minister promised to give us a report. I wonder if he is now in a position to provide the House with that report.

December 2, 1974
Oral Questions


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, that question was put to me on Friday and I immediately referred it to the RCMP for investigation. I have not yet had a report.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Now that the number two slot has been filled in the MAGI organization, can the minister inform the House whether the former minister of industry, trade and commerce, the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, is being considered for the top post?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Unfortunately, no, Mr. Speaker. I say that because I am sure my colleagues would share the judgment that he would be an excellent man for the position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. Bob Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister? In view of the renewed urgency of adopting a firm policy regarding the international use of Canada's fresh water supplies arising from the United Nations presentation to the World Food Conference which indicated that world demand for fresh water will increase by 240 per cent over the next five years, and in view of Canada's abundance of fresh water and the increasing world demand, is the government currently preparing a policy regarding the international use or the export of fresh water from Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. Of course, the inventories of water supplies and their importance to Canada are part of a fund of knowledge being accumulated by the government; I would not want to say we know every detail of it-but there is no policy to export water from Canada.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the recent statements issued by the United Nations regarding the demand for fresh water, does the Prime Minister still hold the position that Canada would consider the sale of her fresh water "for good, hard cash"?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would not object to that. If we could bottle up some water and sell it at a high price, it would be a nice thing, if we could replace what we were selling by good, fresh rain.


An hon. Member:: Put some Scotch in it.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and concerns the fishing industry in Canada. According to statistics, codfish landings up to the end of August this year in the maritimes are down 24 per cent compared with the same period in 1973; redfish are down 57 per cent, sole and flounder are down 15 per cent, herring catches 16 per cent, and comparable reductions are evident for halibut, mackerel, hake and other species. In view of the problems caused by indiscriminate fishing on our Canadian offshore banks, will the minister consider holding a special conference now in Ottawa with Russia, Norway, Britain, Spain, Portugal, France , Germany, Poland and the United States to see if some positive action can be taken before our fishing industry is completely destroyed?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister o£ State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, while not debating the statistics given by the hon. member, I would remind him that these pessimistic figures are due in part to ice conditions and a strike in Newfoundland. That being said, I recognize that the catch is lower than we would want. I would also remind the hon. member that ICNAF, with all its imperfections, is still the best avenue open to us. If ICNAF did not exist, we would not even be talking about an Atlantic offshore fishery. I am quite willing to look at the hon. member's suggestion, however, and if it is useful we will do something about it.


FINANCE
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Could the minister answer the question I put to him last week regarding the sale of automobiles and the surtax that was put into effect with the budget? Will that surtax apply on automobiles that were ordered before the budget but not delivered? The minister answered the question in reference to trucks, and I wonder if he could answer now regarding automobiles?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will be able to clarify that matter, which really relates to the legal date of a sale or purchase, when we are before the committee.


MANPOWER
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister regarding various statements made on LIP grants. After the considerable work that has been done,

particularly by members of parliament in Edmonton, to help check through the various LIP projects with their consultative committee, why must we put up with an appointed member from the other place, who does not know Edmonton and who, may I add, in the Prime Minister's words "doesn't know his razzmataz from a hole in the ground," being allowed to make an announcement on behalf of the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the question is hypothetical, but if there is a concrete case the hon. member might let me know.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, one supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: One supplementary; the hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman from the other place is from Palliser, the foothills or some place in southern Alberta, who does not know Edmonton and is not aware of what is going on in the area. Can the Prime Minister tell the House why he cannot appoint a senator from Edmonton and let him make the announcement, or otherwise appoint the senator to the cabinet?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would agree with the procedure providing it were initiated by a senator from Edmonton I would take notice of the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner).


John Napier Turner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have listened with great interest to some of the questions posed by hon. members, beginning with the hon. member for Leeds regarding LIP grants. This affects the responsibility of a good many ministers. I want to say that in my capacity as a minister in eastern Ontario not once have I intervened politically in a grant in any riding in eastern Ontario, nor to favour any Liberal riding.


An hon. Member:: Would the rest of the cabinet stand up?


John Napier Turner: The only time I intervened with the minister responsible was October 31, 1973, to ensure that the ridings in eastern Ontario, no matter what their political coloration, received a fair proportion of grants in relation to the entire province.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: We have relied on the advice of the member of parliament-whoever he or she might be-from eastern Ontario or, where a consultative committee was constituted, on that advice. I might say that in 1973-74-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
LIP Grants


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, the hon. minister may be making a valuable contribution to the subject but I must point out that the question period is over. The hon. minister has not been asked a direct question. If I permit the minister to make the statement which he proposes to make, I will have to open the other side of the matter and allow supplementary questions and further examination. I really feel that we have gone beyond the end of the question period and I do not think the matter should go any further.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, may I conclude what I was saying on the point of order because the hon. member represents a riding for which I have some general responsibility, although not as much as I should like. The three ridings, Leeds, Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton and Grenville-Carleton, all received a good deal more money in LIP grants in 1973-74 than did the riding of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order raised by the Minister of Finance. I did not realize that he felt the shoe fits him as obviously as he has shown here this afternoon. Nobody made accusations directly against the Minister of Finance.


John Napier Turner: The accusation
involves all ministers.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: It involves all ministers in so far as it involves the system which the Minister of Finance presumably approved.


John Napier Turner: But I was denying that that system existed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I do not mean to question the good faith of the Minister of Finance when he says that, but his statement is directly contrary to a memo written to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and signed by the minister's own deputy minister. I can only assume that although the Minister of Finance is presumably acting in good faith, he does not know what is going on in the government. Perhaps, since this is the hour for true confession, the other ministers concerned could get up and tell us all they know.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Hees:: There are a lot of guilty consciences on the government side.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I interrupted the minister to indicate that although an intervention by him may be valuable in contributing to the general knowledge of members on this subject, what we are doing does not seem to fit into the procedures of the House in any regular way. Having balanced that observation against the observation made by the Leader of the Opposition, I still cannot be persuaded that further discussion of the subject is in order at this time. We have an important matter to debate as an order of the day. If we open up this subject, presumably we will have to carry on and hear every minister.

December 2, 1974
LIP Grants


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, as the first question on this matter was directed to me, may I tell the Leader of the Opposition that when Treasury Board was established in 1867, it was a committee of cabinet formed for the purpose of allowing regional ministers to be consulted about the business of the government. It was established in order to make sure that all the ministers from the various regions were consulted. So I see nothing wrong in our still following the advice of Sir John A. Macdonald.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a different point of order-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The Prime Minister rises on the previous point of order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I see that all ministers present are volunteering to stand up one after another. I suggest that we turn to the other side and hear them say that no political considerations at all were involved when they approved LIP grants in their various constituencies.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. A few minutes ago the Minister of Finance either disowned, or did not disown, depending how you interpret what he said, the fact that he is the regional minister and responsible for LIP grants in eastern Ontario. I wish to draw to the attention of the House a document from the Minister of Manpower's office flatly stating that ten Liberal members of parliament-and he is one of them-must have their LIP grants which are mentioned therein, adopted. It is signed by the minister's executive assistant. Therefore the Minister of Finance did not need to be the regional minister. He had it all arranged ahead of time.


John Napier Turner: Please produce that document.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, a highly respected report which comes to the attention of this House from time to time, the Auditor General's report, draws attention to the approval of three LIP projects and the validity of those approvals is questioned. One of those involved recommendations from the former minister of the environment and another from my colleague who was formerly the minister responsible for multi-culturalism. The interesting point I want to make is that the third case called in question in this report involved the riding of the hon. member for Hastings. I heard the presentation of the hon. member for Hastings. He persuaded me that the case had merit and I approved the project.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must reiterate that we are dealing with a matter which I considered from the beginning to be not a point of order, and nothing that has happened since I made that observation has in any way made regular our proceedings. I must insist that we put an end to what is going on. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rises on another point of order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to a different matter. I

realize, sir, that you frequently rule, and correctly so, that the quality of an answer given by a minister is not the subject of a point of order. But I suggest that a statement made today by the President of the Privy Council, no doubt inadvertently, has a bearing on all private members of this House. I do not think that his statement should be allowed to stand on today's record without the other side of the matter being put on it as well.
The President of the Privy Council said that no guidelines or restrictions apply to private members of the House of Commons so far as conflicts of interest are concerned. In the few minutes since the minister made that statement I have checked through the books I happen to have on my desk. I find that Standing Order 11 and Standing Order 76 impose limitations on all members of parliament. I find, also, that citation 66 and citation 108 in Beauchesne's fourth edition impose limitations in this area of conflict of interest. You will notice that I am not taking the time to read them; I am just drawing attention to them.
I have also discovered that there are guidelines or limitations which affect members of parliament in the British North America Act, the Senate and House of Commons Act, the House of Commons Act, the Financial Administration Act, the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act, the Official Secrets Act, the Post Office Act, the Canada Elections Act, and even in the Income Tax Act. I submit that the statement that there are no guidelines and no restrictions on members ought to qualified by the facts I have just presented to the House.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, if I created the wrong impression I did not intend to do so. I said that there are no restrictions, with exceptions. Those were the words I used. The Prime Minister, who is sitting beside me, reminded me that I had said this. The exhaustive guidelines which we propose go much further and apply a much stricter rule to the conduct of private members than any they are now expected to follow.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a ways and means motion respecting the customs tariff.
John Napier Turner: That a ways and means motion with respect to the customs tariff, laid upon the Table, Monday, November 18, 1974, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
December 2, 1974

John Napier Turner: , that Bill C-39, to amend the Customs Tariff (No. 2), be read the first time and printed.


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

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a ways and means motion to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act.
John Napier Turner: That a ways and means motion with respect to an act to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, laid upon the Table, Monday, November 18, 1974, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

John Napier Turner: that Bill C-40, to amend the Excise Tax Act and the Excise Act, be read the first time and printed.


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

Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-36, to provide for representation in the House of Commons, to establish electoral boundaries commissions and to remove the temporary suspension of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for a new and equitable method of redistributing seats in the House of Commons among the provinces of Canada. It deals with a matter that touches the very fabric of our democracy, that is of deep concern to every Canadian. A just system of the representation of the people is the very life-blood of our democratic process.
In this spirit, it has been recognized since confederation that the development of a method of redistributing seats among the provinces in the House of Commons rises above partisan politics. It was for this reason that the matter of developing a new method in keeping with evolving population trends and our fundamental democratic principles
Electoral Boundaries
was entrusted, in the last parliament, to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of this House.
Hon. members will recall that the redistribution of seats based on the 1971 census, and calculated according to the present Section 51 of the British North America Act, produced results deemed to be undesirable by all. parties. Parliament therefore decided, by way of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, to suspend the process of determining constituency boundaries until January, 1975.
My esteemed predecessor, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), presented various possible redistribution methods to the committee for its consideration, and members of the committee also advanced certain proposals. Despite considerable study the committee was unable to make a definite recommendation, since its deliberations were interrupted by the dissolution of parliament. However, as I mentioned in this House on October 11, I have reason to believe that it is the general feeling of hon. members that the committee was sufficiently close to completing its task that a bill can be introduced without further prior consideration by the committee.
The method contained in this bill, the amalgam method, was recommended by my predecessor in his statement to the committee, and was examined very closely. No fundamental changes have been introduced, but an omission has been corrected, as I will describe in due course.
Methods of redistributing seats in the House of Commons have historically reflected the particular federal make-up of Canada and the fundamental principles inherent in our democracy. The general principle of representation by population appeared in both the Quebec and London resolutions which preceded confederation and in the British North America Act in its original form. At the same time, however, the effects of the strict application of "rep by pop" were attenuated by a provision to the effect that no province should lose a member unless its population relative to that of Canada as a whole had decreased by 5 per cent or more.
Exceptions to the strict principle of representation by population have continued since that time. All provinces admitted to confederation since 1867 have, upon admission, received more members than would have been justified on a strict basis of representation by population. Since 1915, Section 51A of the British North America Act has provided, and I quote:
... a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of Senators representing such provinces.
In 1952 it was provided that the representation of no province should be reduced by 15 per cent in any one redistribution below that to which it would have been entitled in the previous redistribution were it not for the application of this rule, and that no province should have fewer members than a province with a smaller population.
These provisions have respected the federal structure of Canada by ensuring that no province should be deprived of an effective voice in the House of Commons. As Sir Wilfrid Laurier said in 1915:

December 2, 1974
Electoral Boundaries
It is the very essence of our constitution that we should endeavour to have all provinces fairly represented, and the views of all provinces accepted in this parliament insofar as we can attain that end.
This is from the House of Commons Debates for that year, at page 329.
The redistribution method embodied in this bill reflects this concern. Thus, the method provides as a general rule that no province shall suffer a decrease in representation in this House. Principles of equity also require general rules to the effect that no province shall have fewer seats than a province with a smaller population or a number of seats which would give it an average constituency population greater than that of Quebec, excepting a difference in the latter case which results from the fourth general rule that all fractions appearing in numbers representing seat totals should be dropped. The rule making the average constituency population of Quebec the maximum possible was inadvertently omitted in earlier descriptions of the method, but is obviously necessary to ensure that no province receives fewer members in relation to population than the largest provinces.
The method provides that Quebec should receive a fixed number of seats after each decennial census and divides the other provinces into three categories to which specific rules are applied. Provinces with populations over 2,500,000 will receive the number of seats determined by dividing the average constituency population of Quebec into their respective populations.
If the population of a province is less than 1,500,000, but has increased since the previous decennial census, its representation will be determined by dividing its population by the average constituency population at the previous redistribution of the provinces with a population of less than 1,500,000 according to the previous decennial census.
If the population of a province is 1,500,000 to 2,500,000 and has increased since the previous decennial census, it will be allocated a number of seats determined by increasing its total number of seats by one seat for every two that it would have received were it to have the same average constituency population of the province with the largest average constituency population of provinces with a population of under 1,500,000.
If a province has a population that has decreased since the previous decennial census and is below 2,500,000 its representation will be unchanged.
Representation by population remains a treasured goal and constitutes an integral aspect of this method of redistribution. The largest provinces will have numbers of members calculated on a representation by population basis relative to the province of Quebec. Within the group of the smallest provinces, representation by population will prevail except to the extent that the floor provisions may apply. Continued population growth in the small provinces would reduce their reliance on these floor provisions and lead to a greater degree of representation by population.
The aims of maintaining effective representation for all provinces and of progressing toward representation by population together determine the relationships between the respective total numbers of members to be accorded to

each province. There is a second equally important aspect to which much consideration has been given, and that is the number of members in the House of Commons.
The amalgam method was devised as a means of ensuring that the population size of constituencies in Canada would not grow to a point where a member's ability to represent his constituents would be impaired, nor the access of constituents to their member unduly restricted.
Whatever the energy and dedication of a member, there is a limit to the number of constituents he can properly represent. At the same time, a member's effectiveness in representing his constituents in the House of Commons can be diluted if the size of the House is allowed to grow unchecked. This bill represents an attempt to strike a reasonable balance, and to ensure that all of the people of Canada will continue to be well represented by their members, both inside and outside the House of Commons.
If and when this bill becomes law, the number of members representing provinces will increase from the present level of 262-here I would remind hon. members that two electoral seats among our 264 are represented by members from the territories-to 277 at the next redistribution based on the 1971 census. Thereafter, the results depend upon the population at each succeeding decennial census.
By providing for the addition of four seats to the representation of the Province of Quebec at the time of each redistribution, certain assumptions are implied as to population growth both for Canada and for the Province of Quebec. Should these assumptions prove to be wide of the mark, parliament may choose at some later date to add fewer or more seats to Quebec, which is the pivot of the whole system, as it was until the law was last amended. All we can do at the present time is to establish a system which appears now to be reasonable.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to have the consent of the House to place in Hansard an illustrative table showing the distribution of seats by provinces as envisaged by the bill before us, following the next redistribution as compared with the present system of distribution, and the redistribution if there were to be no changes. The table also includes a forecast of the redistribution following the 1981 census on the basis of certain assumptions as to the population of the provinces in 1981. The assumption which is used in the table is that the population of the provinces in 1981 will be 23,967,800, in accordance with the projection which came from Statistics Canada.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: Is it agreed that the hon. minister be allowed to table the said document?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is this the table which was attached to the minister's press release of October 12? If so, we have all seen it and we shall be glad to have it included.


Mitchell William Sharp: I can assure the hon. member it is the same table. The calculations were redone, and turned out the
same.
December 2, 1974______________________________COMMONS DEBATES_________________________________________________1847
Electoral Boundaries


Walter David Baker: Will the table be incor-


Some hon. Members:: Agreed, porated in the text of the hon. gentleman's speech?	\


Mitchell William Sharp: It was my intention to recommend that it
should be printed at this point in my speech.	[Editor s note: The table above referred to is as follows:]
Representation of the Provinces in the House of Commons


NOTE- THIS TABLE DOES NOT INCLUDE THE SEATS OF THE YUKON TERRITORY OR THE NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
[Stage Direction]
Application of	Application of
Redistribution. Redistribution present rules to proposed new rules under present under proposed redistribution to redistribution Present	rules	new rules after 1981 census* after 1981 census*
NEWFOUNDLAND-(522)	 7
PRINCE EDWARD ISLAND-(112)	 4
NOVA SCOTIA-(789)	 11
NEW BRUNSWICK-(635)	 10
QUEBEC-(6,028)	 74
ONTARIO-(7,703)	 88
MANITOBA-(988)	 13
SASKATCHEWAN-(926)	 13
ALBERTA-(1,628)	 19
BRITISH COLUMBIA-(2,185)	 23
6	7	6	84	4	4	410	ii	10	1210	10	10	1072	75	68	7991	95	94	11012	14	11	1512	14	11	1419	20	20	2326	27	28	32
262	262	277
307
(Population for 1971 in thousands).
This is based on a projection obtained from Statistics Canada of 23,967,800 in 1981.
Mitchell William Sharp: At this point, I should like to remind hon. members that the bill deals with the question of redistributing seats in the House among provinces, and that it does not encroach in any manner on the task of the independent electoral boundaries commissions in readjusting the boundaries of constituencies within provinces. The two processes are quite distinct. Nevertheless, it will be appreciated that the allowance of small increases in the size of the House, and the protection of the existing representation for each province as a minimum guarantee, will ensure that attention may be paid by the commissions to maintaining the historical, social and geographic patterns of constituencies.
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. The government does not intend to recommend changes in the representation of the Yukon territory, which has a much smaller land area and approximately one half the population of the Northwest Territories.
Hon. members will recall that the electoral boundaries commissions will complete the determination of constituency boundaries throughout Canada based on the results of the present method of redistribution, if parliament does not act to adopt a new method by December 31. May I suggest, therefore, that since there is general agreement that the existing method of redistributing seats is not satisfactory to any of the parties in the House, the bill before us should be referred promptly to committee so that it can be examined in detail.
On the basis of informal discussions and consultations, and of the work of the committee in the last parliament, the "amalgam method" does seem to be the most acceptable of the various alternatives which have been put forward, but the new committee and this House should be satisfied that such is the case. The first step is for the
committee to look at the alternatives and make a report. As I said at the beginning of my remarks, this is a matter which rises above partisan politics.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, in considering the bill before us we are, once again, contemplating a measure which would alter the basic electoral map of Canada.
Historically, this has been done at frequent intervals- almost every ten years. Reading the debates which have taken place on this subject it is interesting to note that those taking part in them believed they were making maps which would last forever and a day. I think we should remind ourselves, when studying this bill, that the map we eventually propose will almost certainly be changed after the 1981 census, and that it will certainly be changed after the 1991 census. All human beings are fallible, no matter how well we may think we are doing.
Members of the previous parliament spent a good deal of time discussing the changes they thought should be introduced, and the manner in which various provinces might be affected. I think it can be said that legislation such as this is relatively nonpolitical. After all, each member has a personal view as to the nature of the constituency he or she represents, and the way it fits into the general plan.
The issue we are considering today reflects a feeling among many members of parliament that their constituencies contain more people than they adequately are able to represent and, conversely, a feeling among rural members that with the change in the population mix they are responsible for looking after vast areas of sparsely settled country.
There is, too, the difficulty of ensuring adequate provincial representation in this chamber. Canada contains two provinces which are relatively huge in terms of population-Ontario and Quebec. These two provinces exert a great influence on the affairs of our nation. We tend to think they extend a long way to the north. In fact, though, the population is strung out in a narrow band along the United States border.

December 2, 1974
Electoral Boundaries
Two of the other provinces are considered to be intermediate in size-Alberta and British Columbia. The remaining provinces are of relatively small size, though even here a wide variation in population exists, ranging from Prince Edward Island with a population of somewhat over
100,000	to Manitoba with a population of more than a million. So there is a wide mix in our population setup. If all provinces were of equal size in the national sphere perhaps a really close representation by population formula could be carried out, Mr. Speaker.
I think it can be said for many westerners that they hardly regard themselves on an equal footing with the two central provinces in Canada. This is largely a matter of geography. They regard themselves sometimes as onlookers on the national scene. Similarly, and perhaps even more so, this feeling would hold true for the Maritime provinces. Of course the provinces of both Ontario and Quebec have large sparsely settled areas with different problems than those of the industrial areas, and those areas within those two provinces have their own grievances.
The study of this problem has been very interesting, and in many ways I think we should look, in the over-all matter-or perhaps some parliament in the future should-at what the Senate could be doing, as is the case in some parts of the world such as the United States, with an elected House, and in Australia with the equivalent of a Senate, both of which provide representation for regional interests. It might be that in the long run we should arrive at some means of reforming the Senate and making it another elected body in order to provide a better formula for redistribution.
In attempting to arrive at some sort of solution various formulae have been produced, and they all add up to the numbers game: how many seats should each province have? Some of this might be done away with if we had amalgamation of the Maritimes, say, or of the western provinces. Such a solution, perhaps helping in respect of redistribution, would have untoward effects, so such a solution would seem inconsistent at this time.
There seems to be a general feeling that the provinces should not lose seats, particularly in view of the fact that Prince Edward Island, New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Nova Scotia would have their representation at their constitutional level, while other provinces such as Manitoba and Saskatchewan could well fall to a lower number of seats yet still have a larger population than the Maritime provinces. To obtain a change of this nature would require a drastic review of the British North America Act, with provincial acquiescence to changes in the constitution.
For this present redistribution it seems that most members would favour the proposed new general rules. These are in effect that no province should suffer a decrease in Commons representation. I am sure this would find general support among members. Secondly, no province shall have fewer seats than a province with a smaller population. This, and I think it goes without saying, would be quite an undesirable event. Thirdly, no province shall have an average constituency population greater than that of Quebec. It is interesting that, in this regard, we are

returning to some extent to the 1867 act under which Quebec was the principle that governed representation of the provinces from 1967 to 1947. Perhaps there is historic irony in respect of this situation in our debate on the resource bill, in that we are returning to the principle espoused and passed on by the fathers of confederation.
I think it is less certain that members will want to see an automatic increase of four seats for Quebec after the 1981 census and, of course, a corresponding increase for the larger provinces. Based on present population growth this would mean increasing the size of the House substantially with each decennial census. I think it is here that many members would part company with the government and would like to see the House of Commons of 1983, or at whatever may be the proper time, pass judgment as to whether it wished to continue enlarging the House in this manner.
There are many reasons why there should be a maximum, so that the members of the House at any time will be able to pass judgment easily on whether the House should continue to be enlarged. I do not think it can be fairly said that there is great reluctance or reservation by members on all sides of the House to express themselves in respect of whether it would be a good thing to discontinue enlarging the House of Commons. At the present time it seems that enlargement of the House would create no actual physical problems, and the actual structure of the House need not be altered to accommodate the increase in the membership proposed by this bill.
Indeed, during the question period many members might like to have even fewer in the House than at the present time, and many would point to the Senate of the United States which has only 100 members to represents its 200 odd million people; not that I would equate the Senate of the United States with the House of Commons, but it does indicate a substantially fewer number of representatives.
The United Kingdom parliament has 600 members, but the United Kingdom has no equivalent number of provincial members to carry on much of the function that is carried on by our provincial members here. I would also hasten to add that, contrary to what some in Ottawa might think, Canada could not function without provincial governments representing the regions of our country.
I also believe that there is in this bill the suggestion that Quebec will remain as the pivot for the computation of the number of seats for the larger provinces. This is a return to the principle of parliamentary representation from 1867 to 1946. In the treatment of categories of intermediate provinces and small provinces the Quebec pivot has been greatly altered, and does not function nearly as well as it did in 1946.
The small provinces would be determined by dividing their population at the most recent decennial census by the average constituency population of all the small provinces at the time of previous redistribution. In no way will this tie the representation of the small provinces, popula-tionwise, to the larger provinces.
Should this amalgam method go unchecked there could arise a situation whereby a small province or provinces could experience phenomenal growth. For instance, the
December 2, 1974

discovery of oil or gas on the east coast could easily bring half a million more people to Newfoundland or Nova Scotia than are anticipated in one census decade. Similarly, for some reason, Saskatchewan or Manitoba could achieve phenomenal growth. For instance, I believe it can be fairly said that we are headed for a great shakeup in the world economic system, and consequently in our own country. Indications are, for instance, that probably Alberta will grow faster in the next decade than any other province.
Similarly, an intermediate province will be based on the formula that will be determined by increasing its total number of seats by one seat for every two it would have received if it were of the same average constituency population as the small provinces with the largest average constituency population.
The application of the definition of an intermediate province being at any upper limit of 2.5 million would create considerable problems for British Columbia which, in the next census, is forecast will be in the large category. British Columbia then would be classified as a large province, yet compared to Ontario and Quebec, although classified as a large province, would be similar to the rabbit being classified as equal to a horse.
I suggest that this low level should be raised to some degree in order to give British Columbia greater status in that it is the province with its problems furthest away from Ottawa. I think we should look at this again and explore the possibilities of defining the upper limits of what the definition is in respect of an intermediate and a small province. One suggestion is that it should be at least two thirds the size of the largest province, or some similar figure.
I expect that this bill likely will be an interim bill that will be changed when the next census is considered. There is perhaps some value in having on the books a formula such as contained in the amalgam method to provide a basis for representation in the various provinces. I am sure that in 1981 and 1982 the parliament of Canada of that day almost certainly will want to alter the electoral boundaries and distribution of seats. I am disappointed that the government has not seen fit to introduce such a clause in this bill to make it mandatory for the parliament of 1981 or 1982 to consider actively what we are doing now.
The amalgam method of redistribution fundamentally alters the formula under which representation has been effected in the past. We cannot foresee what population trends and concentrations of population will occur in certain geographic areas. Our projections are always based on statistics. It has been aptly said there are good statistics, bad statistics, and plain lies.
There is considerable truth in the suggestion that we are always ready to criticize those who went before, but we often forget that it is difficult to predict the future. I am sure there is nothing more fallacious than basing projections on population statistics in relation to what went on previously. The drop in the Canadian birth rate alone will result in a very large difference in the population map in a decade from now. One does not even have to be a statistician to realize this simple fact.
Electoral Boundaries
In the committee I certainly hope changes will be made in respect of this legislation to allow for the parliament of 1982 to have a look at this. I hope we will not have a situation similar., to what we have at the present time whereby the map was drawn, parliament was largely unaware of what had happened, and when the map became available everyone was quite upset. Because of that situation it was necessary to go through the ritual of suspending the Electoral Boundaries Act and the commissions. This involved expense and delay in the setting up of new boundaries so that elections would be more fair.
I also think we should take a look at the definition of a province. We might consider the situation in respect of small, intermediate and large provinces, as well as the problem of British Columbia possibly being equated in the next census with a large province when perhaps it may have less than 30 per cent of the population of Ontario.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, on balance we find Bill C-36 acceptable and we hope it will not take long for the House to refer it to the standing committee.
As the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) indicated, the subject of redistribution is one that has engaged the interest of the country and of members of parliament very intensely throughout the history of Canada. One might not think that, judging by the number of members in the chamber this afternoon, but perhaps there are reasons why some hon. members are not here.
I have had the privilege of being here through what will now be three phases of this operation. When I first came here redistribution was still based on 65 seats for Quebec, which we all learned in school. I was here when we switched to the method adopted in 1946, a method which at that time we thought was an improvement. Now we have reached the point where we are trying a new way altogether. I agree with the President of the Privy Council that this is a subject we must approach with as little partisan bias as we possibly can, and with as little provincial or regional bias as possible.
Yet at the same time it is a fact that in a country the size of Canada, with provinces varying in population all the way from the millions in Ontario to a few tens of thousands in the province of Prince Edward Island, it becomes very difficult to devise a formula that is equitable on all counts.
I have the feeling that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in the last parliament in its wrestling with this issue did come up with a pretty fair arrangement, which I think may stand the test of time even a little more than the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie) feels is the case. I agree with him that in the 1980's there may be a disposition to make another change, but I would be prepared to predict that the change to be made in the 1980's will not be a change in the nature of the formula but rather a change in the total number of seats.
Without wanting to spend more than a few minutes on history I should like to point out that ffom 1867 Until 1946 we had redistribution of seats based on the fact that 65 seats were assigned to the province of Quebec and all the other provinces were supposed to have a number in proportion thereto. As the President of the Privy Council

December 2, 1974
Electoral Boundaries
pointed out, there was one slight qualification to that right at the beginning, namely, that no province was to lose any seats at a redistribution unless its population dropped by 5 per cent or more.
Then it was not very long, in that first era of our redistribution history, until the reduction in the number of seats in the Atlantic provinces made it necessary to do something to protect Prince Edward Island in particular. Hence a floor was built into the constitution in 1915 which provided that no province was to have fewer members in the House of Commons than it had members in the other place. So, even in that period between 1867 and 1946, when we had what we thought was a system of representation by population, it was varied because of the requirements of the situation.
In 1946 we switched from a basis of 65 seats for Quebec and the other provinces in proportion thereto to a system based on a fixed total number of seats for the House of Commons. Then we decided we would divide that total number of seats among the provinces in proportion to their respective populations, but the very minute we wrote that system we made some qualifications in it.
We carried forward, for example, the Senate floor which was already there. We provided for seats for the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories despite their lesser populations, and it was not long after that until we got the "Gardiner rule" written into the constitution, which provided that no province should lose at any redistribution seats greater than 15 per cent of the number of seats it had before. It was a very complicated rule. But the point I am making is that again, in the 1946 to the present era, we decided that representation by population had to be qualified because of the make-up of this country.
Now we are changing, we are going back to a basic number for the province of Quebec, and we are deciding that it is to be 75 for this decade, with the provision that in each succeeding decade that number will increase by four, in other words to 79 in the 1980's, to 83 in the 1990's, to 87 in the twenty-first century, and so on, on the basis of that province having a fixed number. We are deciding that the rest of the provinces are to have their seats in proportion thereto.
However, we are still faced with the fact that when you apply strict representation by population, small provinces like Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick would suffer greatly if some floor were not provided, and we are carrying forward in effect the floor we have had. We are dropping the reference to the Senate-that of course pleases me and I would vote for the bill on that count-but we are carrying forward the actual floors of four for P.E.I., and ten for New Brunswick.
We have also come to the realization that if there are floors for some very small provinces, it is right to expect floors for provinces that are a little larger but are still small. We from the prairie provinces, particularly from Manitoba and Saskatchewan, have accepted the fact that P.E.I. and New Brunswick were entitled to their floors, but we wondered why we were not also entitled to some such provision. So, as I see it, what we are doing in this

new bill is something akin to what is done by many organizations.
I do not hold it up necessarily as the only example, but I looked this morning at the constitution of the NDP-you can be sure of course that whatever we do is logical-and I find that there is a provision in our constitution regarding delegates to our national convention, which states that there is one delegate for the first 50 members, another delegate for the next 50, and so on up to 200 members, but once the membership in a constituency is over 200, the number of delegates becomes one per 100. What is true for the NDP, I suggest, is probably true for other parties, union organizations and all kinds of bodies, namely, that you provide a little larger representation for the first numbers but, as the numbers increase, you moderate it slightly.
So what we are doing in this bill, it seems to me, is very straightforward and clear. We accept the fact that in Canada we have three groups of provinces: we have large ones, we have middle-sized ones, and we have small ones, just like the Three Bears. The large ones at the moment are Ontario and Quebec; the middle-sized ones are Alberta and British Columbia; the smaller ones, the working ones, the ones from which come the real ideas, are the other two prairie provinces, Saskatchewan 'and Manitoba, and the four Atlantic provinces, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland.
What we decided is that in the case of the two large provinces the relationship between them shall be exactly proportional to their numbers. We give Quebec 75, and Ontario's number shall be exactly proportional to Quebec in terms of its population. Then we are deciding that the middle-sized provinces shall get a slightly better deal, and after that we have decided that the smaller provinces shall have a break that is slightly better still.
When you read the convoluted language of the bill you may wonder what it says, but that is what it says. The formula provides for Quebec and Ontario to have numbers that are directly proportional to their population. In the case of the smaller provinces, we decided that the quotient that applied in the preceding redistribution is to apply in the new one, and if that results in those provinces holding their own number of seats or getting more, that is what they will get. In the case of the middle-sized provinces we decided that they would get half of whatever that formula would give to them, so that they fare a little better than Ontario and Quebec but not quite as well as the six smaller provinces.
I say "fare better, or fare not quite as well" in terms of their absolute numbers, but I suggest that in terms of fairness of representation, the scheme works out fairly well. I am reasonably hopeful, with the one qualification that the hon. member for Dauphin made, and I am inclined to go along with it, that this scheme may stand up better than the one we produced in 1946, and still better than the one that was produced in 1867.
I can imagine that in the 1980's or the 1990's there may be some concern about this House becoming too large, but dealing with that should wait until we see what the population is in those years, and what facilities there are to enable members to deal with the problems of their constituents. I believe the whole question of communica-
December 2, 1974

tion between Ottawa and this far flung country, and the whole question of what we do about election campaigns, how long they are, and so on, are involved in this question of the number of constituents a member would have. So I say that subject to the question of enlarging the House by too many in the 1980's, in the 1990's or in the twenty-first century-some of us would like to stay around to see how it all works out-I think that the formula has a good deal to commend it.
Although it was not my intention to broach this next subject at this time, since it is in my head now I might as well come out with it while we are talking about increased numbers. Some members immediately raise the question as to where we will put them all. So far as the next parliament is concerned after this bill goes through, 280 members will present no problems at all. As you, Mr. Speaker, are aware, we now have 279 desks in the House. We have 138 on the government side and 138 on this side, and also we have three brand new ones in the far corner for Mr. Deputy Speaker and his assistants. So we need only one more desk in the House to accommodate the 280.


John Napier Turner: So long as we don't get another Camillien Houde.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I could share half of my seat with him, and between the two of us we could manage with two full seats, Mr. Speaker.
That picture of using every seat in this chamber of course has to be qualified by the question of how the election results break down and whether it is desirable to have the place fairly evenly balanced. Perhaps another minority parliament would be good for that first House of 280.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mind you, when you go on to 310, another problem is created, but let us worry about that when the time comes.
I have said that the language of this bill is terribly complicated, convoluted and contorted, and the minister's smile suggests that he found it that way too. I still think it should be possible to find someone else to draft these bills rather than lawyers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Such as Gene Whelan.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We need someone to put this in language that any person can understand. There seems to be general agreement in some quarters that we should get rid of the lawyers, but there seem to be a few members around with a conflict of interest of that point.
Even so, Mr. Speaker, on examining the language of the bill quite closely I realize that not only is it a bill that sets out the basic principle, namely, that there shall be these three groups and that the large ones get a straight representation, the middle ones get a little better, and that the smaller ones fare a bit better, but then there are such
Electoral Boundaries
things as the provision that no province shall lose any seats at any redistribution, and no province shall have fewer members than some other province that has a lesser population. When I really go through that convoluted language I realize what it does. It provides that there shall be no instance of a province losing seats at any redistribution. That is why Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick will stay where they are even though the reference to their Senate floors has been taken out.
There are some other interesting things. There is a provision in the bill that takes care of the situation, if that day comes, when there are no more small provinces in Canada. Somebody gasped at that, and I gasped too when I saw it. The day when Prince Edward Island has 1,500,000 people is surely far off, but nevertheless I suppose theoretically those who drafted the bill thought the possibility should be considered.
There is also a provision for what happens if a province finds itself protected by two floors. There is the provision that says a province shall not lose any seats at redistribution, and there is another provision that says a province shall not have fewer seats than some other province with lesser population. There may be an instance where a province finds itself protected by both of those floors. In that case the language of the bill makes it clear that the province gets the greater rather than the lesser number of seats.
There is also the provision that no fraction is to count. If one should divide the quotient into a province's population and if it ends up with 14 'A seats, that province gets only 14
seats.
The bill has wiped out any reference to the Senate floor. That does not do away with the fact that Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick will continue to have four and ten seats respectively. I welcome that change because it means that I can simplify my bill C-205 which calls for the abolition of the Senate. That bill has not yet got past this House, but one lives in hope. In that bill I have had to consider what would happen to the floor that protects Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick if we did abolish the Senate. I have had to put some of this convoluted language in my bill to provide that they would retain the floor they had when there was a Senate. I can change that now because those provinces are protected by a different floor, the floor that says no province is ever to lose any seats, so the reference to the Senate is gone.
There is no reference in the bill to the "Gardiner rule" or 15 per cent rule. I remember the terrific battle we had over that. It was very obvious that Mr. Gardiner brought the rule in just to save Saskatchewan. He was a minister from Saskatchewan and I suppose was doing his duty by his province, as ministers still feel they have to do in various ways. After a redistribution or two it turned out, however, that it did not save Saskatchewan, but it did save Nova Scotia. It seemed to me a far-fetched rule. I think it is better to have the basic rule that no province loses any seat and the rule that no province is to have fewer seats than any other province with a lesser population. In that sense the new bill is good.
One of the other things I like about this bill if I understand it, and I think I do, is that it has softened the disproportion that existed, let us say, between Prince

December 2, 1974
Electoral Boundaries
Edward Island and New Brunswick and Manitoba and Saskatchewan. The former two provinces had floors of four and ten. Manitoba and Saskatchewan had their senatorial floor set at six, but had the protection that they could never have fewer members than a province having lesser population. Thus it was possible for Manitoba and Saskatchewan to go down to ten, the same as New Brunswick.
This new formula calls for all six of the small provinces to be linked together. The number of seats to be assigned to each of the small provinces is determined by dividing the number of seats that the six provinces had after the last redistribution into the total population of those six provinces under the new census figures. So, the populations of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick are brought into the total population of the six small provinces. That is why Manitoba and Saskatchewan will go up to 14 instead of the 13 we have now, while Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick will remain the same. In other words, the population of those six smaller provinces is taken together, except that the four and ten floor was already there for Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. It does not put us on a directly proportional basis but it lessens the feeling of disproportion between those two provinces and the two prairie provinces to which I have referred.
I think an arrangement has been worked out that should see us through a few decades, and I think it will be looked upon as an improvement over what we had.
I said earlier that there were one or two other things that might have been included in this bill. One that has been referred to by the President of the Privy Council is the matter of the Northwest Territories. We long ago accepted the proposition that the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories should have representation in this House despite the smaller population in those parts of Canada. In the case of the Northwest Territories my friend from that area has told us, as he has told the House, of the terrific job it is to try to represent 36,000 people scattered over almost 1V4 million square miles. I asked him the other day if he would not feel lonely if he had to cover only 750,000 square miles. He said that he would, but in the interests of the people he thought it was a good idea.
The hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) has before the House a private member's bill, C-299.1 hope the President of the Privy Council will examine it and, perhaps it might be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections along with any bill that the government introduces. This has been a major concern of the member for Northwest Territories since he came here. He is anxious for a system that would be more fair to the people in the north. I join him in welcoming the announcement made today. When this goes before the committee I hope Bill C-299 will be referred along with the bill the government plans to place before us.
I am glad that the President of the Privy Council emphasized the fact-I thought the hon. member for Dauphin was confusing the two things a little-that this bill deals only with the number of members to be assigned to each province. The hon. member said that after the map came out last time there was a good deal of concern, part of it was concern over the way the boundaries were drawn

and part of it was the sudden realization that it was really true that provinces like Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia that were going to suffer a decline in the number of their seats. It was a combination of the two things that brought on the concern that led to the delaying bill we passed some months ago.
In this bill we are not dealing with the question of how the lines are drawn inside the provinces. We are not touching a principle that I feel is by now sacred. It took a long time to get it, but it is there. That is the provision that the lines shall not be drawn by members who have a conflict of interest, shall not be done by a committee, and particularly shall not be drawn by a government, but shall be drawn by independent commissions. I recognize all the arguments that members will want to make before those commissions, but the fundamental fact that these lines inside the provinces are drawn independently of the operation of parliament is something I am glad we won, and I am glad it is still there.
I know that in this bill part of the complicated language is there to make it clear that the work done under the old formula is now null and void, that the commissioners are going to start all over again except, of course, that it is declared that they have had referred to them the reports on population and so on.
All told, Mr. Speaker, I think a good job has been done; but I am not handing a bouquet to the minister or to the government because, as he himself said, this bill represents the thinking of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections of the minority parliament. I think it is good to see some of the things which were initiated in that minority parliament being carried forward in this one, and we are ready to give Bill C-36 its second reading and send it to the Standing Committee.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) for having introduced Bill C-36 which is entitled:
An Act 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.
Bill C-36, Mr. Speaker-I think it is necessary to recall- has some historic significance. Indeed, a bill to establish electoral boundaries commissions has already been introduced in the House. Such a commission acted under the legislation then enforced on the basis of the 1971 decennial census and with the former procedure used in Canada to establish the electoral boundaries throughout the provinces. As a result, the Quebec representation had two fewer members, Newfoundland, one member less, while Ontario had three members more, one member less in Manitoba and Saskatchewan but three members more in British Columbia.
This formula of course satisfied only a few individuals. Thus a group of members in each province agreed to file a notice of objection to the House against the old distribution procedure.
On June 7, 1973, I had the privilege, together with the hon. member for Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), to join
December 2, 1974

another group of government members to categorically and firmly oppose a bill which had then been introduced. We were dissatisfied for a number of reasons. One of them was the fact that Quebec would lose two seats. The other was that it was based only on the population criterion, with a percentage of more or less 25 per cent, which meant that the electoral boundaries commission was only playing a mathematical game, putting a puzzle of sort together, joining constituencies together while applying the rule of more or less 25 per cent.
We had indicated at that time that we objected to this method for a number of reasons. One of them was the fact that Quebec had a smaller representation mainly for the following reasons: First, because the electoral boundaries commission was not taking and would not take into account geographic and economic considerations, nor the communication problems within constituencies and between various constituencies.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, we were objecting because electoral boundaries were established according to the act, according to the method used to determine the number of constituencies. We had the same problem over and over again.
The House, composed of Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, New Democrats and Social Creditists, will agree by the time limit of December 31, 1974 on a procedure for the distribution of constituencies among provinces to make this Parliament representative.
Referring to Part II of Bill C-36 now under study one can wonder what the outcome of that bill will be. We shall be faced with exactly the same situation as in the past, meaning that the task will be assumed by commissionners. These are frequently judges, helped in that matter by commissionners sitting at the top of their ivory towers. They try to apply a method based or stupid mathematical criteria, in order to establish electoral boundaries without taking any particular cultural, historical, economical or social factor into consideration.
Mr. Speaker, I made tremendous efforts when that bill was introduced. I went to the court in Trois-Rivieres and met with the commissioner. I prepared a report of over 65 pages in order to prove, as evidenced by figures-figures that were not drawn from my imagination, but from Manpower centres, from Statistics Canada and other organizations-to prove, as I said, that it was important not to accept the electoral boundaries of the Lotbiniere constituency as proposed. I was heartily and very politely welcomed, but to no avail at all.
Private members are most concerned with electoral boundaries. Generally speaking, our party is satisfied with Bill C-36. We are glad that the government accepted to propose, to use the so-called "amalgam" formula which seems by far the best of all proposed formulas. We had a choice of several alternatives. In fact, five distribution methods were suggested, which fell into two groups, two of those methods advocating a considerable increase in the number of members, namely the amplified method and the so-called mitigated parity method.
We also had the choice between three other methods for a moderate increase in the number of seats: the compensation method, the Quebec plus 4 formula and, finally, the
Electoral Boundaries
amalgam formula. My colleagues and myself carefully studied all these proposals. For this, we referred to the statements of the former President of the Privy Council and the documentation available, as well as to the committee on procedure, which has studied these matters.
We concluded that this government proposal is valid, justified and necessary. We are in favour of its implementation. But, Mr. Speaker, since there must always be a but, Part II says that Bill C-36 will be implemented immediately, which means that our famous boundary commissions, from their ivory towers, as I said earlier, will amuse themselves by drawing lines anywhere and try to balance the figures. With all due respect, I strictly condemn the working method of these people, Mr. Speaker. They bring about the kind of situation where the constituency of Drummond, for instance, will be integrated with half the constituencies of Richmond and Shefford. Shefford will end up in the constituency of Saint-Jean d'Iberville. Lotbiniere keeps what it already has and extends to Thetford Mines. The rural constituency of Frontenac disappears and the redistribution goes on haphazardly.
As for us, we want to ensure an equitable and serious representation for Canadians. We are willing to accept suggestions. What is important is the final result; when we look at the maps as a whole, we wonder if those constituencies and members of parliament will be representatives, if they will find it easy to work in their constituency and to represent it ably. We find then that the legislator's will has not been complied with in practical matters, and we still end up with something that does not make any sense, with ridings which are too large, which do not respect the natural boundaries of the territory, or which are ill-divided.
Consequently, my remarks will deal with that matter. I would like to get something before I vote on this bill at any stage, and I want to be understood at this stage. Even though I support this bill, as I have said earlier with my colleagues, I want to say to this government, not behind its back but to its face, that I will do my utmost to stop the bill, to kill it if necessary, unless the minister gives us a sound and formal guaranty that the method which will be used by the commissioners in accordance with Part II of Bill C-36 will be more modern and more developed.
The President of the Privy Council said in his opening speech to introduce this bill that he hoped the commissioners would want to set up some sort of a model riding taking into consideration cultural, socio-economic and historical factors. Those are pious wishes. I have good faith in the President of the Privy Council but I do not trust the civil servants who will be responsible for implementing that legislation, and I feel the point I am raising here is extremely important.
Mr. Speaker, we are democratically elected in the riding. I see here the former leader of the NDP (Mr. Douglas) who was the premier of a province and who realizes as I do the importance of representation. When one is elected in a riding, and civil servants who were never elected in their damn life think of a way of implementing legislation passed by Parliament, draw maps no matter how, having fun at night while taking a beer, and make proposals that do not make any sense, one asks himself questions.

December 2, 1974
Electoral Boundaries
I am somewhat radical in my judgment but, Mr. Speaker, that is the situation. But when a member standing up for the interest of his fellow citizens slaves to present a brief begging the commissioners to hear reason so boundaries will respect cultural and local entities, he is very politely received, but his brief goes directly to the was-tepaper basket. That is what happens, Mr. Speaker, and I hope the President of the Privy Council will realize that. That is why the Quebec Social Crediters vigorously opposed the last redistribution proposal. Several Liberal members had also opposed it, and rightly so, because the issue that we now raise is beyond political partisanship.
Mr. Speaker, because of the redistribution approach, Parliament had to pass Bill C-208 on July 3, 1973. Why? Because a prop approach had been adopted to establish electoral boundaries.
Mr. Speaker, I think this is extremely important, because in the end, what does Bill C-36 do? It conforms to the amalgam formula that allows small provinces to obtain a fair deal. Bill C-36 is excellent because it recognizes the existence of a province whose population is called average from a statistical point of view. For instance: Alberta and British Columbia.
It respects these entities with an acceptable mathematical formula. In this matter, of course, we regret that out of 13 additional seats coming from the implementation of this bill, there will be only one for the province of Quebec, in the first operation. In fact we will be eligible to get four other hon. members in the next decennial revision.
Mr. Speaker, we regret it, but we will not be among those people who block a bill only for this one reason. As I said earlier, we are not interested in the process now because we find it acceptable, but rather in what will happen afterwards in practice.
This is why we do not intend to turn the House upside down and create problems for everyone, but we will stand fast in order to have a formal assurance from the President of the Privy Council that hon. members will be consulted before the publication of the maps in question. Otherwise, Mr. Speaker, that would again develop into a war, because we shall have voted for Bill C-36 and everybody will be happy because we shall have worked conscientiously without partisanship. However, when we finally face facts, we shall be in a fix that will have been imposed by public servants who do not even need to be elected to get their pay and three meals a day.
Mr. Speaker, I shall give a typical example to prove that that is extremely important. I hope that before agreeing to the bill all hon. members will require from the President of the Privy Council, as we do, a formal commitment that we shall be consulted, not only once the maps have been printed but before so that we shall be heard beforehand if we are not after-here is an example.
In the case of the Lotbiniere riding which I have the honour to represent, what was done to follow the famous rule of more or less 25 per cent, that one does not have to be a genius to apply? The municipality of Warwick was to be taken out of the riding of Lotbiniere. Warwick is exactly five miles away from Victoriaville which has a population of at least 30,000. Warwick is a heavily indus-

trialized and extremely important city and most of its dealings, whether agricultural or commercial, financial, cultural or educational are with Victoriaville. However, the commissioner decided that Warwick would be part of the Drummond riding, which is sheer idiocy. There is the first surgical operation.
As he still was not completely satisfied, the same commissioner decided to get rid of the riding of Frontenac which is represented here by one of our illustrious colleagues from the Eastern Townships. This resulted in the disappearance of a riding rich in historical memories and prosperous from the mining industry, and agricultural riding with towns as important as Thetford Mines and Plessisville. Our superbrained commissioners just made this riding disappear completely no matter whether they were elected by Liberals or Progressive Conservatives. I cannot condone the disappearance of a riding like that of Frontenac strictly for mathematical reasons and taking into account the "more or less 25 per cent". I quite agree that Montreal should have better representation-I am tickled pink about the idea-but ^hat does not solve the problem of the Frontenac electors. What exactly did this genius of a commissioner do? This genius, to ensure the disappearance of the riding of Frontenac, took his knife, sliced the riding right down the middle and said: the part on the right hand side will go with the riding of Richmond, the one of the left, with Lotbiniere.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, the riding of Lotbiniere would have become as big as the present province of Newfoundland, with, in each of the four corners, four different mentalities. How can one conscientiously really represent that riding? There are two alternatives, Mr. Speaker. It is not that I do not want to represent those people, Mr. Speaker, but they have the right to have their representative, and we must respect their entity.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I feel this bill is important. I see that the Postmaster General (Mr. Mackasey) is present in the House. He is an MP who is very interested in the province of Quebec, since he has travelled all over it. He has visited my riding several times. Furthermore, my vote increases everytime he comes to my riding. It is extraordinary, Mr. Speaker. I am saying it for laughs, but I know he will agree with me.
We of the Social Credit Party of Canada, intend to vote for the bill, but have no guarantee whatsoever that in effect historical and cultural entities would be respected.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, without resorting to political blackmail or the like, I intend to use every parliamentary method at my disposal to convince the President of the Privy Council, with the help I hope of members from both sides, that members be consulted before maps are published. In this way, commissioners could be made aware of any suggested changes or comments regarding cultural, economical and social aspects before completing their work, which will be an expensive process anyway.
When this is done, Mr. Speaker, I feel the commissioners' retribution will be well earned and people will be happy. What is the purpose in voting this bill if it does nothing more than ensure fair representation of provinces?
December 2, 1974	COMMONS DEBATES	1855
In other words, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-36 ensures fair and just representation of provinces in Parliament, by determining the number of seats according to a precise mathematical formula. But I would go one step further, by amending Part II of the bill so that the same principle of fair representation be applied not only at the province level, but also at the constituency level.
I believe we would be doing tremendously positive work if in Bill C-36 we incorporated true participation, fair distribution of seats within provinces, but also a guarantee that we have real constituencies, that is meaningful ones.
Mr. Speaker, I know the constituency of Drummond because it is next to my riding. It is right at the door of the Lotbiniere constituency. The same thing goes for Richelieu, Frontenac, and Levis.
If Bill C-36 is passed, and unless on the other hand we make sure that the commissioners will listen to what the elected representative of the people have to say we will again end up with atrophied ridings as Levis, and Drummond, amalgamated with Shefford and Frontenac. Mr. Speaker, I talk about my own area because I want to represent its people well. I know my neighbour members, and they are doing a good job. If we can get together, forget our political parties in considering this bill to ask the government to give us a formal assurance, I think that then we will achieve something extraordinary for our fellow citizens.
Let us go back to our respective ridings and say we voted in favour of Bill C-36. Mr. Speaker, let us cry out loud that we stood up for the rights of Quebec and that Quebec will not lose two members but, on the contrary, will win one. Let us say we were all honest and extraordinary in this House, and when they see the map of their riding in the papers they will say, the hon. member for Lotbiniere betrayed us, and so did the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard). They will then say to the hon. members for Drummond, Frontenac, Levis, Lotbiniere, or Trois-Rivieres, we do not want to be out of your ridings. That is when the trouble begins. What can we do in those cases, Mr. Speaker? Absolutely nothing, or close to it, if the present methods are maintained, except to get together and introduce a notice of opposition in this House, as we did on July 7, 1973.
At that time, Mr. Speaker, the hon. members for Bona-venture-iles-de-la-Madeleine (Mr. Bechard), Montmorency (Mr. Laflamme), Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel), Gaspe (Mr. Cyr), Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien), Lac-Saint-Jean (Mr. Lessard), Berthier (Mr. Yanakis), Lapointe (Mr. Marceau), Matane (Mr. De Bane), Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) and Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre) signed a paper free of any political partisanship to stop the work of the commission because it did not make sense. They said that they objected for the following reasons:
(1)	The Commission made no allowance for geographic and economic considerations, and ignored or neglected problems of communication within and between the proposed districts;
We object-the signers-for a second reason:
(2)	Except for Montreal, physical, social and economic cohesion is ignored in the proposed districts,...
Electoral Boundaries
We should note the fact that our arguments were then devoid of any partisanship.
... thus destroying communities of interest and making adequate representation practically impossible;
That, Mr. Speaker, is what we should be aiming at now. It is advisable to do it now. Let us not wait to vote Bill C-36 because the sword of Damocles will be hanging over us on December 31.
Our weak point, and an unpleasant one too, in the House is that we act at the last minute. Every year, it is the same old story. Before Christmas we are in a hurry, we are blackmailed into working; if you want to to go on vacation, pass this, if you do not want to, don't. Finally, everybody thinks of his family and does act, to find himself after the recess with bills which he regrets having endorsed. We have a chance, for Parliament is supreme and it can decide what it will do with that act. I agree that that bill should be passed for December 31, but on the strict condition that I may change any proposition that will not respect the cultural, social and economic identity of Lotbiniere, Drummond, Frontenac or Levis.
Mr. Speaker, I am very anxious to emphasize that I am fed up with having electoral boundaries imposed on me by pen pushers lording it in their ivory tower, who know nothing at all, not even where Victoriaville, Sainte-Croix, Princeville or Warwick is situated. They say: Drummon-ville is where people wanted to have an international airport, and they burst out laughing, but they simply do not know where it is.
Mr. Speaker, it is high time for members of parliament to come down to earth, to support one another on a nonpartisan line and to ask officials to act according to our own identity. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I am today the same man as I was on July 7 when some Liberals asked me to sign this; that is why I intend to fight down to the end so that the President of the Privy Council, who does not listen to us, gives us this formal assurance, otherwise I can tell him that his bill shall not pass.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker, there are times in parliament when a member speaks for his constituency, times when he speaks for his province and times when he speaks for the country. It seems to me that, in discussing a bill dealing with redistribution, at this stage one must speak for one's province, since the thrust of the legislation before us has to do with provincial representation. I take to heart the admonition that we are not dealing now with divisions inside a province but with divisions inside the country as a whole, designed to ensure that each province would be represented by a certain number of members in this chamber.
The province from which I come is not a creation of the government of Canada. It had an existence of its own, and government and institutions of its own, prior to its entering into confederation. In preparation for this debate I turned again to Margaret Ormsby's "History of British Columbia" to which it always gives me pleasure to refer- not only is the author a native of British Columbia but she is a native of Vernon in my own constituency. In her words, "Without British Columbia there could be no

December 2, 1974
Income Tax Act
Canada on the Pacific and the thought of this filled (its inhabitants) with inordinate self-satisfaction." I should like to say to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) that this state of self-satisfaction is probably not so great now as to lead the people of that province, or their representatives, to accept, a redistribution bill which leaves us too far short, in comparison with our situation in terms of population.
Miss Ormsby went on to say, referring to the leader of the delegation which came to Ottawa to discuss the subject of confederation, a delegation to which a very generous proposal had been made by the Conservative government of the time, led by Sir John Macdonald:
In the capital, he found among the Liberal members of the House of Commons unqualified opposition to the generous offer which had been made to British Columbia.
May I call it five o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman)- Environmental Affairs-Export of water to United States-Government position. Request for explanation of former minister's position on export of water.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, namely, notices of motions and public bills.
[DOT]



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure to amend the Income Tax Act to provide that, for the purpose of computing the income from his employment, a mechanic may, in addition to any other deduction to which he may be entitled, deduct the cost of tools or other supplies required in the performance of the duties under his contract of employment.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to preface my remarks by pointing out to the House that this suggested amendment to the Income Tax Act is, in principle, neither novel in its approach nor radical in its extent.
Reducing the inequities of personal income tax measures was one of the fundamental aims of the Carter tax reform movement, and those familiar with that particular era in tax reform history will recognize many of the arguments I offer today.

A simple reiteration of the pros and cons of allowing deductions to certain classes of employees would seem like a futile exercise, but I strongly believe that the nature of the inequity I have singled out, coupled with the changing environment that this class of individual works in, warrants our sympathetic attention.
A brief review of the basic principles of personal income calculation for better taxation purposes might be helpful in order to judge better whether this proposed amendment conforms to those principles, and also whether the status quo contravenes these principles.
There are three basic rules of deductibility that are applied to income calculation. The first rule holds that expenditures reasonably related to the gaining or producing of income should be deductible. This permits the deduction of any expenditures made with a reasonable expectation of profit, or made as an incident of earning income. The second rule holds that expenditures should only be deductible to the extent to which they are reasonable in the circumstances. Lastly, to enforce the first two rules, expenditures of a personal nature are explicitly denied deductibility.
There are, then, two aspects of the general rule of deductibility. On the positive side, all expenditures reasonably related to the gaining or producing of income should be deductible; and on the negative side, any expenditure not so related should not be deductible.
The Carter Commission in its report pressed for reflection of both these aspects in legislation, but in retrospect it is clear that in some cases they were not so reflected. I can appreciate the difficulties involved in trying to apply basic principles across the board to a populace with as varied occupations and incomes as Canadians have, because not all taxpayers incur the same expenses, a fact which raises inequities if simplistic formulas for deductions are used. Not all expenses are directly related to gaining income, which leads to the abuse of tax privileges.
I am convinced, however, that the class of employees I have singled out is, by virtue of exclusion from the right to make itemized deductions, subjected to a significantly greater personal tax burden, a situation which cries out for reform. The capital expenditures necessary to supply the tools of their trade have to be absorbed by such taxpayers without benefit of tax deductions or exemptions, except for the 3 per cent, with a $150 maximum, for employment expenses.
I have ascertained that for some tradesmen in the automotive field an investment of $3,000 or more for tools is not uncommon, and ongoing expenditures' of $900 or $1,000 per year can easily be made to replaced tool inventory. The dilemma of the policy maker trying to alleviate this problem is apparent.
If a high standard deduction is used to eliminate a large part of the differential advantage bestowed on those who are entitled to itemized income earning expenditures, the end result is a mere narrowing of the tax base rather than a constructive reform of the tax system. A preferable solution might be to go to the source of the difficulty rather than rely on a method such as the standard deduction which tends to crystallize inconsistencies into the tax system.
December 2, 1974

The Carter report reviewed these inequities and suggested:
That there be a more liberal approach than currently existed to employee expense deductions ...
The report suggested further:
That the employee should be entitled to substantiate a larger deduction if he could do so.
The final effect of its recommendations on the nature of reforms in tax law is now history. The formula for all employees was an employment expense allowance of 3 per cent of income up to a maximum of $150, for a total cost of $235 million to revenue.
The government rationale for having dismissed the recommendation is that millions of taxpayers are involved and that a very wide range of expenses could be related to earning their employment income. It is contended that these taxpayers do not keep detailed records and that the government has found no practical way to permit employees to deduct actual costs as do those carrying on a profession or other business. I am sure it is hardly necessary to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that administrative convenience has never been an acceptable reason for neglecting to amend a poor law.
What represents even poorer judgment was the statement that:
The government believes these expenses, that is employment expenses reasonably related to the earning of income, are not generally as high as implied by the commission. It would be costly, and inequitable to others to permit substantially more to be deducted by means of a formula than was normal in typical cases.	.
This is hardly a credible argument when both the United States and the United Kingdom have instituted measures to compensate for this very same inequity. The United States gives a sufficiently large standard deduction to cover most claims, and the United Kingdom has agreements with industry for flat rates. Both result in giving tax relief in some cases where it is not necessary or justified, but it is felt that they mete out a rough justice.
Bearing no more credibility was the argument advanced by government that the administrative difficulties would be enormous. It said:
It would be impossible to check expense claims to prevent abuse and evasion.
That was the suggestion according to government apologists. It was further contended that:
The appointment of additional staff plus the loss of revenue that would accrue from such allowances might even lead to higher taxes.
The fact that self-employed professionals are allowed deductions for materials and equipment consumed in income-earning activity clearly establishes the fact that it is not administratively impossible to audit such expenditures for tax purposes. Such poorly substantiated explanations have led many people to believe that this group was simply not blessed with enough political clout when reform measures were being debated. Reviewing briefly tax appeal board hearings lends some credence to this suspicion.
It is often admitted that expenses voluntarily incurred by an employee were incurred for the purpose of producing income, but there is no provision contained in the act by which a deduction from income can be allowed.
Income Tax Act
The following submissions to the public hearings in 1970, leading to the white paper on tax reform, show that the problem was at least exposed.
On tax reform the government of Ontario said:
The white paper proposes to remedy the unfair treatment of ordinary wage and salary earners by establishing a 3 per cent employment expense allowance with a $150 ceiling.
This ceiling should be increased to $300 with an option provided for the deduction of certain employment expenses on an itemized basis.
This could ensure approximately equal treatment for employment and self-employment or business income.
The Canadian Bar Association said:
The proposal to allow employment expenses of 3 per cent of employment income up to $150 per year without documentation would be unfair to non-employees and also to those employees who spend considerable amounts in earning their income.
Allowance for all reasonable and substantiated expenses should be provided.
The Canadian Labour Congress said:
The government acceptance of the principle that employees' expenses should be deductible for tax purposes as has long been the case for business and professional expenses is welcomed.
However, the proposed formula falls short of what is required by many categories of workers whose outlay is much greater for such items as special clothing and replacement of tools.
The Royal Commission on Taxation was much more realistic in recommending a $500 maximum deduction for this purpose.
Some briefs pointed out that the maximum of $150 a year is too much for some employees and far too little for others. The proper solution would be for all employees to be entitled to submit detailed and authenticated expense claims, with the alternative option to claim a flat allowance, based on a percentage of gross earnings with a ceiling.
There is no valid reason that those who have higher expenses should not be permitted to itemize and claim them, if properly substantiated, and justice would be done. Most briefs have advocated that this choice be given. It may be noted that in the United States employees may itemize and claim deduction of all ordinary and necessary expenses in the same way as the self-employed.
I therefore urge, because the principle is one of equity, that this be favourably considered and that employees be given the option to itemize, substantiate and claim deduction of all expenses, laid out or incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income. I can accept the excuse that this particular point was lost in the turmoil of a tax review as extensive as that undergone in 1972. However, the dust has settled and I am struck by the obvious inequity that has resulted from ignoring the special case represented by mechanics and tradesmen who must incur substantial personal expenditures of tax paid dollars to carry out their work and who are not compensated in any way for this burden.
A persistent refusal to amend the law is nothing but -a tacit admission that employees must bear a higher burden [DOT] of taxation than other groups of taxpayers. I introduced this motion by saying that the working environment for the individuals in question here has been undergoing changes relevant to this argument. Outside of double-digit inflation rates, which the government is not prepared to

December 2, 1974
Income Tax Act
admit is a real problem, and apart from a recession in the United States economy that will affect the automobile industry in Canada, there are other factors. Let me present the possible effects of Canada's movement toward conversion to the metric system.
Without discussing the other ramifications of such an overhaul in industry, consider the cost to be borne by groups such as mechanics and tradesmen who will be affected by such a change in their working environment. It is estimated that the cost of the new metric tools will range from $250 for the sub-trades to as much as $3,000 for tool and diemakers in certain specialized shops.
For the older workers in particular, it would be most unfair for the government to insist that this cost be met out of their own pockets. The labour organization sector believes that if the labour standards codes of the federal and provincial governments are not revised to shift the cost to the employer, then the Income Tax Act should be amended to permit working people to write off the expense as income deductions.
May I summarize by pointing out that the problem is quite simply that the unfair discrimination between employee and the self-employed arises primarily because the self-employed can, in computing their business or professional income, deduct all reasonable expenses incurred for the purpose of producing such income.
Employees, on the other hand, in computing their income from employment can only claim a few specified deductions as set forth in the Income Tax Act, and no other deductions whatsoever. Skilled manual workers are particularly affected by this stringent limitation on deductions.
A basic and fundamental feature of an income tax system such as ours is that it must not only be fair in its burden as between various groups of taxpayers, but it must be seen to be fair. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the act fails this test in its discriminatory effect on the group of taxpayers whose cause I plead today.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favour of the resolution before us that would call for an amendment to the Income Tax Act to permit salaried employees to claim deductions for the tools and supplies for which they must spend money out of their own pockets in order to perform their jobs. Under the present Income Tax regulations they are not allowed to claim such a deduction. This is a problem that has existed in Canada for very many years.
When I first came to this House I came from an income tax practice in which I was very well aware of the discrimination which existed. A businessman or selfemployed person was allowed to deduct all the expenses actually incurred to the extent they were reasonable and incurred in the course of earning income. In the case of a salaried employee, many of whom are required to turn up for work with their tools in their hands, no such deduction is permitted.
I would like to refer to an income tax case which illustrates the kind of inequity that existed. I refer to the McKay case which came before the Tax Appeal Board in 1958. The working man in that case was a bass violin player, who played for the Toronto Symphony Orchestra

and who also did freelance work playing for private gatherings.
The practical effect of the Income Tax Act in respect of that individual was that when he took his instrument with him in a taxi when he went to play at a private gathering, he was allowed to deduct the cost of the taxi because he was then self-employed. When he went out to play for the Toronto Symphony Orchestra although the taxi expenses were exactly the same he was not allowed to deduct those expenses because he was considered to be a salaried employee even though he received no reimbursement from his employer for taxi expenses. This inequity, which favours the self-employed person at the expense of the employed person, was not removed by the income tax reform which so excited this nation and occupied the time of this House in 1970 and 1971.
There was a remarkable breakthrough at that time in that the white paper on tax reform proposed that such expenses of a salaried employee-a carpenter, a plumber, an automobile mechanic, a diemaker or a toolmaker- should be deductible, but only to the extent of $150 or 3 per cent of income, whichever was the lesser. This is a very serious discrimination against the salaried employee because it tells him that even though his expenses may be higher, and even though they may be necessary in order to retain his job or perform his job, they are still not deductible.
I was a member of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs when the white paper on tax reform was before it. We received a number of briefs, heard a number of witnesses and were sent many hundred of letters from working people on salaries, pointing out this inequity and asking that salaried people be allowed, like the businessman or the selfemployed person, to deduct all expenses to the extent that they were necessary and reasonably laid out in the course and for the purpose of earning a living.
If I may, I should like to read to this House the view that was taken by our committee in its report. We looked at the limit proposed by the Minister of Finance, and this is what we had to say:
It has long been recognized by taxpayers, and by the courts-both here and in Britain-that discrimination exists in the tax system against employees in the matter of deductible expenses. The self-same expenses are often deductible where a person is self-employed and not deductible where he is an employee; the height of absurdity is reached when one person acts in both capacities and receives different tax treatment for the same expenses.
Recognition by the government of this discrimination, through the White Paper proposal to allow employees a certain measure of relief, has been generally welcomed.
Its form, however is open to criticism. Some briefs have pointed out that the maximum of $150 a year is too much for some employees and too little for others. Those who do not in fact incur many, or any, expenses would benefit unduly; those who incur more than $150 would be unjustly penalized.
The ideal solution would be for all employees to submit detailed and authenticated claims, but the problems of administration and compliance that this would involve, and for very little result, seem to rule this out and to make some flat allowance, based on a percentage of gross earnings and with a ceiling-as proposed in the White Paper-the only practicable way to deal with the majority of employees.
December 2, 1974

There seems to be no valid reason, however, why those who have higher expenses should not be permitted to itemize and claim them, it properly substantiated. Since it seems likely that relatively few employees would avail themselves of this, the administrative burden would probably not be unduly heavy-probably not nearly as heavy as that involved in handling the claim of the self-employed-and'justice would be done. Most briefs have advocated that this choice be given.
It may be noted that in the United States employees may itemize and claim deduction of all "ordinary and necessary" expenses in the same way as the self-employed. Employees are still not quite as generously treated as the self-employed, however. The self-employed may deduct all "ordinary and necessary" expenses from gross income in arriving at "adjusted gross income", and take the standard deduction as well, while employees may deduct from gross income only expenses in four specified categories-reimbursed expenses, travel expenses away from home, transportation expenses and expenses of outside salesmen-and must then make either the standard deduction or their itemized expenses. However, United States tax law does recognize the basic principle that an employee has a right to deduct ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in carrying on his work.
We note that the revenues cost of the White Paper proposals to allow the employees' general deduction, moving expenses and others amounts to $235 million;
If I may interject, this was $235 million of extra deductions that had not been permitted to salaried employees before the white paper. The committee proceedings continue;
... we therefore hesitate to suggest that employees' deductions should be broadened.
Here is the part I want to recall for the House.
We recommend, however, because the principle is one of equity, that this be considered as soon as revenue needs permit, and employees given the option to itemize, substantiate and claim deduction of all expenses "laid out or incurred for the purpose of gaining or producing income", in the same way as the self-employed now do ...
When we said that, we meant it. We were not simply trying to make up a face saving excuse to use with working people.
In concluding I would like to draw the attention of the House to an interesting comparison. In 1970, when we put out our report, the gross national product of Canada was $85 billion. In 1974 it is estimated that the gross national product of Canada will be $140 billion, nearly twice as much as it was in 1970. I submit that revenues do now permit this inequity, that has existed since long before tax reform and that has continued through tax reform, to be removed and for the salaried employees to be given exactly the same breaks as the self-employed now enjoy.


Mr. lies Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I will only take four or five minutes to express my support for the motion moved by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour). This has been almost an annual motion, or an annual private member's bill, or both, for many years in the House of Commons. I can recall other years when there was hardly any disagreement, particularly from private members, on all sides of the House on this issue. I have yet to hear anybody rise to speak against such a motion. So I and others do not need to say much more on the matter.
I am assuming, since I am not a lawyer, that because the hon. member writes the word mechanics with a small "m" in the motion that it covers all other trades as well. That
Income Tax Act
being the case, it illustrates how wide the discrimination is, as mentioned by both previous speakers.
The government has given the excuse many times of the administrative nightmare that this would involve, an excuse which I do not believe nor accept. In fact it seems to me that a very simple process would be to have an employer sign a statement of verification of the tools purchased and required by the employee in the earning of his income.
I think we can assume that 99 per cent or more of employers and employees would be honest and fair and would not try to obtain unfair advantage through the tax laws. This discrimination should have been ended long ago, and since there is agreement among members of all parties I urge that the motion be passed.
Also, I want to make a point that I have made almost annually since I came to this place, that in the case of private members' motions I see no difficulty in members on the government benches letting these motions pass when there is unanimous or near unanimous agreement from members of all parties. Private members' motions place no stricture on the government; they do not require the government to do anything. All they do is to ask the government "to give consideration to" or "consider the advisability of" something. There is nothing requiring the government to implement it. This would give the government the sense of members of the House. Surely this is part of our procedure in which members from all parties in the back three or four rows can have some input, in terms of offering advice to and making requests of the government, and it comes in a relatively non partisan manner.
I think it would be a credit to the House to let a motion such as this go through, and I am confident that the government will give serious consideration to the advisability of doing what the motion seeks. But there is nothing which says that it must do so. However, it would certainly give ministers an indication of how members in all parties feel, and it would give backbench members on the government side an effective role to play. It is an opportunity for them to provide a further input into matters which the government might consider. So I plead with members on both sides to let this motion pass now, and thus we can have supper half an hour earlier.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, may I say, as I begin, that it is a pleasure to participate in this debate. I gather from the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) that it is not a new subject for debate in the House, but I am happy to participate in it because of the significance and importance of what the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour) is proposing, and also because of the fact that the proposal comes from him. I have found that generally the contributions he makes to the House are worthy of further thought and consideration, and I am happy that we are able to give that initial kind of consideration to what he has to say on the matter.
I must say, as my colleague on this side of the House said earlier, that I have considerable sympathy for the basic sentiments behind the motion put forward by the hon. member for Regina East. In a general sort of way and in a specific way we have all given a great deal of thought,

December 2, 1974
Income Tax Act
in a period of inflationary pressures on all of us, to Canadians in the middle or lower income scale who probably feel the impact of inflation more than most Canadians, and who are the least able to defend themselves.
We see measures coming forward from time to time, such as increased family allowances and pensions in the last parliament, income tax indexing-and in the budget of a couple of weeks ago, personal tax cuts, measures to protect personal savings, special consideration for senior citizens, housing incentives and other measures that are all in the spirit of assisting individual Canadians to manage their own budgets to the best advantage possible as they go about their own personal struggle against the problems of inflation. Most of those measures I have mentioned, and I suspect the one that the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour) is proposing this afternoon, have their greatest beneficial impact upon the middle and lower income earner. We have all welcomed proposals of this kind from time to time and I think that is the spirit in which the hon. member makes this proposal.
I do not think any of us should underestimate the real contribution of that vast group of middle income earners in this country. Among them are a good many mechanics who, I suspect, pour a good many dollars into the economy every year. They are a crucial part of the economic lifeblood of the nation and so often their interests and concerns might be taken for granted. They do not seem to make too many waves and, as we know, it is often the old squeaky wheel that gets the most attention from all levels of the government.
The motion before us offers some recognition of the problems of the middle group. It specifically requests that mechanics be allowed a special deduction for the cost of tools, and so forth, that are necessary for their employment. I am sure the hon. member is aware of some of the difficulties inherent in the situation and he referred to them when introducing the motion. These difficulties should not be put aside too lightly. I am not persuaded they are reason enough for not proceeding with some consideration of the proposal, but we should be aware of them so that we can be better prepared to deal with them and accomplish what he is suggesting.
Traditionally there has been a distinction between income from business and income from employment. Expenses were deducted from the former but not the latter. Perhaps we have now moved past the point where such a distinction is reasonable or logical, and that is what my friend on this side of the House was pointing out. We are in the position now to go beyond such distinctions. Indeed, we might be making a move new to the industrialized world. I understand from the remarks of the hon. member for Regina East that the American tax law may have provisions similar to his proposal, but in most industrialized western states the law compares with our own. Of course, that is not any reason for not moving into a new field.
In theory an employer is supposed to provide the necessary tools of the trade for his employees, and his expenses are therefore deductible. If an employer does not pay those expenses, they are thought to be unnecessary. That sounds

to me like a legal fiction and in some cases no doubt it is. For the majority of Canadians, however, it would seem that the fiction equals the fact. In most cases, an employee need only present himself at his place of work, and his tools and supplies are waiting-whatever they may be, from a paper clip to a shovel, a truck, a million dollar computer. The problem arises when, for one reason or another, the traditional and historical practices of the trade are that the employee must pay for his tools and equipment himself. That is where the legal fiction begins to miss the mark. No one can deny that in several instances employees-perhaps mechanics amongst them- expend a considerable amount of money each year in supplying themselves with equipment. Given such situations, should we allow the legal fiction to prevail for mechanics or make an exception?
Some time ago the government offered a basic measure of relief. A taxpayer who is employed may each year deduct 3 per cent of wages, to a maximum of $150, for work expenses. There is also a technical provision for an employee to deduct the cost of certain materials consumed in the course of his duties. Other than these provisions, up to now there has not been any special deduction for the extraordinary expenses of some employees. The reasons for this are pragmatic and practical and are essentially because of the difficulty in administration.
First of all, I suppose there is the problem of defining exactly the employee's occupation. The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) mentioned that the word "mechanic" was not capitalized in the motion and could, therefore, be presumed to include a host of other occupations that would not in the ordinary sense be regarded as mechanics. I am not sure that is correct. If an exemption or deduction were provided for mechanics, the word should be defined very carefully. I do not suppose a tax lawyer would have any difficulty in concluding that an automobile mechanic would qualify, but there might be some question about an instrument maker or a millwright. Perhaps we might want to expand that definition beyond the technical and narrow word "mechanic". There might be a host of borderline cases that could bring themselves within the definition. Essentially it is a problem for the courts eventually. But I have some reservations about the use of the word "mechanic" per se and would like to see the amendment cast more broadly.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mechanics' lien applies to all of those.


Ralph Goodale: Perhaps it does, but I am not sure that this would. I should like to see a proper definition so that all employees who are required to bring their own tools to the trade would be included.
The problems that have traditionally afflicted this kind of proposal are administrative and not insurmountable. I have hinted at one or two of my minor concerns about this proposal, Mr. Speaker, but in summary there are three questions that come to mind. First, should we make a special deduction for mechanics per se? Second, should we broaden the definition to include employees who maybe, depending on the interpretation of the word from time to time, excluded from the definition? Should the definition be as broad as we can make it? Finally, instead of working around a definition should we try to approach it by
December 2, 1974

making the basic exemption more generous? In his opening remarks the hon. member for Regina East seemed to indicate that might not be the ideal approach. I do not want to paraphrase him unfairly but I think he said it could "crystalize inequities in the law". He was referring to their being embodied in the law, without being removed, although their impact might be moderated. We must consider these ideas when we consider the kind of proposal now before us. Most members of the House feel sympathy for the sentiments expressed by the hon. member in bringing his proposal forward.
As we consider the deduction for tools which a mechanic or other employee may need for his work, I hope we shall also consider the more general issue of a broader range of tax deductions which would affect lower and middle income earners and provide for them some further protection in their personal battle against inflation. We can deal with the particular matter before us now and recognize, at the same time, that a much broader cross-section of Canadians is fighting the same battle and that inflation for all is a problem. We should consider possible tax deductions as relief for them as well.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the proposal of the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour). I remember many similar types of proposals coming before the House in times past. Let me put forward this argument to members on the government side: Over and over again, after parliament had expressed its will, its will had been thwarted by the actions of civil servants or other officials who are responsible for carrying out the instructions of parliament. For example, members on all sides of this House have said for many years that charging federal excise and sales tax on articles bought by a municipality is not fair. After years of pressure the government of that day, the Diefenbaker government, passed legislation exempting articles bought by municipalities from excise tax and sales tax. Yet, although this House passed that legislation, it was never fully implemented because of a quirk in the regulations. It took another amendment of the law, brought forward under the 1973 budget provisions, to correct this anomaly. These regulations were enforced not by ministers, not by parliamentarians, but by civil servants. I am now referring to the ways and means motion connected with the 1973 budget which finally removed excise tax on trucks bought by municipalities.
The second situation to which I refer is still continuing. About a year ago parliament passed a law saying that family allowances could be raised to $20 per child. However, regulations made by civil servants and not by this chamber stopped family allowances being paid in cases of children whose parents had both died. The minister has recognized this anomaly and said he will correct it. I first raised this matter in March, and here we are in December and it still has not been corrected. This situation is absolutely immoral. A child with one parent is eligible for family allowance; but if both parents die, that child is not eligible for family allowance. I hope this situation will be corrected. Parliament must speak loudly and clearly, to let those who draft such regulations know that we are followincome Tax Act
ing what is being done. If the will of parliament is ignored, as it has been often, we should speak up loudly.
The proposal to allow mechanics and other similar employees to deduct the cost of their tools from income has been made many times. It was before the House when the government considered the so-called tax reform. When the committee considering that bill met, it heard speaker after speaker recommend that such employees be not discriminated against. Everyone knows that if a man works in an automobile producing plant, the company provides the tools; if a man works in a plant producing electrical components, his working tools are supplied by the company. If a tool wears out or is broken, the company writes off its cost against income. But if a man happens to be a tradesman-the common expression is, a mechanic-and he works for an employer owning a small business, he must buy his own tools simply because the employer knows that if the employee buys his own tools he will take better care of them and not lose them. If we impose on that employee the burden of buying his tools and do not allow him to deduct their cost from his income, we are discriminating. Our Income Tax Act discriminates in this way against a very large and necessary group in our type of civilization.
I suggest that we allow this proposal to pass, if only to jolt those senior civil servants, those mandarins, who are responsible in this area and to let them know that this House does not think that this discrimination against the man who works with tools should continue. I have a personal reason for speaking on this matter. I represent a rural area. The backbone of our small communities consists of mechanics who service industries in our areas. Too often they see others idling, enjoying the so-called benefits of unemployment insurance. The idlers come into their shops and say, "Why don't you get smart and go on unemployment insurance?" These mechanics, because they are badly needed, are never unemployed and therefore never take advantage of unemployment insurance benefits. In addition they must carry the burden of the cost of their tools. The fellow across the street who works in a law office does not pay for the materials with which he works; but the working man who works in the garage or machine shop must at present bear the full cost of his tools.
I hope that this grievance of this backbone of our work force can be eliminated, and that the minister will do so before the next budget. I hope, in the interests of humanity and fairness, that the House will not talk this proposal out. I hope it is implemented and that the minister will correct this injustice.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to take part in this debate-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Old reliable!


Mr. Blais:: -and, contrary to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) may think, I do not intend to speak on this bill until 6 o'clock.
1862

December 2, 1974
Income Tax Act
Indeed, I wanted to indicate my support for the bill introduced by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour), because I feel this is a motion which must be adopted of necessity. In fact, I have already made recommendations and representations to the minister on the subject matter of this motion.
It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. members who have already spoken about this bill are, for the most part, people who live in developing centers. When we consider that these include the hon. member for Regina East, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) and the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) we realize that this is indeed a motion of particular interest to the people of developing areas.
When I made those representations to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner), Mr. Speaker, I was led by four considerations. The first was that the matter involved was a discrimination against workers in the north. Evidently in urban centres, the issue is that most of those workers are paid by industrialists, large companies which can deduct expenditures for tools.
Unfortunately, in the north we find skilled workers who go from a company to another because there is a shortage of work and they must travel with their tools. Of course, things are more difficult, because they are unable, through the companies which hire them, to deduct part of the cost of their tools. This stands to reason. I only have to give as example the forestry worker who has to use a power saw. Naturally he is not allowed to deduct his expenses to save a few dollars which the company which hires him could effectively do it.
The second thing that worried me was this, and no mention was made of it. When I made representations to the minister, I included transportation expenses in the list of deductions. Of course, these expenses are also included in deductions the member for Regina East appears to be attempting to justify. I also believe worker's transportation should be deductible.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, a number of small towns in my constituency have not enough jobs for the workers, so those have to look elswhere for work. Evidently they have to travel to find work in larger centres. I am thinking of a town like Sturgeon Falls, located in my riding, where lack of work forces people to go either to Sudbury or North Bay to find jobs. These workers are mechanics. They cannot deduct travel expenses. They have to live in Sudbury during the week and cannot deduct those expenses either. Clearly, these people finally tell their families: Since I may not deduct expenses, I am going to locate in the city. And by that they mean North Bay, Sudbury, Noranda or even Toronto or Winnipeg.
So they leave their hometown to locate in some larger centre, which reinforces a tendency to concentrate in cities. And so we have a depopulation of centres traditionally recognized as needed for the continuation of the Canadian way of life. This has not been taken into account. Within the context of the overall motion before us, I believe such considerations should be brought to the minister's attention.
The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) indicated that this House should express its views, evidently in this particular context. I have been in the chamber since the beginning of this discussion, and there is no doubt that members of all parties who have expressed their views agree that this resolution merits very serious study.
The question of discrimination was pointed out. I am a practising lawyer. I am allowed to deduct my practice expenses, including law books, from my income. A doctor is entitled to depreciate his equipment, as is a dentist. However, a common mechanic-and I agree with other members that a mechanic should be included in the classification we are considering-is not able to do that because he is an employee. He cannot deduct his expenses such as tools, travel expenses and room and board. I think the government should give immediate consideration to those particular measures.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, it always amazes me that with two or three minutes left in an hour's debate, the members who favour the motion having spoken for 57 minutes, someone who might have something to say is cut down to only two or three minutes and there is shame involved for taking that particular stand.
We have before us today a motion that has been advanced very seriously by the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. Balfour). He was very fair in pointing out there is nothing novel about this motion. I believe the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), who is not here at the moment-and I do not make anything of that-has introduced this motion, or something similar to it, in the past. Private members' hour is an avenue that is used from time to time to express something that should be given consideration by the government. The hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) read from the minutes of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs which, I believe, sat between 1968 and 1972. He indicated that the view being presented by the hon. member was one that had won acceptance of that particular committee, but the committee was honest enough to point out that there were administrative pitfalls.
There would be a form of discrimination if this were allowed to mechanics who are employees. I am not nitpicking about mechanics, including the other trades referred to by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale). However, there would be a discrimination against other employees.
I was surprised when the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) said that as a lawyer he could write off the cost of his law books. I am sure he has a very large practice. Now that he is a member of parliament, he may have to hire a lawyer who would be an employee. That employee would not be allowed to deduct the expense of the books he brings into the particular business.

December 2, 1974

That is the distinction that is made here. Maybe the distinction is out of line. Maybe there should not be that kind of distinction. But how far do we open the gates? Do we say that no longer in the income tax law are we going to distinguish between the individual who is employed and the individual who is the employer, and there is no difference between the forms of income that are earned? The entrepreneur sticks out his neck, gets a business going, spends money on equipment and material, creates jobs aijd hires people. The people for whom he has created those jobs, in the final analysis, would derive the same benefit as the entrepreneur. This motion loses sight of that.
Recognizing there is some merit in this argument, the government went part of the way with the 3 per cent or $150 deduction. Speaking personally, I do not think it is enough. I believe it should be higher. If the opposition had not spoken so long, I would have been able to expand on that.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp that Bill C-36, to provide for representation in the House of Commons, to establish electoral boundaries commissions and to remove the temporary suspension of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
Howard Earl Johnston: Mr. Speaker, at five o'clock I was referring to our own provincial historian and to some of her comments on the negotiations which brought us into confederation. There is one more interesting reference I wanted to add from her history. She refers to all six of the members of parliament heading down to Ottawa for their first federal parliament. That is all there were at that time. The population was not very large, because Miss Ormsby, my historian, says:
We learned that provincial representatives had endeavoured to enlarge their representation by over-estimating the population of their
province.
Things have changed a great deal in that regard since entry into confederation. Yet there are other things which have not changed. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) made an eloquent plea for a non-partisan approach to the bill. Yet this, of course, had everything to do with
Electoral Boundaries
politics and one is suspicious of the terms the far western provinces are getting under the proposals for redistribution. He described them at the beginning of his address as new and equitable. New, certainly, but equitable, never. Here I differ from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and his simplistic explanation of the bill. There are not three groups involved, there are five, because the bill in its totality covers the territories.


Mitchell William Sharp: It does not cover the territories.


Howard Earl Johnston: It covers the very small provinces, the small provinces, establishes a category of medium provinces, and goes on to categorize a group of large provinces. All these things must be taken into consideration as one looks at the bill and the table showing representation in the House of Commons, because the public in the west will consider them all when looking at the share allotted to the West, and will ask questions about it which are difficult to explain, particularly in our province of British Columbia where the growth is very rapid.
I should like to read from an article by Nick Hills, writing in the Vancouver Province of Wednesday, October 23, in which he speaks of the rapid growth of our population and the concern it brings to the province. He says:
The tide of migration into B.C. from other lands and other regions of this country has become so strong that the province has virtually lost control of its future growth.
Between 1970 and 1974, the province's population shot up by 12.5 per cent, more than double the national increase of 5.4 per cent. But between 70 and 80 per cent of this increase was beyond control of British Columbians.
Regional planners for the Greater Vancouver district now estimate that more than three-quarters of this area's population rise is being caused by migration. They have broken it down this way: 40 per cent immigration, 40 per cent migration, and only 20 per cent births.
Planners now think it is close to 80 per cent and could go even higher unless some very tight controls are clamped on the movement of immigrants both outside and inside this country.
The immigration problem for B.C. is two-fold. Not only has this province become the second most popular landing place in the country, it also seems to have become the most popular second option for immigrants who originally planned to settle permanently in Ontario or Quebec. On top of this, more and more Canadians are moving here from other provinces.
The apparent decision by Ottawa to stabilize the annual national immigrant total at 200,000 dismays government officials at all levels in B.C., because, in their opinion, it simply perpetuates a situation that is already intolerable.
Those are some words in regard to population growth in my province, which is beyond the control of the government and the people of British Columbia because that lies in jurisdictions that are elsewhere; yet there is one area where something could be done about it, and that is in the area of representation in this chamber.
We hear a great deal about western separatism, and one of the reasons is that there is that feeling there is because their voices are not heard sufficiently in this chamber. That feeling arises partially because the people know they do not have as many voices in this chamber as they would have a right to if redistribution in this country was carried out on an equitable basis. This is the cause of great concern for the people of my province.
28543 -49Y2

December 2, 1974
Electoral Boundaries
The member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is delighted that the bill has no reference to the Senate or to senators. I suggests there should be such reference, because again one of the scandals of representation in this country is that the province of British Columbia has only six senators, the same number it had when it entered confederation. No increase in number has been made. While the number of senators serves for some provinces as a floor below which the number cannot go in terms of representation in this parliament, the Senate certainly has a very useful purpose.
I have the suspicion that certain provinces may regret it if this bill eliminates a reference to the Senate. I would suggest that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre should use some of his great talent, erudition, experience and wisdom to suggests ways and means of altering that organization rather than to so cheerfully eliminate it, because in respect of the representation of the west we certainly do not want to lose six senators, and we would willingly have a considerable number more.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We would be better off if we lost the whole works.


Howard Earl Johnston: I cannot agree with the hon. member in that comment as I still feel the Senate can serve some useful purpose. I feel we should discuss that purpose so we can continue to count them among representatives, particularly when we in British Columbia and the western provinces are shamefully shortchanged in representation.
There are simple remedies for some of the problems that exist in the other place, and one of the quickest and simplest would be to allow the provinces to name at least half their senators. I think this would have a marvellous effect and impact on that other place.
One thing we should remember when talking about population growth is that there is always a lag in redistribution, and we can see it developing again. The census is held in years that end with the figure one, that is 1961, 1971 and so on, but redistribution is seldom accomplished until the middle of what is the decennial census. So a province that is growing rapidly goes through one or two elections before the change finally comes; then there is another census and another lag.
On the other hand, the lag, of course, benefits the province that is losing population or that is growing slowly. For the province that is growing fastest of all the loss is important. Again this is something that needs to be considered when looking at the figures for the province of British Columbia, and they are not particularly generous.
There are a great many areas in which this bill can be opposed, and the party I represent is opposing the bill, not simply for the sake of British Columbia, but for a whole variety of other factors, some of which have already been mentioned. One is the extremely rapid growth in the membership of this institution as laid out in the bill, which may rise to over 300 very swiftly. Certainly I expect that many of us will still be around, if the proposal goes ahead, to see the day when the parliament of Canada will number over 300 members, and perhaps more than that.
I should like to concentrate in my remarks on areas that affect the province I represent. One must consider the
[Mr. Johnston.)
geographical factors in a province like British Columbia, which is the most mountainous of them all and which has vast areas that are scarcely mapped as yet. Because of the difficulty of communications links between other parts and the mountain valleys in which the residents live, they have built up their own distinctive character. If you link too many of them into a single constituency you end up with a constituency which is very difficult to serve, no matter who represents it.
I have the feeling that there is opposition to this bill from both sides of the House and from all parties that have representatives here from the province of British Columbia. I would find it strange if the hon. member for Skeena (Mrs. Campagnolo), the hon. member for Kam-loops-Cariboo (Mr. Marchand), the hon. member for Comox-Alberni (Mr. Anderson), or the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. Pearsall), could find much to support in this bill. I realize that not all those members are in the House this evening, but I am sure they must be concerned about this bill as they all have very large constituencies with all the problems I have mentioned in terms of transportation and communication.
The city of Kamloops is one of those areas that is growing extremely rapidly, and by the time we get around to the next election, if not around to the time redistribution is ready, it will in itself deserve one member without that vast hinterland that now surrounds it. The constituency of Skeena, which is larger than many of the provinces of this land, is another one whose growth will probably take off in spectacular fashion, and the representative from there will know what I talk about when I speak of the lag which comes from redistribution.
If one looks strictly at the mathematical table presented to us, one might be inclined to have some sympathy with the large provinces of Ontario and Quebec, and one might credit them with some restraint in the formula which sets their average constituency population figure higher if one did not know that the province which has the largest figure of all is British Columbia, especially when it moves into what is known as the large province category according to the table in the bill before us.
I think we should move with extreme caution in this regard as we must remember that the significant column of figures in the table is the one which shows redistribution under present rules. It shows that under the present rules the number of members from British Columbia would increase from 23 to 26. When the committee on privileges and elections was studying this during the last parliament, I was not a member of parliament-almost, but not quite. I regret that even more keenly now because I would certainly have liked to be here when the initial discussions on the amalgam formula were taking place.
If we look at the redistribution under the proposed recommendation we find the number for B.C. is 27. If we go back to the committee we see that the figure was 26. Somehow one seat seems to have been added in the interim. I suspect it has been added to forestall the criticisms of some of the members from British Columbia on that side of the House who have taken the time to see just what is in store for them.
December 2, 1974

I am sure when this bill is presented and argued in the province which I represent the people of that province will be told that they are being given four new members. But we should remember that the present rules were to give them three new members. The amalgam formula as now interpreted adds only one. It should not be forgotten that the three new members would have been from a house of 264, whereas the one extra is from a house of 280. So we have gone backwards instead of forwards. One can read over and over again statistics about our population increase and realize that we are gaining faster than any province in this country; but when it comes to representation in this House we are losing out, and we lose out under the amalgam theory as well because we are counted as an intermediate province in this redistribution, proposed to follow the 1971 census. The 29 members we could have expected as a small province have been cut in half by the formula. As I have said, one seems to have been added along the way out of a total house of 280. I do not object to the rider-it is not in the bill-which I realize will give an additional seat to the Northwest Territories.
I listened, as I am sure did other hon. members, to the eloquent address by the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth). He described that vast constituency of his. Having a vast constituency of my own, I know how many times more vast his problems are in relation to mine. However, the additional seat adds to the total whether or not it is contained in the bill. I realize the bill really does not deal with the territories; they will be dealt with separately. By 1981, which date will be upon us soon, according to the formula laid down here we are supposed to become a large province. Let us have no sense of false pride in British Columbia, great and beautiful as it is.
There is nothing to be gained by playing games with the big people here, because the advantage in seats comes from adopting a low posture. We have many problems in terms of local geography and distance from this place. All members from British Columbia know what it means to spend days on a plane and at airports. They know what it means to have to wait to take off, not knowing whether or not a flight will arrive on schedule. Then there is the jet lag. I am sure the performance of our members of parliament is as brilliant as that of any group, and yet coming and going we are faced with the problem of jet lag. There are problems of representation which are distinct to a province on the Pacific coast, and I suppose also the province of Newfoundland, although it does not have the same rapidly increasing population.
By 1981 we are expected to be a large province, even though the percentage figure of the province would not give British Columbia one third of the population of the province of Ontario. I would hope at the committee stage in respect of this bill there will be an amendment whereby the population figure that is used in respect of a change from a medium to a large province would be at least four and one-half million, so that this change would not come until the intermediate province became at least half the size of the largest province, be it Ontario or Quebec, at the time when the changeover is made.
The other provinces grow, but we grow more quickly. I think that is an important factor to remember. When we look at the figures published in respect of the 1981 redis-
Electoral Boundaries
tribution we note that, if it were worked out on the basis of a small province, we would qualify for 38 seats. If we were to be an intermediate province, we would qualify for 34 seats. Then if we look at the table that is set out before us we find that we are offered 32 seats. If we look back at the original discussion we find that we were offered 30 seats. There has been a slight increase in respect of the proposals placed before us this evening; however, the figure is two instead of four or eight. Considering all the problems of representation I do not feel that is an adequate number.
It should be remembered that the large provinces are on either side of this national capital of ours. They have the great advantage of being right here in the middle. The problems we face as members from the far corners of this country are very different from the problems faced by members in the two large provinces surrounding the area which comprises the national capital.
So for all these reasons I feel we must oppose the bill. If we do the arithmetic for 1981 under the new rule, we find that Quebec rises to plus 11, Ontario to plus 16, and British Columbia to plus 4. It would seem to me that the bill has been designed with the thought in mind that somehow it would be dangerous if the most rapidly growing province ever in any way caught up with representation in this House. Therefore I personally oppose the bill for this reason. I suspect it will be the reason some speakers from the rapidly growing province of Alberta will oppose the bill. There are a great many reasons, including the suggestion that parliament should not grow to an unwieldy figure in a very short of time, which provide this party with sufficient evidence to oppose the bill presented to us this evening.


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, early in 1973 the electoral boundaries commissions for the various provinces reported to the House with their recommendations for the new distribution in accordance with the legislation which existed at that time. As a result of the 1971 census it was now time to redistribute the seats in the House of Commons. However the electoral boundaries commissions did less than a satisfactory job in the way they divided up the various provinces.
Certainly in the province of Alberta, with which I am most familiar, the redistribution job can only be termed lousy. For example, they have constituencies such as Lethbridge, which is mostly rural, with a population of 97,000 and constituencies such as Calgary North, totally urban, with a population of 77,000. Clearly it does not make sense from the point of view of fair play or in terms of making it easier for members to communicate with their constituents, or vice versa. In fact it only makes sense if you realize that the city constituencies are more likely to swing with national trends, and if you are a party in power not represented too well in a particular province it is in your interest to have more urban than rural seats.
There were things wrong with the redistribution reports of the electoral boundaries commissions for other provinces as well. The fact that these reports were made gave members an opportunity to raise long standing grievances about the method of allocating seats between provinces. In

December 2, 1974
Electoral Boundaries
particular, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland were all to lose a seat. This is not the first time that Saskatchewan and Manitoba have lost seats. However, this loss represented a very substantial loss in terms of the numbers they had; it was one out of 13. Clearly these provinces were represented much more poorly, not in terms of the quality of their members because that is not the case-in fact, it is just the opposite-but in comparison with the Senate floor protected provinces of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. The electoral boundaries commission for Nova Scotia in particular did away with the constituency of the then president of the privy council, so he was very receptive to the suggestion made by members on this side as well as his own members that the redistribution formula be set aside.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This is a non-partisan debate.


Harvie Andre: Yes, certainly. He was receptive to the proposal that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections be asked to review the whole question of redistribution.
On July 5, 1973 Bill C-208 was brought in to set aside the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, and the matter was referred to committee. The bill passed committee on July 12 and was given third reading in the House on July 13. I mention those dates because in just two short weeks the whole matter of setting aside redistribution was handled by the House. Seven months later the matter of seeking a new redistribution method was brought to the committee, that is, on February 29, 1974. At that time the then president of the privy council presented some alternatives to the committee, and this took up the total time of the committee on that day. Two months later, on April 9, the committee had a meeting to discuss this redistribution method recommended by the president of the privy council, and that was the only discussion that that method was given. Essentially there has been no opportunity for members of the House to indicate their reaction to the government's recommendation, no opportunity for public debate, no opportunity for the media and for observers of parliamentary processes to react to that method or discuss it.
For that reason it seems to me highly inappropriate for the government at this time to bring in a bill calling for the implementation of a method which has had no analysis or discussion and to ask for the approval of the House. It would be irresponsible for us to grant the government's request. It is especially galling, and I wonder about the priorities of the government.
A week or two ago I received a letter concerning the Abbott Commission, a commission established to look at the question of facilities and space for parliament. It is a commission with representation from both sides of the House, the Senate and outside people. It has staff and an office, it will travel to hear witnesses, and in fact will undertake an extensive study of facilities for parliament. Surely the question of redistribution, of how many members we will have in the House and what the regional representation will be, as well as how well protected will be the small provinces, is at least as important as how many offices and committee rooms we will have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: Surely the responsible thing to do, since we are now no longer in a minority position and have probably four years until the next election, and therefore ample time, to give the consideration, study and analysis which this matter deserves. It is far too important to be dealt with in what can only be described as a haphazard and offhand way. It would be irresponsible to zip this redistribution method through the House to the committee where the government can use its majority to jam it down our throats. I have been on enough committees to recognize that is a very real possibility.
The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) indicated in his speech that that is not the case. Well, his predecessor in that office told us that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections would have ample opportunity to discuss this question, but how much opportunity did we have? We had one meeting-two if you count the one at which the government presented its point of view. We had only one and a half or two hours. I do not consider that ample time for discussion.
It has been suggested by the President of the Privy Council and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that this bill may be as good as we can get. That is not true. Anyone with a modicum of imagination can come up with half a dozen alternatives that are superior.


Some hon. Members:: Let us hear them.


Harvie Andre: In order to get these alternatives into a form in which they can be discussed, we will have to be provided with an opportunity, and it has not been provided.


An hon. Member:: We had a parliamentary committee on the matter in the last parliament.


Harvie Andre: Do you know how often it met? It met for two meetings on this subject.
There is much that is wrong with the amalgam method, and I will get to it in some detail. First, I would like to quote from an editorial in the Calgary Herald of Saturday, November 30, which states in part;
The bigger House of Commons plan for Canada will not accommodate Alberta's growing sense of urgency about the need to get fair treatment in Parliament. ..
Albertans can be forgiven for not cheering. The bill will not do anything to alleviate a strong feeling that the structure of the House of Commons works against regional aspirations and interests. And, in fact, the bill will have the effect of reducing prospects of redressing the grievances of the West.
Statistics tell the story. Of the 15 new seats planned for the Commons, Alberta stands to gain one; Ontario stands to gain seven. This is fair from a population distribution point of view, but won't reduce fears that the population strongholds of the country will continue using their numerical strength to raid Western resources. Without redistribution, Ontario alone has 88 MPs to represent the users of oil and gas, while Alberta has 19 MPs to represent this province's position as a major energy producer.
By 1983, after a second stage expansion, the four western provinces stand to gain 16 additional seats, while Ontario and Quebec stand to gain 27 additional seats. Boosting the size of the commons beyond the 300 mark will do nothing to improve the decision-making process, and wont't help solve the lack of protection for minority interests.
December 2, 1974

It is difficult to question the principle of representation by population, yet rep. by pop. fails to support another cornerstone of confederation-the protection of regional interests and the allocation of resources to provinces. Certainly the cause of confederation is not served by a federal government which, under the guise of national interest, rides roughshod over the rights of provinces. This serves to foster the development of dual loyalties, and in some cases, sells the cause of the separatists.
The editorial continues in that tone, Mr. Speaker. I do not want to read it all but the penultimate paragraph is worth noting. It reads:
Canada has gone through great turmoil in recent years debating the concept of making confederation flexible enough to accommodate two nations. With this issue, still unresolved to anybody's satisfaction, Canada is moving rapidly to the day when the federal system may have to become flexible enough to accommodate ten "nations".
Someone in the New Democratic Party made a remark about the newspaper being the dinosaur, or something along those lines. To indicate that this feeling is shared by other Westerners and is a non-partisan issue, I should like to quote from a publication issued by the Edmonton Journal entitled "What Does the West Want?" which contains an article by Izzy Asper, the former Liberal leader in Manitoba. He begins by saying:
Manitoba and the other western provinces have lived under a system of economic colonialism to eastern Canada for over 100 years and this cannot be allowed to continue.
Mr. Asper goes on to describe some of the economic disparities and then continues:
While the reorientation of federal policies is much needed in the shorter run, the complete renegotiation of confederation is the ultimate long term solution to the problem of the economic costs that the present federal system imposes on western Canadians.
Western Canadians want a truly federal union where regions are properly identified and guaranteed a certain basic sovereignty and political and economic equality, both in relation to each other and in their representations within the central government, and where distinct cultures are treated with the dignity and given the equality and rights which they deserve.
A truly federal parliament must have a radically reformed Senate-a Senate assigned significant areas of responsibility. It should have authority over matters of national importance and should provide a just and democratic representation for the underpopulated regions of Canada. Thus, a reformed elected Senate must give each province the same number of seats. This is the only method to alleviate the problems of regional disparity that currently exist.
Later in the same article Mr. Asper writes:
Western Canada's weakness within the country results directly from the fact that Canada's parliamentary system is not truly a federal institution. Reform of the parliamentary structure designed to provide less populated areas with just representation in a reformed confederation must be considered as a major priority for all western provinces wishing to become partners within a strong federal union.
That is the view of the Liberal who is more than a casual observer; in fact, he is leader of a provincial party. I think his advice makes good sense.
Not only does the amalgam method of redistribution presented in this bill not address itself to that problem, but the committee of the House of Commons which was supposed to discuss this issue did not have an opportunity to raise points like this. It is improper to ask this House to approve in principle a method which essentially has not been discussed by a committee of the House, has not been publicly debated, has not been thoroughly analysed, and which does not address itself to any of the fundamental problems.
Electoral Boundaries
The first thing wrong with the amalgam method is that it calls for an unlimited increase in the number of members in the House of Commons. This is folly, to say the least. It will cost the Canadian public a lot more money to maintain this institution and, more important, will reduce the effectiveness of members of parliament. An individual member of parliament would have less influence in a 300 member House or a 350 or 400 member House than in a 264 member House or even a 200 member House. If we are going to change the size of the membership of the House, we should probably decrease it.
On several occasions the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) has indicated a desire to examine methods of making the House more efficient and we agree that we must find better ways to handle the country's business. We feel it equally, if not more, important, however, to find ways of making the House more effective. This redistribution method is not going to achieve either of these objectives; what it will do is increase the authority of the executive branch of government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: What it will do is increase the authority of the already overgrown Prime Minister's office and the already overgrown Privy Council office.
In his remarks the President of the Privy Council indicated that the government wanted to increase the number of members so that each member would have fewer constituents, making for easier communication. I think the duties of a member of parliament fall into two classes, Mr. Speaker; he is a legislator performing his duties in the House of Commons, and he is an ombudsman or, as one of my colleagues said, a second rate social worker. A member's responsibility toward his constituents is very important, but rather than increase the number of members it would be better to improve the staff and facilities available to present members. It is inconsistent with our responsibility as legislators to suggest that we would be better if there were more of us. In fact, we would be less effective. The constituency office system introduced last year was a step in the right direction, and as populations grow we should expand that type of service.
There is another problem with this amalgam method which was referred to in the article by Izzy Asper from which I quoted.
The bill does not address itself to preserving the federal system of government in Canada. Recently newspaper articles and television and radio programs have all made clear that, increasingly, the federal-provincial conference has become the forum in which we want to discuss important national problems. We do not discuss them so much in the House of Commons, partly because of the diminished authority of the various regions of Canada. It has become increasingly clear to the people of Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and other provinces that it is better to let provincial representatives deal with their problems than refer them to members of parliament.
I do not think that it is desirable to foster the idea in Canada that people in regions remote from the capital may obtain redress of grievance only through their provincial

December 2, 1974
Electoral Boundaries
representatives. I believe in a strong federal state. Unless we make parliament a truly federal parliament and reform the Senate it is increasingly likely that Canada will be balkanized and become a country composed of semiindependent states. I do not look forward to that condition but I should be irresponsible in not considering that possibility, especially as we are considering redistribution.
Third, I shall vote against this bill because I contend its provisions amount to gerrymandering. Under the amalgam method proposed to the committee by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), the average number of voters in constituencies in provinces whose population is under
1,500,000	is to be smaller than the average number in the constituencies of the other provinces of Canada. I do not disagree with that concept. The President of the Privy Council also suggested that the average size of constituency populations in Ontario and Quebec is to be greater than the average size of constituency populations in the rest of Canada. I think that is a reasonable philosophy. He said also that there is to be a third category of province which will include Alberta and British Columbia initially, and later Alberta, and the constituency populations in those provinces are to be of an intermediate size. What he suggested sounded good; it sounded like a suggestion which we could buy.
Then he produced his formula, or the arithmetic behind his philosophy. By coincidence, I am sure, Alberta and British Columbia, the two intermediate provinces, ended up with having the largest average constituency populations in the country. I am sure this happened by coincidence when one remembers that these two provinces in the period 1972-74 had only four Liberal members representing them in this House. When one considers the much greater number of Progressive Conservative and NDP members those provinces sent to Ottawa, it becomes most difficult, even for the most generous-minded, to escape the conclusion that the minister's proposal involves gerrymandering.
In the next following election, British Columbia returned more Liberals to Ottawa. Those members examined this redistribution proposal and said things in the province had changed. The government said, "We will need to take that into consideration." It then considered the formula under which British Columbia was to be an intermediate province, and it said to the members from British Columbia, "You may now have the privilege of representing what we consider a large province." Incredibly-and this was only possible because the Liberal members from British Columbia had been newly elected- those members accepted the government's proposal. They are getting hosed, but they accept what the government is doing.
If the government is insisting, as it says it is, on approaching this question in a non-partisan way and saying that the smaller provinces shall have smaller than average sized constituencies and the larger provinces larger than average sized constituencies, and that certain provinces shall be considered as intermediate sized provinces, then, for goodness sake, why did it not bring forward a proposal which will do just that, instead of trying to "con" us into accepting a proposal which is nothing short of gerrymandering?


Mr. Woolliams:: And political manoeuvring.
Mb'. Andre: For example, Alberta has 20 per cent of the population of Ontario and British Columbia has, perhaps, 25 per cent. If the government had said that constituency sizes in the intermediate provinces shall be as large as the average size of constituencies in both, large and small provinces taken together, the result would be this. Alberta would be represented by 22 seats, and British Columbia by 29. So even while claiming to be non-partisan, even while saying it will take into account regional interests in Canada, the government cannot resist putting the boots to Alberta and British Columbia. I do not think that the President of the Privy Council can ask this House to approve that kind of proposal. Certainly for those reasons I cannot vote for this bill.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What is your reason, then?


Harvie Andre: I could explain it to the hon. member in one syllable words three times, and he still would not understand.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, will the hon. member permit a question. Did I understand him to say that his calculation results in Alberta's having a constituency population larger than that of Quebec and Ontario?


Harvie Andre: That is right.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is the hon. member not aware that the bill specifically says that this shall not happen, and that the calculations work out to about 80,000 per constituency for Alberta and 83,000 for Quebec?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will not argue procedure with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), or theology, but I will argue points of arithmetic. On the basis of the redistribution method that was proposed to the committee, I indicated-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Just a moment-


An hon. Member:: Stick to the facts. You are suggesting something new.


Harvie Andre: No, Mr. Speaker. The amendment I am speaking about says this: If an intermediate province is hosed, it is given the privilege of being considered as a large province. That is what the minister's suggestion entails. On that basis the average constituency population in Alberta is to be 81,400; in Ontario it is to be 81,000 and in Quebec 80,400. So Alberta constituencies are to be larger than those in Quebec.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, looking at the table and looking at the bill, it states that no province, not one of the other nine, shall have a constituency average greater than that of Quebec. In making any calculation you have to take that into account. Looking at the table given today by the government House leader, I

December 2, 1974

find that Alberta has a population of 1,628,000. It has 20 seats, which works out at about 80,000 per constituency. Quebec, with a population of 6,028,000 has 75 seats. That works out to about 83,000 per constituency. The hon. member had better go back to school.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, the 1971 census shows Alberta with a population of 1,627,900. You divide that by 20. That is not too difficult; just drop the zero and divide by two. You get 81,400 which is 1,000 more per constituency than the province of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member's arithmetic is wrong, Mr. Speaker, completely wrong.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to give the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) a tutorial on arithmetic later. At the moment he is inaccurate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: He is also inaccurate about the amendment. All the amendment says is that if the formula which is used for the intermediate or small provinces happens to give an average constituency population larger than Quebec, it may be treated like a large province. On that basis, British Columbia gets an extra seat, Alberta does not. We still end up with the largest constituency population in the country, as does British Columbia.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not so.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to table some arithmetic if it would help the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre understand. The fact of the matter is that all of this arithmetic which has been cited is galling to anyone with a sense of fair play or with half a brain. We were told the government was coming out with a method that would give us some favoured treatment because we only had 20 per cent of the population of the large central provinces. We were told that this method of redistribution would give us a little better treatment. However, if you look at the formula that has been proposed, that is not the case at all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Harvie Andre: The Liberals have been less than honest and less than forthright in their presentation of this bill. They provided no opportunity for members of this House to discuss this bill. They provided no opportunity for public discussion of the redistribution method. In fact, they are simply using the very legitimate arguments and concerns of members from Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Newfoundland to improve the position of the Liberal party within the country.


Mr. Goyer:: Saskatchewan? Thanks.


Mitchell William Sharp: Thank you very much.


Harvie Andre: If this is damaging to the country and damaging to federalism, they apparently do not care.


Some hon. Members:: Oh. oh!
Electoral Boundaries


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: You have them all worked up.


Harvie Andre: If you have a comment, make it loud enough so I can hear it or keep it down. There are a number of reasons why this bill should be opposed. First, contrary to government promises, there has been insufficient examination of the method. Second, it calls for unlimited growth of the House of Commons, which I am sure the people of Canada do not want. It will be detrimental to the efficency and effectiveness of this House. It will serve only to increase the authority of the executive branch of the government and to diminish the authority of the legislative branch.
This amalgam method is a movement away from the protection of the small provinces. Under the existing method, the small provinces have 22 per cent of the seats and would retain roughly that proportion. If the proposed method is accepted, the proportion of seats would drop to 18 per cent within the next 25 years. Therefore, this method in fact moves away from protecting the small provinces. It is not consistent with protecting a strong federal union.
Fourth, it is gerrymandering. The government has developed a method which ends up with Alberta and British Columbia having the largest constituency population. It is part of the never ending stream of moves which goes a long way toward explaining western alienation and a whole lot of problems associated with it. This method does not address itself to the fundamental problems of a federal system within Canada.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What would you do?


Harvie Andre: If you will give us an opportunity, we will tell you. We have a multitude of proposals. We have been discussing the bill in principle and this bill must be opposed by anybody who has any principles.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, discussions regarding redistribution always start out with ideological and philosophical statements.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the hon. member rising on a question or is he rising to make a
speech?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: To make a speech.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, it was my understanding he was rising on a question. There has not been a speaker from this side since the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) made his presentation earlier today. I think there should be representation from this side as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Penner):: May I say to the
Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) that the Chair looked to his right. No member stood in his place. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) stood and was recognized. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West has the floor for the purpose of making a speech.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, thank you for that very correct and fair ruling. As I was saying, discussions usually start on a rather ideological and philosophical base.
1870

December 2, 1974
Electoral Boundaries
When talking about redistribution, people talk about the interest of Canada. They talk about objectivity and fair play. It usually does not take too long to get down the power block plays and individual self-interest. It seems we did not even get started to discuss the philosophy, and matters of high intent. Instead, a bill was presented on the basis of pragmatic parochialism and self-interest. Speaking on the bill in the current Canadian parliament is, indeed, frustrating, knowing that as I stand to speak on the things that are wrong with this bill, these same factors, assure the passage of the measure and continued disproportionate representation to Western Canada, and in particular to British Columbia.
As the member for Fraser Valley West, I can stand in my place in the House of Commons and speak about inequitable freight rates, the flooding of the Fraser River, or the attack by the federal government on provincial resource rights. But once again, of what significance will it be when you are speaking about these critical problems to a government that recognizes that it can get elected- and the last election validates this-without the western vote? We bemoan the fact that a government can be produced almost solely from central Canada. We are concerned that this is a serious blow to national unity, and yet by simply recognizing this fact we are, in effect recognizing the regional character of Canada, and, more important we are making an indirect argument for equitable regional representation.
Western Canadians would accept economic equalization much more readily if Eastern Canadians would accept equalization of representation for Western Canadians. Most of those who have spoken in the debate to this point have recognized that the West has not had its fair share of representation of terms of numbers in the House of Commons, both now and under the current proposals. One simply has to take note that it takes 3.7 B.C. votes to equal one Prince Edward Island vote in terms of straight proportional representation. But this is only one side of the question. Certainly nobody wants to deny Prince Edward Island or any other small province their share of representation simply because they are not growing. The idea of redistribution is not to reward growth but to do all we can to ensure equitable treatment for the various parts of this vast and diversified country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lloyd Wenman: In other words, what we want to do is to consider the overall good of the country, rather than solely preoccupying ourselves with mathematical equality. Equalization of representation relative to regionalization is as valid a concept as representation by population. If we were to divide Canada into its natural five or six regions this would provide each region of Canada with between 46 and 53 members per region. While I realize the pragmatic improbability of British Columbia and the Yukon region receiving approximately 46 to 53 seats, and a need to compromise representation by population, the compromise between regional representation and representation by population, as it appears in this bill, is totally against the interest of British Columbia.

Western Canada has quietly accepted economic equalization, Well, perhaps not so quietly of late.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What do you mean by economic equalization?


Robert Lloyd Wenman: I mean the situation whereby Western Canada supports the confederation of Canada economically, particularly British Columbia and Alberta, as "have" provinces. We do not object to this too strongly. However, in the light of legislation before the House, as well as historic Western discrimination and over-compromise on the part of Western Canada, it is time for Eastern Canada to recognize Western Canadian and, particularly, British Columbia demands for equalization of representation as well as economic equalization.
From my point of view, a similar sized, or even smaller sized, House of Commons with more effective individual M.P.'s would be the best concept to ensure efficient and effective democratic processes. Before we start legislating grand schemes to increase the size of the House-and is there really a limit once that starts-perhaps we should concentrate on making what we have here, and what we do here, more effective.
It is typical Liberal aphorism that quality comes with quantity; that to deal with a problem you first think in terms of quantity. Do we really want or need more representation? Does more representation mean better representation? Personally, I doubt it. The opportunities to speak and participate as an M.P. are already considerably limited through the appropriation of the limited time available for the day.
We often lament the fact the legislature is on the decline in the twentieth century while the executive is becoming increasingly more dominant. We see this most clearly in terms of power and responsibility when comparing political executives and senior civil servants with M.P.'s who are not in the cabinet.
But this disparity is manifested in another way also, perhaps an even more important way, since it penetrates to the very root of what democratic government is all about. This is the area of information and expertise. An unfortunate development in the legislature's decline has been the increasing disparity in expertise and knowledge between those who are part of the executive and those who are not. This is critically important because it tends to undermine the day to day accountability of ministers to the members of parliament, a development that threatens to render ineffective not only the opposition but parliament as well. Such steady attenuation of accountability cannot be tolerated in a democracy, and the bill before us continues to atone the consolidated power of the executive to grow.
As any non-executive member of the Canadian parliament knows, information and expertise is the single most important thing a member needs to be effective. Accountability in government is all but impossible without it. But, at the same time, as most members are only too aware, the technical facilities and resources available to the ordinary M.P. are dismally inadequate. They are so inadequate that one sometimes wonders how a member is able to deal with a question or policy in any but the most superficial way.
December 2, 1974

The bill before us is an example. For example, there is argument between members about arithmetic. There is argument about the meaning of the clauses. These differences arise partly because opposition members on the back benches do not have access to adequate resources of expertise and information.
Very definitely one of the things we need is to keep the House as small as possible, or in fact smaller than it is. I would have the political courage to stand up and suggest that we divide the riding in my area, making the riding smaller, and I will fight for one of those seats. At least let us consider the suggestion.
I will vote against this bill as I do not believe it is in the interest of Canada to expand the size of the House of Commons. It is my opinion also that this bill has been conceived in faulty and weak philosophical premise, not in the interests of Canada. It is also an attempt at regionalism that British Columbia is named as a middle-sized province, and is little more than an effort to thwart the obvious rights of British Columbia in respect of equitable representation.
Representation by population concepts once again are discriminatory against British Columbia, in particular, relative to the smaller provinces. It is not in the interests of Canada to expand the size of this House, and I have grave concerns and reservations that we have started in the wrong way. We should be forgetting municipal and provincial boundaries and looking instead toward the regions of Canada. If we were to assure equitable regional representation in a smaller House, the House of Commons of Canada would be more efficient and effective in accomplishing the democratic processes necessary to carrying this country forward.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, there has been comment to the effect that there has not been much time to debate this particular subject. Let me remind hon. members that when the subject of redistribution became a factor in the public eye it was debated quite hotly as to whether the mechanisms then existing were appropriate to the provision of the kind of representation in Canada we wanted. This reached culmination when the government brought in, with by-partisan support, the bill to disband the operations of the Electoral Boundaries Redistribution Act. This was done because members from all sides of the House felt the existing system was not competent.
When that bill went through the House there was discussion about the kind of redistribution system people would like to see. There was discussion in the committee about that and then the government came back with five proposals which were laid before the House, briefly debated and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
In that committee a proposal was put forward by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie), known as the Ritchie proposal. This amounted to an increase of three seats for Ontario and three for B.C. This was in addition to the five proposals which the government put forward.
Electoral Boundaries
The committee very quickly came to the realization that the two proposals which had the most merit from its point of view was the Ritchie proposal and the amalgam method. The committee did not complete its work, although I believe it was on the verge of making a decision between these two proposals when the election intervened. After the election there were consultations between the leaders of the parties and it was decided that, because the committee had almost come to a decision between these two, it was not necessary to refer the matter back to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, that instead the government should bring down the bill based on the amalgam method.


An hon. Member:: It is not true.


John Mercer Reid: I want to repeat that this was negotiated with the various parties, that it was clearly understood that this is what should happen, and that it was being done on the basis of the very widespread public debate which had preceded that decision. It may well be that many members feel they have not had much of an opportunity to participate in the debate before. I can only say that there has been plenty of opportunity, and that is the only comment one can make about it.


An hon. Member:: When and where?


John Mercer Reid: I have discussed already, in answer to the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), the procedures we went through, the opportunity there was for public participation, and the opportunities there were for people to present other alternatives to the committee. In point of fact, when we were at the committee stage there was only one proposal put forward, other than what the government proposed, and that was the Ritchie proposal.


An hon. Member:: We only had two meetings.


John Mercer Reid: The Ritchie proposal had sufficient merit that members of the committee were prepared to consider it and the amalgam method. Had other members come forward with other suggestions and other mechanisms, I am sure there would have been a longer debate in the committee. But they did not.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


John Mercer Reid: The hon. member says "nonsense". I am describing what happened. Whether hon. members agree with what happened is not for me to say. What I am describing is the process that took place, the decision that was taken as a result of the debate that went on in the House between the parties, all of which led to the decision to proceed with this bill. As I say, all the parties were fully informed. Whether vour caucus was informed is something I cannot say. I can say that we had a full discussion about it, and I am sure the same thing happened in other parties.
Reference was made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) to the Abbott Commission. It was established because of the report brought down in this House in 1970, I believe, called the Beaupre Report. The Beaupre Report was to the effect that the duties of members of parliament were expanding and therefore some-
28543 - 50/4

December 2, 1974
Electoral Boundaries
thing had to be done about facilities. The government took over the Confederation Building to provide additional space and staff, but it then became apparent that when the government began to expropriate the rest of Wellington Street this would not be satisfactory and it would be advisable to bring the public as well as the House of Commons into the procedure.
That is what the Abbott Commission was all about. It was designed to try to provide additional ways in which members of parliament could be more effective, and it looked into the staffing and facilities available to members. The Abbott Commission had nothing to do with this bill.


Harvie Andre: But the subject of the Abbott Commission reference was at least as important as the subject of this bill.


John Mercer Reid: The subject matter of this bill is a method of redistributing parliamentary seats as between provinces and regions in Canada. Let me say at the outset that there is no one satisfactory method of satisfying everybody. This is a blunt fact of Canadian geography, and it is a blunt fact of distribution of parliamentary seats.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Would you permit a question?


John Mercer Reid: Certainly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The hon. member says that the Abbott Commission had nothing to do with the increase in the size of this House. Does that mean that when the Abbott Commission came up with the suggestion that we need more staff and more office space-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member asking a question?


John Mercer Reid: Yes.


An hon. Member:: It just takes him a little longer than others.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I think it is a very important question, and it is a question, with great respect. If the Abbott Commission came up with a recommendation for more staff and facilities for members, would that not cost the taxpayers a lot more money, particularly when you consider an increase in the size of the House?


John Mercer Reid: Of course, the answer to that is that if we increase the staff for members of parliament, that is going to increase the cost to the taxpayers as well. The point of the amalgam method is that nobody pretends, least of all the government, that it will satisfy all regions, all areas, all provinces and all constituencies. Obviously it is not possible to do that.
We have many problems. We have a number of provinces that have historical floors in respect of representation, and we have a law which prohibits the reduction of that representation. We cannot transfer enough seats from one province to another. Because we have these floors across the country it means that if we continue with the existing method, the disruptions that would take place

in representation as between provinces and regions would get completely out of whack. All you have to do is look at the existing system as it dealt with redistribution. It was so bad that members of parliament unanimously passed a bill bringing an end to the operations of the electoral boundaries commission because it was obviously not satisfactory.
The amalgam method attempts to deal with the reality of historical floors. It attempts to deal with the realities of very large provinces, and it tries to deal with the fact that some provinces are not small and not large but somewhere in between and are growing. Because we have the floors and peculiar forces of population growth and geography in Canada, we had to come up with a formula that would treat everyone reasonably equitably, but nobody exactly as fairly as one would hope in terms of population on the basis of representation by population.
We freely admit that this is not a method based on representation by population, but it goes some distance in that direction. It accepts the principle that floors do exist, and it accepts the principle of our history.


Harvie Andre: And the principle that Alberta votes PC.


John Mercer Reid: We have to look at the amalgam method as it deals with all of Canada, not how it deals with my province or my riding. Does it provide for the reasonable distribution of seats across Canada? Does it provide for a reasonable distribution of seats based on constituency size? Does it still provide reasonable representation in the House of Commons for all Canadians?
It is on those judgments that one must consider the decision of the parliamentary committee when it looked at the proposals. It had before it the proposal of the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie). Of the six proposals it had, the committee came down on the side of two, that of the hon. member for Dauphin and the amalgam method. It is not clear which way the vote would have gone in the committee, but from the point of view of the government whatever proposal was voted on by the committee would have been accepted. The election intervened, and after negotiations and consultations with members on the other side and their leaders, the government came to the conclusion that the amalgam method was acceptable. There is no attempt by the government to impose upon the House of Commons a system which is repugnant. This is a system which has come to the fore because it is simply the best of the proposals we had before us at the time.
We have not heard since the last election any proposals that were largely different from those the committee had discussed and those the government had worked out for the benefit of the House of Commons. As I say, the only one was that provided by the hon. member for Dauphin. He deserves kudos for having done the work and for having put in the effort to come up with an alternative system.
It is now 9.30 Mr. Speaker. I want to remind hon. members that the House of Commons is very short of time. It has been suggested that it will take a considerable length of time before the petroleum bill goes through, and it will also take considerable time before the income tax
December 2, 1974

amendments dealing with the resource industries go through the House of Commons. Both these bills continue to have priority and should be passed by December 31. Certainly that applies to the petroleum bill. I would remind hon. members that if we do not pass this bill by December 31 we will be in a position where the old electoral boundaries commissions will be re-established. We will operate on the basis of the previous allocation of seats as between provinces.
It would seem to me it would be impossible for the government and this House to bring down legislation to suspend the operations of those commissions again, simply because we allowed ourselves 18 months to come up with alternative proposals. Surely if there is no agreement on this proposal or on any other proposal it would strike me that the government would have no option but to permit the operation of the existing system. So I want to impress upon the members this problem we have in respect to time.
I commend the bill to hon. members not as the most perfect solution to the problem but as the most satisfactory one we have been able to find. When I say "we," I do not mean the government; I mean the members of this House of Commons taken in total. I want to emphasize that this is not a proposal the government has brought down, as in the case of the petroleum bill. It is a proposal that was widely discussed and debated in the House, and there have been opportunities for members to make their contributions.


An hon. Member:: That is not true.


John Mercer Reid: If members have not had an opportunity to make their contributions I suggest it is because they have not been paying attention.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question?


John Mercer Reid: Yes.


Donald W. Munro: Would the hon. member who has just resumed his seat explain, with the urgency attached to this and other matters, why the government delayed so long convening this House after the election? That is blackmail.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the general question because I am not a member of the government, but I can say in respect of the bringing down of this bill that the bill was brought down after consultation with the party leaders. The government was given certain assurances as to the time it would take in the House. The government was told there was no pressing urgency in bringing it down and making it the first order of business, but that there ought to be no problems.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I wish to say that I do not want the impression to be left in the minds of any members in this House or anyone else interested in this debate that the concern for reasonable representation in parliament of Canadians rests solely on the government side of the House. If that
Electoral Boundaries
was the impression the parliamentary secretary was trying to leave with the House, then quite frankly I do not like it. It is certainly not in the spirit with which I intended to enter this debate.
Second, I do not like to be lectured by a parliamentary secretary, particularly this parliamentary secretary, with regard to understanding the importance of this piece of legislation. I do understand its importance. It is important not just to his constituents but to the constituents represented by all members of this House. The spirit with which we have entered this debate and continue with this debate is to find a basis, if we can, for proper representation of all Canadians, including Canadians in Kenora-Rai-ny River and in every part of this country.
I do not accept the suggestion that there was an understanding or agreement that there would not be discussion or debate in respect of this matter. The government House leader is here. Although I could be wrong in that regard, that was not my understanding. My understanding was that this matter would receive reasonable discussion. Perhaps all parties to the discussion in this regard are not here. Perhaps the best advocate the House has heard today with regard to having a full and complete committee discussion of this bill is the parliamentary secretary himself. He perhaps gave the best reason for the debate we ought to have on this bill, bearing in mind the time limit. I understand that if this bill is dealt with within a reasonable period of time there would be time to give it full and adequate consideration in the committee.
I wish to clear up another misapprehension the parliamentary secretary had. I refer to his reference to the Abbott Commission and the reference by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) to that commission. The hon. member was not speaking along the lines the parliamentary secretary seemed to think. What he was saying was that the government, with our approval, had seen fit to appoint a commission of learned, experienced people both inside and outside the House headed by a great Canadian to examine at great length the physical facilities of the House of Commons, yet at the same time there seemed to be great haste in respect of the redistribution. The hon. member was saying that the matter was somewhat out of proportion, because surely the matter of redistribution is just as important as the question of further facilities for this House.
I realize there are others in this House who have paid greater attention than I have to the discussion in the early stages concerning the methods proposed by the government House leader. But my understanding is that with respect to the amalgam method there were only two committee meetings during which the matter was dealt with, and that is really of significant importance. I want to say to the government House leader-because this affects member from provinces that differ in terms of their needs and their wants that we regard this bill as important. It is for that reason that I spoke to the government House leader earlier this afternoon, and I was pleased to have the discussion and the understanding that I did with him.
Dealing with the bill itself, the first thing that I want to say about it is that as a member of parliament, albeit not

Electoral Boundaries
the most experienced, and having seen this parliament operate at least since 1972, I am not completely sure that the best interests, not only of Canadians but of members of parliament generally in the operation of the system, will be served by a method by which for the first time there will be no end to the number of members who may be in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Frankly I think that it is a question principle that the House, in a country of 23 million people, should now embark on a procedure which goes on and on, at least in principle, until it is stopped by legislation of this House. It is really a bad principle. There is more to the representation of people in parliament than merely numbers; there is an aspect of quality to representation. Quality will vary with the member, but the mere insertion of a numerical factor does not guarantee that the House will be a better place. The open end addition of members, however, will guarantee that parliament will become even more unwieldy than it is; that parliament, as a matter of sheer mathematics, will become more expensive than it is; and that it can become less responsive than it is today. These are guarantees as a result of the principle set forth in the bill.
As I said, there are more things to being a member of parliament, and as a member of parliament I would like to see improved, not just the number of my colleagues, but the work that all of us can do on all sides of the House. The first thing that I think is the hallmark of good representative government is that the representation not merely reflect the population but reflect the awareness of the fact that there is opportunity to gain knowledge of the operation of government by all members of the House. Not just for the sake of the member himself, but because our system of government has as its foundation the fact that there is always in the House, at least in principle but sometimes in fact, an alternate government. There is the principle that there ought to be men and women on all sides of the House who, subject to the doctrine of cabinet solidarity and secrecy, have equal knowledge. I do not think that our system today, which breathes and lives on orders in council, on press releases and on ministerial statements when the government decides to make them, leads to good representative government. I would like to see efforts made to adopt the principle of knowledge rather than the numerical principle, as I first mentioned.
Second, I believe that there should be power among members of parliament-all of them, not just in the opposition-to examine the way in which the executive branch, that branch of government which for better or worse is becoming more powerful in our community, conducts itself. I think that if any lesson has been brought home to me since I have come to this place, it is that the right of the private member, the backbencher, whether he sits to the right of Mr. Speaker or to his left, is being diminished. It has been diminished, I suppose, because that cannot help but happen in a very complex society. But it has been diminished as well because institutions within this institution have allowed this to happen, in fact have copped out. That has happened on both sides of the House. The real cause is to ensure that there is this ability in the
backbencher of the House to examine and probe, no matter where he sits.
I think that we should have a committee structure that really functions-and that is perhaps more important than the number of members or the people they represent-one that will allow real investigation by private members, by the representatives of the people in the House, of the power of government and how it uses it. We should have a committee structure which is not partisan but which will follow in an evolutionary and continuing way the examination of the estimates and of the operations, expenditures and functions of each department of government, not just to embarrass or to delay but to improve. We do not have that here in the House and we are a long way from it. That is how I would like to see this parliament improved.
I think that the principle of the bill is based solely on the numbers aspect of representation, and in that sense the bill is narrow and is wrong. I am not one who would dare say, whether I believed it or not, that representation by population is not important. Of course it is important. But we should not let that catchword, that cliche, blind us to the importance of the functioning of the House, a House of a reasonable size, where there can be some informality in debate, in order to improve the representative quality that the public of Canada expects from us.
I do not think that the public is prepared at this time to endorse a blank cheque to cover the cost of the operation of parliament. If we pass this bill, that is exactly what they will have to do. Within this bill there are sufficient principles which would increase the number of members without limit. We do not approve of this and we have indicated that we intend to oppose this bill. We cannot accept the suggestion that this is the only way in which representation can be approached. We feel that it is not sufficient, in dealing with the problems of the people of Canada and their representation in the House, to say that we must now adopt for the first time a principle that has no end to it in terms of numbers.
We believe that there should be a form of protection for certain provinces which face a diminution in population, but we think there must be a balance between the two approaches. Having said that we cannot accept the open end principle and that we must accept the fact of Canadian life that there are certain provinces the representation of which is diminishing perhaps unfairly, we must in those circumstances vote against this bill. We will be voting against it on the grounds and in the hope that in the time remaining to us there will be sufficient discussion of the bill not only by members of parliament but by other interested bodies and learned writers in the country. It is important that the principles and ancillary aspects of this bill be recognized before the bill, or something like it if there is an amendment in committee, be put before the House for final disposition.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate hoping that I did not detect a suggestion of blackmail in the remarks of the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). In a democratic country members of parliament are elected to speak for the

December 2, 1974

people, and in this debate today I detected frustration. As a citizen I have known frustration for many years, and I know that many people feel that same frustration when they have a government over which they have no control.
We cannot support this bill, Mr. Speaker, primarily because it is an open ended bill. It is like a farmer going down the. road with a truck which has lost the end gate and the grain is spreading all over the place. That is what is happening here. The government must make better use of the facilities already at their disposal rather than increase the membership of the House. Increasing the membership is just like spreading a lot of icing over a cake that has fallen to try and fill the holes.
The frustration I speak of is felt by a great many Canadians when they are trying to deal with the bureaucracy of government. The government tries to give the impression that it is caring for the people, but really every time a piece of legislation such as this is introduced it creates a heavier burden on them. The increase in membership of this House of Commons suggested in the bill could cost the taxpayers something in the neighbourhood of $1 million. I believe each member of parliament costs about $60,000 or $70,000 per year, so the increased cost of a larger membership is obvious. It does not mean better government, however. Just today in this House we heard member after member of the Privy Council say that he was responsible for a certain area or region of this country. That is not what democracy is about, Mr. Speaker. That tendency leads to a dictatorship and nothing short of it.
Since I have been a member of this House I have noticed that the government does not make use of the provincial governments. In fact, it tends to erode their authority. This also deprives the individual of the most advantageous government at the municipal level. I could list several programs that the present government has initiated, such as OFY, LIP and DREE, which could well be handled at the municipal level with the guidance of the provincial government. The present policy of the federal government is wrong and the people know it; that is why they become so frustrated with the administration at all levels.
Much time of members of parliament is taken up in dealing with the shortcomings of such programs as unemployment insurance, old age security and family allowances. These programs could be administered at the provincial level and perhaps some even at the municipal level. When the municipalities of the country hold their annual meeting, one of their major complaints is the lack of co-operation they receive from senior government; the provincial governments cannot give that co-operation until they have the authority from the federal government. I urge the government to give more authority to provincial and municipal governments for the administration of these programs. Certainly I believe that we must have a strong federal government, but that does not mean to say it should meddle in the business of provincial governments.
The bill before us proposes to increase membership of the House of Commons by 15 seats, and I imagine we could tolerate that over a period of time. But the bill also suggests 307 seats by 1981. We should consider the cost of
Adjournment Debate
this to the taxpayers. If they do not receive benefit from this extra cost their frustration will increase.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Robert Lloyd Wenman: Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that we still do not have a consistent and clear statement of policy from this government on the very important question of the export of water. Back in early October when I delivered my maiden speech to this House, there was the clear implication from the hoots and snickers from back benches that all of my concern about the government's non-policy on the export of water was simply a figment of my imagination. When I brought up the contradictions of former Liberal ministers on this question, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) jibed that my assertion that the government had no policy regarding water export was simply not true.
Thinking this response odd, especially in light of the research that I have done on this subject, I asked the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) on October 18 whether she is in favour of the export of Canadian water to the U.S. As the minister responsible, she then enunciated government policy, which was a flat no, she was not in favour of the export of Canadian water. Contradicting herself two weeks later in response to another question, in which I again asked what the government's policy regarding water export was, she said, "We have no policy."
Seeing the gross confusion among senior cabinet officials, I thought perhaps I should try to get clarification once and for all. So today I asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) whether or not he was in favour of the export of Canadian fresh water supplies for good hard cash, and he contradicted all of his ministers by answering "Yes".
I ask, is the answer yes, no, or maybe? I thought that when cabinet ministers spoke, they spoke after they had discussed positions in caucus and arrived at a unified decision. Apparently this is not so. I thought that the

December 2, 1974
Adjournment Debate
Prime Minister, as head of the government, would have the final say on what is happening. No wonder when I first raised the issue the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and their back bench noisemakers seemed nervous. Needless to say, I find this quite disturbing. It is time for clarification and leadership on this matter.
Setting aside the red herring issues whereby local arrangements between communities on two sides of the border share a singly developed local supply and the export of bottled water and other such products which incorporate water, such as wines and whiskies, Canada's waters should not now or ever be for sale.
It has frequently been claimed by those who see water export as a great economic opportunity that Canada has so much water and uses so little. Why not determine the obvious surplus, they say, and sell it for good hard cash? This suggestion was directed to the Prime Minister earlier today, and he concurred in it. That is amazing. I wonder how members of the cabinet can accept that position.
Newspaper accounts often credit this country with 25 per cent, some say even 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 not found in the oceans or locked up in polar ice and glaciers is stored underground. Canada's over-all groundwater situation is not known with any degree of reliability, but what we do know is not especially promising. Too many of our northern lands are bared of soil, impregnated with permafrost and underlain with impermeable crystalline rock or saline formations to make probable much groundwater potential or to create great expectations, other than on a local scale. Where Canada does excel is in its lake area, which is 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 thousands of 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 streamflow. 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, roughly 3.5 million cubic feet per second. Set against a Canadian population which is less than 1 per cent of the world's population, this is a generous endowment indeed; set against a territorial area which is about 7 per cent of the world's land mass, however, it is not so disproportionate. Also, this national data must be tempered with the knowledge that it disguises wide variations of water availability in time and place. Much of the Canadian west is not well-watered. Indeed, almost two thirds of our runoff is carried northward into the Arctic ocean.
On the demand side, there are similar misconceptions. A conventional determination of future water demand in Canada, the rest to be considered surplus, might add up projections of present uses for domestic, industrial, irriga-tional, electrical and recreational purposes in terms of discrete quantities. 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, to our understanding of what this country is all about.
It is crystal clear that water export has no place in that future. Our priorities and our opportunities in water management are here within our national and provincial boundaries. We will face enough challenge when dealing with the ramifications of major water projects for Canadians, without exaggerating these for the convenience of others.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. If you take into account the two or three minutes to make the changeover to adjourn parliament, I believe I have another minute left.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. No point of order can be raised at this stage of the proceedings. The hon. member knows the Chair tries to be fair and just at all times.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, on October 18 the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) made reference not to one concern, but three. Let me speak to each of these concerns in turn.
With regard to water export, the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Sauve) clearly stated in response to the hon. member that she is not in favour of water export and that no discussions have been held with the United States to that effect. Nor has the United States government ever proposed that we consider exporting our water.
However, let us be very clear what is meant by the term "water export". The artificial diversion out of this country of waters which are entirely Canadian would, of course, be water export. This in fact, has never occurred. For emphasis, Canada's water is simply not for sale. When the hon. member speaks of Skagit, Garrison and so on, he must realize that these are boundary and transboundary waters which are the joint responsibility of the government and transboundary waters which are the joint responsibility of the governments of the United States of America and Canada. In their natural state, they cross or form the boundary between our two countries and do not solely lie within the jurisdiction of either country. Thus, the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909 provides the instrument which governs the actions which can be taken by either country. Through the Department of External Affairs, discussions have been initiated and will continue to be initiated with the United States concerning these and other boundary and transboundary water issues to ensure that Canadian rights are always protected.
The third concern the hon. member expressed interest in was the federal role in water management on both the international and federal-provincial fronts. Examples of actions taken on the international front include the legislated protection of our Arctic waters in 1970, followed by our continued efforts for global agreement at the Law of the Sea Conference on regulations controlling offshore and oceanic pollution. After probably the most intensive
December 2, 1974

investigation ever undertaken into major lake pollution, Canada and the United States entered into the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement in 1972 to restore the Lakes' quality by funding treatment plants and research applications within the next few years.
The Canada Water Act provides for water programs on the federal-provincial front. We have now completed comprehensive development plans jointly with the provinces for the Qu'Appelle, Okanagan and Saint John basins. Newer activities include the 1973 agreement with Ontario to jointly undertake a $0.7 million Great Lakes shore
Adjournment Debate
damage survey, the 1974 agreement with Alberta and Saskatchewan to cost-share a $2 million submerged weir to restore water levels in the Peace-Athabasca delta, and a subsequent agreement with Saskatchewan and Manotoba to cost share a $1.1 million comprehensive investigation of the Souris basin.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Is there time for a question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must remind the hon. member that the adjournment debate does not provide for points of order or questions.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10:11 p.m.

Tuesday, December 3, 1974