1975-11-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) as follows:
That the Prime Minister advise the House with reference to a public statement quoting the Solicitor General as saying that opposition members should deal privately with the RCMP with information pertaining to investigations, such as the present Olympic games investigation or the Senator Giguere investigation, rather than raising these matters publicly in parliament whether this represents government policy and if so, that the Prime Minister advise the House further whether it is now government policy that members of parliament should not raise matters of grave concern and make recommendations thereon in this chamber, including situations that obviously require judicial inquiries.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, I request unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an important and urgent matter.
As the anti-inflation measures of the government are running into vigorous opposition on the part of workers, who are proving thereby that they have no confidence in the proposals of the government, and as the confidence of the people is an essential condition of the success of any measure intended to contain and check inflation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin):
That the House study, as soon as possible, the monetary measures suggested by hon. members of the Social Credit Party of Canada with a view to putting an end to the ravages of inflation through the implementation of an annual guaranteed income paid to all, and the application of a retail discount to the purchase of all essential goods.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the terms of Standing Order 43, the motion requires unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the announcement by the Saunders Aircraft Corporation of Gimli, Manitoba, that on December 31 of this year the remaining 200 employees will be laid off. In light of the company's assurance that the ST28 aircraft is very near completion and certification, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce act immediately to review Saunders' PAIT application with the view to a positive response and in addition to explore every and all avenues of assistance that will prevent the economic collapse and related human hardship, and that, the minister adopt the same positive attitude toward Saunders as the government has taken toward eastern companies such as the de Havilland Aircraft of Canada, Limited.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. Could the Prime Minister confirm that he told the Minister without Portfolio, the hon. member for Lange-

November 27, 1975
Oral Questions
lier, not to talk to members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. If so can the Prime Minister tell the House on what basis he adopted this, to put it mildly, unusual position?
[DOT] <M10)


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Very simply, Mr. Speaker, I told the Minister without Portfolio yesterday, when he told me the police had asked him if he would help them in an investigation, that he should see the police; but, this morning, when the Minister without Portfolio arrived at his office, the press already knew he was going to see the police, and this is something of a distressing situation. I told him that, in the circumstances, I should like to talk to the commissioner of the police before he agreed to go ahead with-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Are you the head of the RCMP?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Before he agreed-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -before he went along with the meeting, which he had previously agreed to do. I think hon. members of this House should be rather surprised and indignant, if this is the fact, that the press should know about the police's visitation.


An hon. Member:: Marchand told them!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I want to know how this happened and I am going to discuss with the commissioner how it did happen.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I take it, from what the Prime Minister said, that he has not yet been in touch with the RCM Police Commissioner and has not given the Commissioner of the RCM Police instructions with regard to this investigation. I ask this for clarification, although I suggest that the Prime Minister's action in intervening lends itself to the interpretation of trying to create some kind of distraction-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As some kind of what?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Distraction.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know what the Leader of the Opposition implies by this word "distraction." I know that the police raided the office last year of the hon. member from Kingston. I know if the press had been there before the police arrived, hon. members opposite would have been pretty indignant.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister one more supplementary question?


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: It had better be good.
[Mr. Stanfield.)


SKY SHOPS INVESTIGATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON PUBLIC, JUDICIAL INQUIRY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: It
will be good, Joe. The government having indicated it would take appropriate action in connection with the Sky Shops affair and all related matters by having the RCMP investigate the matter and the Prime Minister, for reasons he has given the House, having interfered personally with the investigation, may I ask if the Prime Minister does not think the time has come for a full public, judicial inquiry?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it clear to the House that on all previous occasions when the police or the Solicitor General-this one or the previous one-informed me that they were going to carry out an investigation of some well known member of the Canadian public, whether Liberal, Tory, NDP or somebody outside, I always told them, "Look, do your duty; I do not want to interfere in any way."


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Why
interfere on this occasion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yesterday, when the minister told me that the police wanted to see him, I said exactly the same thing to him: co-operate with them in every way. It happened that when the minister arrived this morning and saw the press outside his office, he was somewhat indignant and wanted to know how the press had known this.


An hon. Member:: Because he had told them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He alluded to an article in the Gazette yesterday, which suggested the police were leaking things. I, personally, do not believe this, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: We have a free press.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have been closely associated with the police for many years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This began when I was minister of justice. As Prime Minister I am, as the House knows, in constant contact with the police. But the fact remains: when the minister was prepared to receive the police, he found the press there first. He telephoned me and I said, "Look, you tell them that before they proceed with their interrogation I want to talk with the commissioner, to try to find out whether the press was guessing, whether it knew and, if so, how did it know.


John George Diefenbaker: What a story!


Mr. Horner:: What about moral suasion?


SKY SHOPS INVESTIGATION-KNOWLEDGE OF SOLICITOR GENERAL OF CONDITIONS FOR MEETING WITH MR. MARCHAND-POSSIBILITY OF MEETINGS WITH OTHER MEMBERS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Solicitor General. Did the minister discuss with either the Prime Minister or his colleague, the Minister without Portfolio, in

November 27, 1975

advance of this morning's meeting the terms and conditions upon which representatives of the RCMP would be given voluntary access to certain members of the government? Can the Solicitor General tell the House whether, to his knowledge, the RCMP have already met with or are planning to seek meetings with any other members of the government with regard to this investigation?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: No, Mr. Speaker. I did not know the Minister without Portfolio was going to meet with the RCMP. They had not advised me, nor had the minister. No instructions were given to the RCMP other than that they should follow the policy that was laid down and made clear, namely that whenever they wish to make a seizure or search, they go through the Speaker of this House and follow all laws, regulations and the policy laid down within the force. They did tell me they were going to be visiting, on a co-operative basis certain members of this House of different political parties on this question.


SKY SHOPS INVESTIGATION-REQUEST FOR REPORT ON ALLEGED LEAKING OF INFORMATION BY THE FORCE TO THE PRESS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Now that the Solicitor General is aware of the comments and question raised by certain of his colleagues, including the Prime Minister, in respect of alleged leaking of information to the press by the RCMP, has he made an inquiry into this matter and what has he to tell us is defence of the RCMP for whom he is the responsible minister?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I can only repeat what was said by the Prime Minister. I did contact the Commissioner of the RCMP when I heard the press was at the office of the Minister without Portfolio. I was shocked to learn this. It appears somebody must have told them that a private meeting had been arranged between the minister and the RCMP. The Commissioner stated that he, too, was shocked because he felt that nobody in the police would do that. He has promised to investigate it. He said he would meet with the Prime Minister, as the Prime Minister said, to discuss the results of his investigation.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of the concern of many people that under the government's wage, income and price control program, professional incomes are not likely to be effectively controlled, did the government put forward specific proposals before the provincial finance ministers yesterday in this area? Also, can he inform the House whether some form of agreement was reached by which professional incomes will be brought within the controls program?
Oral Questions


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the meeting had before it the proposal in the white paper with regard to the control of professional income. I can say that there was general agreement with the concept that the pricing of professional services should be controlled with the co-operation of the provinces through the control of billing practices by each of the professions. In that sense, there was general agreement in that regard.
With respect to the incomes of professionals as opposed to the pricing of their services, there was not an agreement among the provinces. Some favoured a surtax, either on the whole or over a certain level of an individual's income. Some favoured none at all. There was a spectrum of opinion among the provinces but a conclusion to the effect that the federal government would have to make the final determination on any action that might be taken against incomes above and beyond that provided for by the guidelines.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-REASON FOR REJECTION BY FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF SURTAX ON PROFESSIONAL INCOMES
John Edward Broadbent: On the
latter point, can the minister inform the House why the federal government did not agree either to some form of surtax on incomes at a certain level or with the idea proposed by at least one province, namely that at a certain level there be a capping of incomes under the program? Why did the federal government reject both of these approaches? Also, what kind of specific program is the federal government going to adopt?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: With regard to the pricing of professional services, the federal government will certainly adopt the program put forward in the white paper, which was agreed to by the provinces. No final determination has been made by the government on the question of surtax. One of the purposes of putting that issue before the meeting was to get a definitive reading from ministers of their positions. As I say, opinion was almost equally divided among three different positions.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-DATE OF PUBLICATION OF REGULATIONS CONTROLLING PROFESSIONAL INCOMES
John Edward Broadbent: Can the
minister inform the House when we and the provinces can expect to learn the precise nature of the program the federal government will act upon in terms of controlling professional incomes?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: That is a matter which will have to be considered by my colleagues on my recommendation and I would expect the results of that consideration will be known within a matter of weeks. I could not, however, give an exact date.


November 27, 1975
Oral Questions


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-POSSIBILITY OF STRICTER PRICE CONTROL IN VIEW OF OPPOSITION BY LABOUR
Armand Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a question to the Prime Minister.
In light of the demonstrations of tens of thousands of Canadians who are against the government anti-inflation measures because they do not feel that the government will be able to control prices, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether he intends to propose stricter price and wage controls, in order to win the confidence of the people in the fight against inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the question is very broad. The Minister of Finance has just answered a previous question by saying that there would certainly be further particulars to announce about the program and, in that sense, the answer to the hon. member's question is yes. But if the hon. member wants to know if we are going to change the whole structure of our program, the answer is no.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Despite the Prime Minister's obvious lack of familiarity with the subject matter yesterday, I should like to direct a question to him once again: it has to do with Air Canada and its Chief Executive Officer. In the light of the answer he gave the House yesterday, will he confirm today whether Mr. Yves Pratte has resigned effective December 1, 1975?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of Transport conveyed some information to me this morning with regard to this resignation. Perhaps he could answer the question.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I can confirm that a letter of resignation from Mr. Pratte, effective December 1, has been received. A reply is going out to him this afternoon.


An hon. Member:: Who's next?


Jack Burnett Murta: Will the minister table Mr. Pratte's letter of resignation, and will he also table the reply he is sending? Can he confirm that none of the candidates for either of the senior positions in Air Canada currently under consideration by the government is from within existing management of the airline? I ask this because of reports that Mr. Vaughan also intends to resign.


Otto Emil Lang: I am certainly prepared to make the correspondence available to the House, although I will only do so after my letter has arrived in Mr. Pratte's hands. There is no truth to any suggestion that there will be any limitation set on the consideration of the best possible manage-|Mr. Macdonald (Minister of Finance).]
ment of Air Canada and appointments to those posts in future.


Jack Burnett Murta: Can the minister tell the House when the government will be prepared to announce a successor to Mr. Pratte and also a successor to Mr. Vaughan, in the event that Mr. Vaughan also resigns, as has been reported?


Otto Emil Lang: First, I should say that the board, in accepting Mr. Pratte's resignation effective December 1, did name Mr. Taschereau to be acting chairman of the company. The decision with regard to a successor will be taken as soon as possible and will be announced at that time. I would not want to speculate further upon that matter.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: My question is to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether in the course of his discussions with the provincial finance ministers agreement has been reached on the treatment of provincial marketing boards within the guidelines contained in the white paper?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there is general acceptance by the provincial ministers that provincial marketing agencies which have responsibility for setting prices of commodities should be included within the guidelines. The provincial governments, either directly or through over-all monitoring agencies of a kind similar to the National Farm Products Marketing Council, would assume responsibility for controlling the provincial boards and for making certain that they stayed within the guidelines.
It was also generally agreed by provincial ministers that the marketing agencies within the provinces would be instructed to give full co-operation to the Anti-Inflation Board in any inquiries that the board would want to make in the course of monitoring prices.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM-PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED IN VIEW OF FAILURE OF PROVINCES TO AGREE ON CONTROLLING PROFESSIONAL INCOMES
James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that there was no consensus reached on professional incomes, commissions, salaries and so on, what is going to be the next step in view of the fact that the bill now before the House will soon become law? Is another follow-up meeting going to take place, or what procedure is going to be followed in view of the failure to arrive at a consensus on professional incomes?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, if I can correct the hon. gentleman, there was agreement that the price restraint aspect of professional incomes as proposed in the white paper would be carried out by the federal and provincial governments in co-opera-
November 27, 1975

tion. Bill C-73 proposes that the restraining of professional incomes be carried out in co-operation.
What was not agreed on was whether professionals should be selected out, as others in the economy have not been selected out, for special and additional taxation treatment. This would, of course, be a matter for a taxation bill which would have to be introduced. There was agreement in the meeting that on that question the federal government would have to assume responsibility if a surtax were to be imposed. That is a question to which my colleagues and I will have to give some attention.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs' statement yesterday that the Polish government is going to adopt a more flexible policy of permitting exit visas to Polish citizens who wish to join their relatives in Canada. Would the Prime Minister use his persuasive powers during the visit of President Ceausescu of Rumania to make it possible for Rumanian citizens to join their relatives in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have already raised this matter with the president when I met him in -Helsinki. I pressed upon him the importance of good relations with Canada by facilitating family reunions, as I have with other leaders in eastern Europe. I should correct the hon. member; there is no impending visit of the president. I did see him in Helsinki. For the past year various dates have been looked at, but I do not know of any specific date having been agreed on at this time.


FOREIGN INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Inasmuch as the minister is leaving for France on Saturday-and I might say we wish him well in his endeavours to stimulate our trade with France-will the minister make a statement in the House on the Westing-house matter before he leaves?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I doubt very much whether it will be possible to make a statement, but I can assure the hon. member that I do not propose to leave without having some activity take place that will at least stabilize the situation. In other words, my talks with the parties are still continuing, as I believe the hon. member is aware, and I am hopeful that today or tomorrow something will occur that
Oral Questions
will at least be reassuring to the company concerned and its employees.


FINDINGS OF DR. BARBEAU ON MERCURY POISONING- SUGGESTED RE-EXAMINATION OF INDIANS AT WHITE DOG AND GRASSY NARROWS RESERVES
Mr. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It concerns public statements made by Dr. Andre Barbeau, director of the neurobiology department of the Montreal Institute of Clinical Research and also member of the committee of study and intervention on the danger of mercury in the Quebec environment. In view of Dr. Barbeau's statement that there is some mercury disease affecting five Cree Indians in northern Quebec, and that Dr. Barbeau has come up with some different interpretations of existing clinical studies, would the minister undertake to ensure that Indian residents of the White Dog and Grassy Narrows reserves have their documents forwarded to Dr. Barbeau and his associates for further investigation and, if necessary, that these people themselves be re-examined and the situation investigated further?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to take the hon. member's suggestion into consideration and to discuss it with my officials. I would nonetheless remind the hon. member that we already have in the area he mentioned a world-known specialist, Dr. Clarkson I believe, who is already working with the Indians. Dr. Clarkson is an expert of international renown. I will certainly consider with great interest the hon. member's suggestion and if it can bring about some progress in that field, I shall certainly take the necessary steps to implement it, with the agreement of the Indian people, of course.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Canadian Council on Social Development has recently published a report entitled "How Much Choice-Retirement Policies in Canada" in which it is declared that more than half of the senior citizens of this country exist on incomes at or below the poverty level, may I ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if consideration will be given to an immediate catch-up increase in old age pensions, and will the government also institute a study of retirement policies in this country?

November 27, 1975
Oral Questions
(Translation]


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows quite well, there are many discussions as to what constitutes the poverty level. The Canadian Council on Social Development has set its own level, as well as the Economic Council and Statistics Canada. Therefore, I think that it is difficult to hold a useful general debate on the poverty level. As for the member's suggestion for an immediate increase in the basic pension, the matter is not being considered at the present time but, as I said to the hon. member, it will be increased according to the rise in the cost of living as of January 1 next.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as a supplementary question may I ask the minister what we can do to get the government to face up to the reality of poverty as it is experienced by our senior citizens?


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Solicitor General in connection with the mysterious events that have taken place in the last few hours, in particular with regard to the dangerous course to justice that was indulged in by the Prime Minister. I want to ask the minister this question so he can remove some of the veil of mystery about this matter. When did he first become aware of the fact that the Mounted Police were going to interview the Minister without Portfolio, and whenever he received that information, did he communicate it to the Prime Minister and, if so, when? My final question, all in the one parcel, is this: Was he aware of the fact that the Prime Minister had informed the Minister without Portfolio that he should not talk with the police until it was revealed from what source the press was able to know in advance of the course that was going to be followed by the Mounted Police? There is something very mysterious about this and we would like to hear a little more.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, there is no mystery about it.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh no!


William Warren Allmand: As I mentioned in answer to an earlier question, I only found out that the RCMP were paying a visit to the Minister without Portfolio late this morning.


An hon. Member:: Everybody knew but you.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: It was long after the meeting was to have taken place. I did know, however, that the RCMP intended to discuss this matter with some ministers and members of parliament, as I said, in both the opposition and the government parties.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, on the supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: A supplementary answer; the right hon. Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure the right hon. gentleman would not want me to deceive the House, Mr. Speaker. I did not tell the minister not to talk to the police.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I told him, Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: This morning?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This morning, yes, when he phoned me. I did tell him yesterday that he should see the police. I told him this morning that he should see the police but he should tell them he would co-operate with their investigation after I had cleared with the commissioner-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Interference with the law; that is all it
is.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -after I had cleared with the commissioner the question of the publicity to be given to the interview.


John George Diefenbaker: That makes the mystery even more difficult to understand.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In what way?


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister should not be so aroused. Obviously, we have touched a sore point with him.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What sore point?


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister what justification there was for anyone to advise the Solicitor General that the Mounted Police should not be talked to until he had ascertained where the leak to the press had occurred. What is the basis for this and what was the reason for such concern that the Minister without Portfolio should not talk until you found out how the press got the information?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. member is not repeating the facts correctly.


John George Diefenbaker: All right, you give them to us.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, when I reported to the Commissioner of the RCMP that members of the press were present when the RCMP officers went to visit Mr. Marc-hand's office this morning-


An hon. Member:: At what time?



V:
November 27, 1975


William Warren Allmand: -at the agreed visit with co-operation, the commissioner himself was shocked, and he agreed he should look into this. He thought it was a shocking thing that publicity should be given to that kind of interview.


John George Diefenbaker: Was there something to cover up?


ALLEGATION MR. MARCHAND TOLD PRESS OF IMPENDING VISIT BY FORCE-REQUEST FOR NAMES OF OTHER MEMBERS BEING INTERVIEWED
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is not a fact that the Minister without Portfolio informed a member of the media prior to the RCMP visit that the RCMP would visit his office on the a.m. of November 27, and that is how the press knew of the impending visit, and that is why the cameras were there? Is that correct?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not correct.


John George Diefenbaker: How does the Prime Minister know?


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Solicitor General, since he has made some serious charges about other members opposite, that other members were under investigation, who are those members?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, this hon. member is also distorting what has been said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: I did not say that members of the cabinet or members of parliament in all parties were under investigation.


An hon. Member:: Just some of them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Mr- Allmand: I said that they had agreed to meet with the police in order to help the police with this investigation. They were helping the police, but not being investigated.


An hon. Member:: Another semantical gyration.


INQUIRY WHETHER MR. MARCHAND REQUESTED TO PRODUCE DOCUMENTS
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio regarding the meeting this morning. Will the minister tell us whether the RCMP asked him to voluntarily provide them with any documentation and, if so, has he agreed to do so?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, the problem is not so dramatic. I have been coming to Ottawa for more than 10 years. I usually arrive on Parliament Hill between 8 and 8.30 a.m. and it is the
Oral Questions
first time that there was a camera direct on me. I had agreed to give an interview to the RCMP. I had been asked to see them. I am quite willing to do so; they were welcome and I told them that I would extend to them all the co-operation that can be expected from a minister. The only thing that I do not accept is that the RCMP should directly or indirectly notify the press. That individual who was at the foot of the stairs when I arrived was not-


John George Diefenbaker: Why not? Why shouldn't there?


Jean Marchand: Why not? Oh, come on!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You won't talk.


Jean Marchand: You are supposed to be there to defend human rights. If this is your position, keep it, please.


INQUIRY WHETHER MR. MARCHAND TOLD PRESS OF IMPENDING VISIT BY FORCE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have just one supplementary for the minister. Since he was interrupted by the Prime Minister a few moments ago when he was about to answer a question by the hon. member for Calgary North, can the minister now tell us whether he, himself, may have told any member of the parliamentary press gallery that such a meeting was taking place this morning.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, after I met the television crew in the gallery, I went to the cafeteria on the fifth floor, and it is probable that about a hundred persons noticed that. A newspaperman, a Mr. Drewery I was told-I did not know his name- came to me and asked: Is it true that your house was- [English]
-I think was raided in Quebec City or here in Ottawa. I said there was no foundation for that. Actually, I phoned my wife and asked whether there were any RCMP in my house in Quebec and she said no that she never heard about that. I knew nothing happened here in Ottawa. He said it was a rumour in Toronto. I said: "How come it is a rumour in Toronto". I am ready. I am going to receive the RCMP at nine o'clock this morning. I have nothing to hide. I am ready to receive them but I have an objection that the RCMP, if it is responsible for that and maybe it is not, used any kind of media to make an inquiry of any member of this House or cabinet member.


Mr. Nielsen:: It could have been one of your staff.


Jean Marchand: I am just answering the question. This is what I said to the police. I said that if they wanted to meet me in a regular fashion and say, "Do you have anything you can give to the police that can help the police in this investigation", I am ready to meet them any time but not with the press gathered around.

November 27, 1975
Oral Questions


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister without Portfolio telling the House that he said the discussion with the members of the press gallery took place this morning and did not take place last night. Is that what he is saying?


Jean Marchand: What I am saying, and it is the only important thing, is not that the press gallery should not be interested in that. They are interested in it and rightly so. But what I do not understand is that the first thing this morning when I arrived I learned that some newspaper man knew that I was going to have a meeting with the RCMP. This is the only thing I am complaining about.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Victoria-Haliburton.


Mr. Forrestall:: Might I rise on a question of privilege.


HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It deals with the high rate of failure of steel-belted radial automobile tires, many of which have resulted in automobile crashes involving fatalities. In view of the seriousness of this matter, will the minister say whether his department is monitoring this situation and whether he is planning any measures to protect the motoring public?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, this is virtually the first I have heard of this matter and if there is a responsibility within my department I will be glad to look into it. My recollection is that automobile safety is a matter for the Department of Transport, but I will make sure that the matter is called to the attention of the appropriate parties.


AIR CANADA
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In light of the transpiration of events concerning the resignation of the chief executive officer of Air Canada and the prospect of more resignations, can the minister now say how many more weeks it will be before the Estey report is circulated and tabled in the House and could he inform us whether Judge Estey has submitted more than one report on his investigation into Air Canada. If so, will both reports be tabled in the House.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a precise date about the completion of the work on the report but it still will be some considerable time. The report by Chief Justice Estey was in two parts, the main portion of which was a report dealing with the

broad ranging matters of the inquiry; a second, very small report, was a confidential report dealing with certain internal financial and control matters which Chief Justice Estey, as the commissioner, dealt with in a confidential way.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: In view of the transpiration of events and the circumstances surrounding the Air Canada fiasco, I wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the minister is now prepared to say whether both reports will be tabled in the House of Commons.


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. The commissioner in going in a confidential way into certain aspects of financial matters had determined at that time that those matters and his consideration of them would be confidential and that will remain the case.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Prime Minister for returning to the same question concerning the financing of the Montreal Olympic Games.
Since the Quebec government has taken upon itself the responsibility for the Olympic Games, can the Prime Minister inform this House whether representations have been made by the Quebec government requesting a greater federal participation in financing the development of this project?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the Quebec government has not made any such representations. All I know is that Premier Bou-rassa told me about a year ago that he knew there would be a deficit but he assured me that he would keep his word, that he would not ask the federal government to make up that deficit.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. We on this side of the House as well as, I think, all hon. members representing Quebec ridings in the House are surprised to note that there is a party which does not talk about the Olympics, namely the Progressive Conservative party.
Has the Prime Minister or any other minister had any report from the Progressive Conservative party outside the House that they will ask the government to grant some additional funds to the province of Quebec to help to finance the Olympics, or is the Progressive Conservative party still denying that they are concerned by this project, thus playing into the separatists' hands?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be precise: no, I did not hear of any request from the Progressive Conservative party that we should intervene in any way in the Olympics deficit. I would think that they will as usual try to stand on both sides of the question.
November 27, 1975


PROPOSED AID TO ATHLETES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, by a curious coincidence I have been waiting for an opportunity to ask the right hon. gentleman whether it would not be a good idea if Canada, the country or the nation spent more time worrying about helping our Canadian athletes and seeing that they are properly financed rather than building monuments.
Oral Questions


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, if there is anything I have been accused of, it is of making too many statements on marketing boards. I am sure the records show there has been much said. It is too bad people do not read them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


MULTICULTURALISM
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, Mr. Speaker, the government has expressed views on that.


Mr. Fairweather:: Many of the athletes are on welfare.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Minister of National Health and Welfare has a program for assistance to athletes at the Canada games, the PanAmerican games and various games in which Canadian athletes participate. We think this is indeed a very important question. The question of the Olympics itself, which does require buildings, was raised in a completely different fashion, and I point out to the hon. member that his party supported the government when it proposed certain legislation to permit the selffinancing of the Olympics.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. In light of the tragically high unemployment rate on Cape Breton Island and, indeed, in all the rest of Nova Scotia, would the minister contact the President of Canadian National Railways and ascertain if a moratorium could be declared on all job transfers out of the area and all lay-offs, including members of the police staff of Canadian National Railways?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will treat those remarks as a representation and act upon them accordingly.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Because of the interest shown lately in marketing boards in the country, would the minister make a statement on motions about the procedures used by marketing boards, making a particular distinction between selling agencies and supply-management boards?


REQUEST FOR REVIEW OF PROPOSED POLICY CHANGES
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. It relates to the proposed changes in the present multiculturalism program which have been suggested to cabinet by the Minister of Labour, who is in charge of multiculturalism. In view of the bombardment of information relating to bilingualism, including a recently announced bilingual districts recommendation, would the Prime Minister review the proposed changes in the multiculturalism program in order that those Canadians who are not members of Canada's two majority language groups will not be made to feel that they are second class citizens?
Right hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, that seems to me to be a somewhat rhetorical question. Nobody on this side feels that the group of Canadians who are non-English and non-French are second class citizens. I hope the hon. member in his question is not implying that he does.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance regarding the meeting with representatives of the provinces yesterday and the subject of the government's antiinflationary program. On Tuesday last the minister said, and I quote: "I hope to be able to report more fully to the House after that meeting as to the final position of the various provinces." With regard to areas peculiarly within the jurisdiction of the provinces, such as public officials, teachers and so on, is the minister able to say that all the provinces have now agreed either to allow this area of jurisdiction to be handled by the Anti-Inflationary Board or to establish their own machinery for this purpose for the life of the government's bill?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it was not possible to obtain agreement on that point. There was agreement that the question should be addressed when the bill has received Royal Assent and when the regulations have been made available for scrutiny. With respect to those provinces which have not yet

November 27, 1975
Oral Questions
declared themselves-that is to say, all of those except for Ontario, Quebec and Alberta-I think a fair summary of their position is that they have made no commitments as to whether they would participate under clause 4(3) or clause 4(4). They are leaving that option open, with the possible exception of Saskatchewan, which left open the possibility that it would not participate in the anti-inflation program at all.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: While the minister told the House on November 14 that the provinces had been provided with a full background in order to make a decision, that is not the view of a significant number of provinces, and I ask the Minister of Finance whether a number of provinces have already made it clear that they will not make a commitment beyond a period of time substantially shorter than three and a quarter years?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. gentleman knows, with regard to the second part of the question, that certainly has been the position of the province of Alberta. We have put out to the provinces in turn the desirability of having a national program to cover all Canada, one which should be of general national application, so far as that can be achieved.
With regard to the question on information, we had, of course, not only given the provinces the information in the white paper, but there was further consultation at a finance ministers' meeting and at officials' meetings. The decision most of the provinces declared yesterday was that they would make their final decision on clause 4(3) or clause 4(4) after they had had an opportunity of seeing the bill in its final form and examining the proposed draft agreement which, in the case of clause 4(3), had been set before them, and also after they had an opportunity of examining the regulations, so this does represent an evolution from the previous position.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In other words, the Minister of Finance is asking the Parliament of Canada to make a final decision on the bill without the Parliament of Canada having any definitive knowledge as to what the position of the provinces will be with respect to the bill?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Not quite, Mr. Speaker. The provinces yesterday indicated that while there were questions of detail, with the possible exception of Saskatchewan, the other provinces indicated that except for those questions of detail they would support the program.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: For how long?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The manner in which they will support either clause 4(3) or clause 4(4) is a matter on which they have chosen to reserve judgment until the legislation is definitive in its final form and until the regulations are before them. This, of course, is their option. Somebody has to make a decision in this regard, and I think the first decision should be made by the Parliament of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Ken Hurlburt (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Agriculture. In August of this year I wrote to the minister informing him of the desire of a Lethbridge firm to purchase the terminal grain elevator in Lethbridge. In light of the fact that a story appeared in the Lethbridge Herald this week stating that two foreign-owned firms were negotiating with the Canadian Grain Commission, would the minister inform the House if this means he has ignored my representation made on behalf on Wheatland Grain Limited of Lethbridge, which is an all Canadian-owned firm?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the elevator has been one which has not made very much money for the Government of Canada and has cost taxpayers a great deal of money. I do not think there is any way I should give it away, and if the hon. member knows someone who wants to make a reasonable offer for it, that offer will be considered, the same as any other offer made for that elevator.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to the Minister of Finance on the matter of marketing boards, and while doing so to protest the horrible mistake in this morning's Globe and Mail in listing me as a Progressive Conservative.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: We don't need you.


Robert Muir: What an insult to the Conservatives.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I know they need help, but I do not want to be the one to give it.


Walter David Baker: We don't need it from you.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In the negotiations yesterday regarding the position of marketing boards under the anti-inflation program was agreement reached with the provinces on the criteria for costs of production in order to follow the cost pass through formula? Was agreement reached on a formula of cost of production, or will the formula under federal legislation, which is totally inadequate, be relied upon in computing cost of production on which basis marketing boards set their prices? Secondly, can he tell us who will have the authority to require marketing boards to live up to the restraint program? Will it be the Anti-Inflation Board or will it be the Farm Products Marketing Council and the provincial natural products marketing councils who will have the authority?
November 27, 1975


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered that question as posed by the hon. member for St. John's East. With regard to the first part of the question, it was agreed the cost pass through method would be applied.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) on a question of privilege.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the first opportunity available to me to bring to the attention of the House a matter that I am sure the Minister without Portfolio would not want to leave without having corrected. As an individual who witnessed the events this morning at nine o'clock, I have some concern with the sequence which the minister has left with the House.
The minister might want to refresh his memory and recall the exact sequence of the conversation he had with Mr. John Drewery of the CBC, a rather distinguished war hero and a man of some integrity. Mr. Drewery conveyed to me the essence of certain conversations that he had with the minister shortly after nine o'clock this morning, not around ten o'clock. The minister might want to correct the sequence of events so that there is no misunderstanding as to when he had his conversations with Mr. Drewery.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am less precise in English than in French, but then I may not be precise in either of the official languages. Anyway, let us say that I am more at ease in French. I said nothing to any newpaperman yesterday. The interview was set up. My secretary told me: the RCMP want to see you. I said: Yes. She asked: When? I said: As soon as possible; whenever you can find a moment, I am willing to meet the RCMP to discuss these matters. I talked to a newspaperman for the first time in the cafeteria after-


J. Michael Forrestall: After ten.


Jean Marchand: No, not after ten, but after I arrived at my office and found a photographer, a cameraman. I know because I was there.


J. Michael Forrestall: I was there too.


Jean Marchand: Perhaps the hon. member was still asleep, but I was not. I merely say that, when I entered the Parliament Buildings, there was a cameraman. Yet, I have done a number of things, here, in Ottawa. For the first time in my life in Ottawa, there was a cameraman who, at 8-30 a.m., was taking pictures of me going up the stairs. Later, around 8.45, 8.50 or 8.55 a.m., I went to the cafeteria. A newspaperman came to talk to me. I told him: I am meeting the RCMP at 9 a.m. The RCMP were not there at 9 a.m.; they came at 9.15. I was there at 9. I am not the RCMP, I have not all the rights they may have. I merely say that those who are appointed to defend the civil rights of citizens should defend the civil rights not only of ordinary citizens, but also of Members of Parliament and public officials.
Business of the House


Mr. Speaker:: The right hon. Prime Minister on the same question of privilege.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On a different question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, relating to the same general question. Because of the peculiar nature of the questions asked by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), I want to make it perfectly clear in the House, on a question of personal privilege, that there are no orders, no theory and no practice under which the police must ask my permission to talk to any minister, any member of the House of Commons or any member of the Canadian public.
I happened to know of this particular visit because the minister informed me yesterday that he was going to respond to their request. I know of other ministers who in the same series of investigations have been visited by the police. They did not tell me nor, do they have to tell me. Therefore, there is no practice, nor do I wish to establish one, of the police letting me know when they are going to carry out any particular investigation. The reason I interrupted this one in its course is that I think it important to follow up on the question of publicity, as has been stated by the hon. member.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. MacLean:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the government House leader the usual question with regard to the business the government intends to place before parliament in the next week.


Mr. Sharp:: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to proceed with Bill C-73 today and complete the report stage. If there is unanimous agreement, which I hope there will be, we shall proceed today to third reading. We shall continue to debate this bill until third reading has been disposed of. I have been having some conversations with my colleague, the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, about the possibility that we might then proceed to Bill C-41. If we can reach some agreement with respect to that debate, we shall proceed on that basis; if not, we will take any bills that have been reported from standing committees so they can be sent to the Senate as quickly as possible.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, in the event that unanimous consent to go immediately to third reading of Bill C-73 is not obtained, would the government House leader tell us what he intends to substitute?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, we would then proceed with Bill C-41.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as the government House leader knows, I have been asking every Thursday, for four or five weeks, about the progress
9502

November 27, 1975
National Defence
of a bill recommended by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs concerning Canadian veterans who were prisoners of war. In view of the fact that the Minister of Veterans Affairs found it difficult to assure the standing committee this morning when this legislation might come in, and in view of the desire of the committee to have the legislation during the present session, can the government House leader give us the hope that this will happen?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I really cannot commit my colleagues. The matter is still on the agenda of cabinet, but no final decision has been taken.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
Eighth report of Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, in both official languages-Mr. Boulanger.

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Martin.
[Editor's Note: For texts of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table, under Standing Order 41(2), two copies of the summary of tendering procedure for Mirabel dutyfree shop, in both official languages.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand that a tabling of documents will be accompanied by a statement on motions.


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, decisions of far reaching importance for the future of the Canadian Armed Forces have been made by the government, and I wish at this time to inform the House of the conclusions the government has reached at this stage of the defence structure review.
The government has confirmed the four priority roles of the Department of National Defence, which are: first of all, a commitment to the defence, security and sovereignty of Canada; secondly, a commitment to the defence of North America; thirdly, a commitment to collective security within the NATO alliance; and fourthly, a commitment to

our country's unique and important contribution to international peacekeeping.
The conclusions of the defence structure review confirm that Canada will continue to have a combined regular and reserve force of more than 100,000 personnel, made up of
78,000	regular personnel and 22,000 reserve personnel. This combined regular and reserve force of 100,000 will ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces will continue to be able to protect Canadian sovereignty, to contribute to national security, and to provide the timely reaction to any civil emergency tasks to which only the forces can respond.
The government recognizes that substantial modernization and replacement of major items of military equipment must be started immediately in order to ensure that the Canadian Armed Forces maintain their capability to carry out effectively their four priority roles.
Other major decisions that I wish to announce are: first, Canada will continue to maintain in Europe a land force and an air force designed and equipped to contribute a strong combat capability to NATO's collective defence of the central region. Second, modern and effective main battle tanks will be provided, either by retrofit or acquisition of new tanks, in order to ensure that our army contingent in Europe possesses the necessary up to date equipment to fulfil its assigned tasks beside our NATO partners. Negotiations for the acquisition of new tanks, or the complete modernization of our present tank force, are to be initiated immediately.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Which of those two things are you going to do?


James Armstrong Richardson: Third, to replace our Argus aircraft the government has decided to purchase a fleet of 18 Lockheed P3 long-range patrol aircraft, at a cost of $642 million in 1975 dollars. Other related costs, including spare parts, ground data centres, federal sales tax, contingencies and an allowance for inflation between now and final delivery, will bring the total expenditure to approximately $950 million. Some additional costs may be encountered in order to accommodate the payments on this program within the capital growth provisions to which I will refer later. The new aircraft will be designed primarily to carry out military tasks essential to North America and NATO defence, as well as providing us with a much improved capability to carry out the long-range surveillance needed to protect our growing sovereignty interests in the waters off our coasts and in the Arctic.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: You are four years late.


James Armstrong Richardson: Fourth, the air combat capability of the air force squadrons in Europe is to be maintained at its present level. Air defence forces in Canada are to be maintained at a level of capability to meet sovereignty requirements for identification and control of intrusions into Canadian air space.

November 27, 1975

Fifth, the structure of the Canadian Armed Forces will provide for up to 2,000 personnel to be available for United Nations peacekeeping purposes at any one time.
These decisions cover those matters of the defence structure review concerning the posture and equipping of the Canadian Armed Forces on which immediate action will be taken. The review will continue on questions concerning the replacement of fighter aircraft and ships.
Particularly significant to the future of national defence is the fact that the government has recognized the need to compensate for inflation in the department's personnel, operations and maintenance budgets for next year and in subsequent years.
To conform with the government's policy of economic restraint, the Department of National Defence will find from within its currently planned budget the funds required next year for the start of the tank and the long-range patrol aircraft programs. In following years, the government has agreed that capital expenditures for defence are to be increased, in real terms, by 12 per cent each year for the next five years until capital expenditures reach at least 20 per cent of the total defence budget.
As part of the defence structure review, there has been an assessment of the infrastructure required to support the operational components of the forces. Infrastructure includes headquarters, bases, training and educational facilities and logistics. In aggregate, this infrastructure support requires a large part of the total personnel and financial commitment of the defence program. Over the years there has been some consolidation in these areas, but I believe that our present infrastructure is still larger than is needed to support our operational forces, and for that reason some further consolidation of these support facilities could achieve cost savings without impairing our operational capability. For that reason, I intend to make recommendations to cabinet within the next few months concerning a better balance of support capability to operational capability, which will increase proportionately our combat capability relative to our infrastructure and support facilities.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, hon. members will agree that these decisions are of far reaching significance for the Canadian Armed Forces and for Canada and, in fact, for the NATO alliance. Our national commitment to the protection of Canadian sovereignty and to the preservation of freedom has been reinforced once again by the decisions taken by the Canadian government. There is every reason to believe that these decisions will boost the morale of the Canadian Armed Forces and will increase still further the pride which Canadians have in the dedicated and capable men and women who serve Canada in our armed forces.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair is not clear whether the minister was to make a statement, or make a statement and table documents. I take it to be the wish of the minister to make a statement and not to table documents.


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is correct.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for providing me with an advance copy of his statement. First may I say that we in
National Defence
this party welcome this belated indication showing that the government may finally have turned a corner in their treatment of Canada's forces. The scales seem finally to have dropped from the Prime Minister's eyes.
It is interesting to note the timing of the announcement. Last spring the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), went to Europe seeking his personal Holy Grail, a contractual link with western Europe. It is common knowledge that our European allies, particularly West Germany, were refreshingly blunt: the contractual link was to be tied with a NATO knot. It will be one of the delicious ironies of history that the Canadian forces are indebted as much to the German Chancellor for their equipment as to their own government. An assist goes to the Secretary General of NATO, Mr. Luns, who found the situation so serious that he broke all the rules of protocol for his position by speaking out in public about Canada's inadequacy in equipment.
As for the equipment, one's immediate reaction to the selection of the Lockheed aircraft with an American avionics package is to ask, whatever became of the Canadian input into the electronics business? The minister's flatulent press release of December, 1973, said in part:
The contract definition phase will include the employment opportunities and industrial benefits which will accrue to Canada.
Then further:
Proposals from all four contractors indicated a substantial involvement by Canadian companies in the construction of the proposed LRPA, as well as the manufacture of the necessary electronic and surveillance systems.
The question is, will the commitment made by the minister be carried out; will Canadian firms receive some of these contracts? The government seems confused about its defence needs, still not having made up its mind whether to buy new tanks or to refit older ones. I hope the government will seriously consider the Leopard II, which is a superior tank. Also, we should consider the question of a retrofitted, 30-year old Centurion tank which, according to CDS, will cost $750,000 to refit. I believe that new tanks can be purchased for about the same cost. I hope the minister will provide a firmer answer as soon as possible with regard to the tanks.
The minister's message obviously misses two large and important aspects of defence. Firstly, there is no mention of future shipbuilding for our navy, which will likely be requiring patrol vessels in the foreseeable future. Given the length of time required between the decision to build, and delivery-some six years-now is the time for decision if we are to be in any way prepared to patrol a 200-mile fishing or commercial zone.
Finally, the minister's remarks say little about the changing mode of warfare. Now is the time when we should be hearing the minister's thoughts on cruise missiles. Are we considering airborne warning and control systems? On page 4 of the minister's statement he said: "In following years, the government has agreed that capital expenditures for defence are to be increased, in real terms, by 12 per cent each year". With military inflation running at 28 per cent to 30 per cent, I do not know how we can possibly keep our head above water and find the money to
29956-49'/2

November 27, 1975
National Defence
purchase all this new equipment. Fortunately, the opposition have an opposition day coming soon, and these and other omitted matters can be discussed at that time.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the minister based his statement on the defence program upon four major priorities: the defence of Canadian sovereignty, the defence of the North American continent, support of the NATO alliance, and assisting in peacekeeping operations around the world. It is almost impossible to deal with these bits and pieces of announcements by the Department of National Defence without recognizing that all of them have been based on a major fallacy. We are not a great military power. Since the end of World War II we have been trying to ape the great military powers, with the result that we do a little bit of everything but do not do anything particularly well.
A country of 23 million people has to recognize that it must set one or two priorities for things it can do properly, without trying to do other things which are beyond its financial capacity. There can be no doubt about the top priority: there must be greater emphasis and greater expenditure of money-whatever it may require-for the defence of our sovereignty and for the patrolling of our coastal waters and our northern areas, so that Canada may let the world know it is in a position not only to defend itself but to see that its waters and air space are not violated.
I think that North American defence is the number two priority, although I would not necessarily want to see it carried on in the form it is at present. I doubt that NORAD has given us value for the amount of money we have been investing in it, nor do I think we should be tied up in a North American air defence program to the extent that we are today.
I would place the third priority on Canada's peacekeeping role on which we spend a relatively small amount of money compared to our total expenditure. This is the kind of contribution which Canada is uniquely fitted to make. The great superpowers, and even many of the major powers, because of their imperialist background and their days of colonial possessions are not acceptable in regard to supplying peacekeeping forces in some areas of the world. This is a service for which Canada is particularly suited and able to fill, because Canadians generally are recognized as not having any territorial ambitions. Our troops have been well disciplined and well accepted wherever they have been used. This is the kind of role which Canada can play in an increasing measure.
I would put at the bottom of the priorities the support of the NATO alliance. First, this is going to be a very expensive role for us to fill. Already, as the minister has indicated, something must be done about the battle tanks which we have in our NATO forces in Europe. Apparently the government has not made up its mind, but it will have to decide whether to refit the Centurion tanks, which I understand can be done for about 50 per cent of the cost of buying new tanks but will have only half the life expectancy. What their comparison is in fire-power, I do not know. I hope the minister will tell us in the question period. However, this is a decision which will have to be made.

Whether the Centurions are refitted, or new tanks are purchased, it will mean a veby large capital investment. If we are going to keep troops in Europe, they ought to be equipped with the very best military equipment that can be procured. However, such an expenditure, on top of the expenditure for new interceptors which will have to be purchased if we are going to keep forces in Europe, will place a very heavy burden upon the Canadian defence budget.
The time has come when we ought to be phasing out our NATO responsibilities. I know the government made a move to reduce the number of troops. When we entered into the NATO alliance surely we did not commit ourselves to staying in Europe forever. I know that snide remarks have been made by some European statesmen. The suggestion has been made that if we do not put more troops and capital equipment into NATO, we may have some difficulty realizing the fond hope of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), namely, a contractual link in Europe. I hope the government is not going to be intimidated by a suggestion like that. The Republic of France, which is a member of the European Economic Community, has withdrawn its military forces from the control of NATO. No one has suggested they should get out of the European Economic Committee or even the NATO Alliance. I doubt very much whether the four roles outlined by the minister can be fulfilled within the financial capability of the people of Canada. If we are to carry out the other roles effectively and efficiently, the NATO role will have to be substantially and steadily reduced.
The main announcement made by the minister was the fact that the government proposes to purchase, at a cost of $950 million, the Lockheed P3 long-range patrol aircraft, which I understand is the Orion with some modifications. This plane has been used by the United States navy and, I understand, has proven to be very serviceable.
There can be no argument as to the need at this time for an effective, new, long-range aircraft and there can be no argument about the fact that the Argus has now outlived its usefulness. Whether or not the Lockheed Orion is the best plane to replace the Argus, I for one-and I am sure this applies to most of my colleagues in the chamber-am not competent to judge. I think we must leave that to the minister, in consultation with his advisers.
The question I wish to raise is, what part of the $950 million for the Lockheed is to be spent in Canada to provide jobs for Canadians and to put some muscle into the Canadian aircraft industry? Ministers have been singularly evasive when answering questions about the Canadian aircraft industry. The situation is that the government has already acquired de Havilland and has an option to purchase Canadair. I understand the option expires in December, but it is quite possible it might be extended. I am informed that MacDonnell-Douglas have suggested that if de Havilland and Canadair could be merged, they would be prepared to take a small equity position in the new organization. If the F-15 were to be purchased by the Department of National Defence, they would be prepared to put 20 per cent of the total cost of the package into contracts with the merged corporation of Canadair and de Havilland. I do not know whether the
November 27, 1975

press reports are accurate in this respect. As I say, we have been unable to get any direct information from the government. I asked the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) some questions about this the other day. He was most evasive, to say the least, though, of course, in a most pleasant way.
We ought to know these things. Is there a package arrangement by which a certain proportion of this $950 million will be spent in Canada or does the government intend to allow the Canadian aircraft industry to go down the drain? What will the government do with Canadair? Is there a role for Canadair either in the building of long-range planes or reconnaissance planes in the future?
Other matters beside the question of national defence are at stake here. There is the question whether or not this large sum of money which parliament is being asked to vote is to be used to help develop an aircraft industry in Canada and provide jobs for Canadians. If we fail to take such a course, we shall become increasingly dependent upon United States or other foreign manufacturers of aircraft for our supplies.
To me, it is inconceivable that in this modern age, a highly industrialized nation like Canada should allow its small aircraft industry to wither away. I hope that when the minister is answering questions, this is one of the questions he will deal with so we may know what the government intends to do about de Havilland and Canadair, and whether these firms, either separately or together, will have anything to expect from this sum of nearly a billion dollars which the government is spending on long-range aircraft.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw the minister's attention to the fact that when he made his statement we had received only the English copy of the statement. I wonder whether the minister has not at his service some bilingual French Canadians who could translate his statements so that we get both the French and the English copy at the same time.
I had the pleasure of visiting Lahr in Germany and hearing the very interesting conferences on defence in Europe and on the group of Canadians stationed in Europe. According to the conferences I heard, since Canada has always provided the best soldiers, the best aircrew as it were, I think it is normal that we give them the tools which are necessary to be ready for the defence of Europe or to meet the commitments of Canada towards NATO.
I agree with the Minister about the purchase of this long range patrol aircraft. There is however one thing which worries me about the repair of tanks. I think repairing old vehicles is money spent ineffectively. As the minister said earlier, I think we should ensure that our forces are well equipped with tanks to be always in the forefront of development as far as our defence in Europe is concerned.
fEnglish]


A. Daniel McKenzie: I have one or two questions to ask the minister, Mr. Speaker. Will he tell us the exact date on which the first Lockheed LRP aircraft will be delivered to Canada?
National Defence


James Armstrong Richardson: We expect delivery of the first aircraft in April, 1979. The others will be following quickly during that year. Most will be delivered during 1979, perhaps the last four or five in early 1980.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Can the minister tell us whether any of the work will be done in Canada, as he promised in his statement in December, 1973? Then, perhaps, he could tell us when the first new tanks, or the first repaired tanks, will be made available.


James Armstrong Richardson: The industrial benefit for the aircraft industry of the Lockheed purchase is very substantial for Canada. We have negotiated some $283 million which has been confirmed, but there is an almost equivalent amount, some $285 million, unconfirmed, which would make a total of more than $560 million worth of work in Canada. This aspect is primarily the responsibility of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and I believe that in the days and weeks ahead he will be speaking in more detail about the individual industries which will benefit and how the work will be placed in Canada. However, as I say, there is very substantial industrial benefit to Canada, and this follows and confirms the statement I made earlier to this effect.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I hope the minister will use his influence to have some of this work done by CAE in Winnipeg. I should like to ask him about the 12 per cent increase each year in capital expenditures. Does he not realize that military inflation is running around 28 per cent to 30 per cent. Would the hon. gentleman give us an explanation?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, I would be glad to. The figure of 12 per cent is real growth. The hon. member perhaps missed those words in the statement. It is real growth above whatever inflation does to our capital budget. For example, if inflation is 5 per cent, the increase will be 17 per cent; if inflation is 10 per cent, we would be increasing capital expenditure by 22 per cent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Hees:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister about not having yet made a decision regarding reinforcing or making over our old tanks, which are 30 years old in Europe today, as opposed to buying a new, modern, up to date, battleworthy tank.
I am sure the minister is familiar with the condition of these old tanks. I saw them three years ago when, as military critic, I inspected the base there. The minister knows that our present tanks can hardly make it out on to the road. They are held together with baling wire, and they find it very difficult to go even a few miles without breaking down. The minister knows that is the fact. If he is not aware of it, he should talk to the serving officers over there and they will confirm what I say.
Can the minister now advise the House the reason for the delay in making the decision to buy a new, battleworthy tank like the German Leopard, which is a first-class tank, and is the minister seriously considering reconstructing these worn out, 30-year old tanks which literally are falling apart at the present time?

November 27, 1975
National Defence


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, there are at least two reasons for keeping open the option to refit the Centurion. One is cost. As was said by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, the refit could be done at about half the cost of purchase and we must consider that. We must also maintain our negotiating position. I do not want to be committed to only one tank and one country at this time. We still have to negotiate the purchase, and the result of this negotiation will have an effect on what we finally recommend to cabinet.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the minister about the amount that will be spent in Canada for the manufacture of these 18 Lockheed Orions. Do I understand him to say that some $560 million out of the $950 million will be spent in Canada to make parts, or to manufacture spare parts under the contract? If so, does the government have a contract or agreement with Lockheed to that effect, and does the contract spell out those companies to which these subcontracts will be granted?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, this is an area that more properly belongs to my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He will be commenting in detail on the industrial benefits. The figures I gave are correct, but I should point out that there is only $283 million that has been absolutely identified and confirmed with the Lockheed company. They have indicated that an equivalent amount, some $285 million, which is under what is called a best-effort arrangement, may be spent. In other words, I cannot say that they will achieve all of this amount, and neither can they. This depends partly on what other aircraft they sell to others. This total of $560 million is not all work on our 18 aircraft; it includes offset work which we will be doing in Canada. We will be doing this work for other Lockheed aircraft. We may be working on parts for 100 or more aircraft even though we have purchased only 18. This is why the figure is as large as it is, and obviously it is very beneficial to Canada.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I
ask the minister who carried on the negotiations with Lockheed? Was it the Department of National Defence, and has an agreement been signed which, as I understand the minister's figures, is a commital to $283 million being spent in Canada, with another $285 million which they will put forth their best efforts to spend? I do not know how much that is worth in an agreement, but they will put forth their best efforts in Canada. Are the two figures that I have quoted contained in the agreement, and is there anything further in the agreement respecting Canadair, or was there any arrangement with Canadair and de Havilland?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the negotiations were carried on by the project office which had interdepartmental representation including Industry, Trade and Commerce. The project office is headed by General Allen of National Defence. The $283 million was confirmed in those negotiations.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister says the $283 million is confirmed in the agreement. Is there a letter of intent concerning the $285 million, is there
[Mr. Hees.)
any reference to it in the agreement, or is it worth anything except a way of putting off criticism in a debate?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, it is exactly what it says. It is best-efforts. It is not confirmed. It is not signed in the agreement but it is work that has been identified. As I said a moment ago, it depends on factors that are now beyond the control of the Lockheed company itself. It depends on how many aircraft of this type may be built for the United States navy or for others. Therefore, it is put forth as a best-efforts proposition, but I think it will be further defined in the weeks ahead by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I see three other members who are anxious to ask questions, the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, the hon. member for Edmonton Centre, and the hon. member for Richmond. I hope that will be sufficient to tie down any outstanding points that are left. Perhaps the hon. member's colleagues in the corner might be able to collaborate on questions that might be put by whichever member of the two is going to survive, but I think we should bring this debate to a conclusion.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, can the minister tell the House what will become of the aircraft which are now used for training our airmen?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the Argus aircraft will be continuing in operation until the delivery of the Lockheed, and that is more than three years away. As I have said, April, 1979, is the date we expect to take delivery of the first Lockheed. At that time the Arguses will have completed their operational life. They will, of course, become available for sale through Crown Assets if there are buyers, but I cannot predict at this time whether there will be buyers.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, would the minister advise the House whether the decision he has referred to cabinet concerning the LRPA recommends one type of plane only, and is this one type of plane the one that was considered throughout the final definition stage? Secondly, would the minister advise the House whether the recommended plane will have a Canadian or foreign, avionics package; and is this, too, part of the original offer that qualified for the final definition phase?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the question correctly, there is only one type of plane; that is, we are only purchasing one type. All 18 aircraft are of the one type. There was another Lockheed considered, called the P3C, which was an "off the shelf" aircraft used by the United States navy. The one we are buying, the Lockheed long-range patrol aircraft, has special avionics equipment, some of which comes from the S3A carrier-borne aircraft of the United States navy. It also contains other equipment, some of which is Canadian, some American. But it is an entirely modern aircraft with new generation avionic, navigational and radar equipment.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, given the government's financial interest in Canadair and its outright ownership
November 27, 1975

of de Havilland, what work has been done by, presumably, his department and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce in terms of coming to grips with the issue of the rationalization of the existing Canadian aircraft industry?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, that is a question that strictly belongs in the area of my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who I know intends to address himself to it in a very few days.


John Edward Broadbent: Just one last supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, on the general statement made by the minister. Given his announcement that the costs for re-equipping or rebuilding the Centurions would be about half what it would cost to purchase new tanks, would the minister inform the House what would be the best purchase, in terms of financial outlay, if we consider the over-all longevity of the new tanks versus the refitted Centurions?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I am certain that this consideration will go into the final recommendation to be made. We will be putting the options before cabinet. What we have really done today is establish in principle that our ground forces in Europe will be equipped with a main battle tank. We now must go back and study not only the current costs but, as the hon. member has pointed out, the lifetime costs of the tanks, and this will be part of the recommendation to be made very shortly.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 3,167, 3,181, 3,185, 3,230, 3,264, 3,289, 3,478 and 3,505.


Mr. Reynolds: With reference to the answer to Question No. 234 which stated that assured mail service would be going into Delta by the spring of 1975, has such a programme been instituted and, if not, on what date is the latest expectation on the starting of such service?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: While it was our intention to extend the assured mail programme to Delta, our detailed study of the situation there revealed that the application of the normal criteria for assured mail would not improve service to customers of the Delta Post Office and it would increase costs. For example, should a morning collection be made the volume would be small and, with the exception of mail for Delta itself, would have to be sent to Vancouver for inclusion with mail originating there. This additional handling would tend to negate the advantage gained by earlier collection. On the other hand, by maintaining the later collection time presently in effect, sufficient volume is mailed to make up direct bags to several centres in western
Order Paper Questions
Canada and the service accorded these mails is the best that can be achieved considering all the factors. At the same time it is possible to provide next day delivery for mails destined to Vancouver, Victoria, New Westminster, Surrey and White Rock. Considering all the factors we have concluded that extension of the assured mail programme to Delta would not result in any appreciable improvement in service, consequently we have cancelled our plans for extending the programme at this time. You can be assured, however, that our officers in the Delta area will maintain a continuing review of the situation and introduce changes which will benefit the customers of the Delta Post Office.


Mr. Marshall: Are negotiations taking place with the Province of Newfoundland to develop complementary programmes for the protection and enhancement of environmental quality and, if so, on what date is it expected that an agreement will be signed?


Mr. George Baker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Yes, we are confident that the Canada-Newfoundland Accord for the Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality will be signed soon, although no date has yet been determined.


Mr. Marshall: 1.	Was the ad referendum agreement on fisheries referred to the USSR for their consideration and approval and, if so, has it been approved and on what date?
2.	Has the Canada, USSR Joint Fisheries Consultation Commission been established to strengthen bilateral fisheries cooperation between the two countries in the Northwest Atlantic?
3.	Has the USSR appointed a soviet fisheries official in Halifax and, if so (a) on what date (b) what is his name?
4.	In accordance with the Record of Understanding issued after the Canada, USSR fisheries talks of August 25 to 27, 1975, has a date been set to consider the elaboration of a further bilateral agreement on fisheries cooperation and, if not, what are Canada's intentions with regard to holding such a meeting at the earliest opportunity?
5.	Has the agreement between the USSR and Canada referred to by the two governments been approved?
6.	Has the Canada, USSR Joint Fisheries Consultation Commission been established?


George Baker: 1. Yes, the ad referendum agreement on fisheries has been approved by the U.S.S.R. Arrangements for formal approval by the government of Canada are under way, and if this approval is granted, the agreement can be signed and come into force shortly afterwards.
2.	No, it will be set up when the agreement has been signed and comes into force.
3.	No, this cannot take place until the agreement has been signed and has come into force.
4.	No date has yet been set. Both countries are eager to have early discussions, and hope to sit down early in the new year.

November 27, 1975
Order Paper Questions
5.	Please refer to answer to part 1.
6.	Please refer to answer to part 2.


Mr. Coates: 1.	For the period 1968 to 1974, has the (a) Department of Public Works (b) Ministry of State for Urban Affairs (c) Department of Regional Economic Expansion (d) Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation (e) National Capital Commission awarded any contracts to Roger Gagnon and, if so, in each case, were tenders called for the awarding of such contracts?
2.	What, if any, recommendations were made on behalf of Roger Gagnon by any Member of Parliament in regard to the awarding of such contracts?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) No.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	How much money has been (a) collected in premiums (b) paid in benefits since the inception of the Canada Pension Plan?
2.	(a) How much money has been made available to the provinces from the Canada Pension Plan fund, since it's inception (b) what are the interest terms for repayment (c) what monies have been returned by the provinces to date?


Marc Lalonde: 1. (a) $8,363,645,402 as of September 30, 1975. (b) $1,442,133,000 as of September 30, 1975.
2. (a) $8,866,925,000 as of October 1, 1975. (b) The Canada Pension Plan legislation provides that excess moneys in the Canada Pension Plan account be invested in provincial securities with a term to maturity of 20 years, or such lesser term as is deemed appropriate by the Minister of Finance, and are redeemable, in whole or in part, only at the option of the Minister of Finance after six months' notice in writing. All securities currently outstanding have a term of 20 years and bear interest at the market yield of 20-year Canada bonds. The applicable interest rate currently is the weighted average of market yields of Canada bonds having terms of 20 years or more. Used in the calculation are the market yields quoted in the first three days of that month in which the contributions are received, some part of which is made available to the provinces within the ten-day period immediately following the end of that month. The interest terms have fluctuated from 5.29
er cent in March, 1966 to 9.34 per cent in October, 1975. (c)
2,307,088,433 in interest has been received as of September, 1975.


Mr. Brisco: What were the costs of the existing medicare plan for each of the past five years?


Marc Lalonde: Total shared-costs under the Medical Care Program: 1970-71, $848,410 million; 1971-72, $1,172,336 million; 1972-73, $1,280,364 million; 1973-74, $1,372,942 million; 197475, $1,461,920 million (Not yet finalized).


Mr. Allard: 1.	Since the inception of the Opportunities for Youth Programme, has money been allocated to the Constituency of Rimouski and, if so, in what amount?
2.	For each approved project in the Constituency what (a) is the title (b) is the allocated sum (c) is the year of acceptance (d) is the name of the municipality concerned (e) are the number of jobs which have been created?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: 1. Statistics for the Opportunities for Youth Program prior to 1975 were not maintained on a constituency basis and thus the total amount of funding to the constituency since the inception of the program cannot be determined. Under the 1975 program, however, a total of $231,240 was contracted to projects in Rimouski.
2. (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) See Statement below. (This information is available for the 1975 OFY Program only).
Project title	Amount of funding	Location	Number of jobs createdService et animation Maison Redford	$ 9,420	Parc Metis	8Animation Macpes	15,384	Ste-Blandine (and area)	14La Societe de demain, Aujourd'hui	12,655	Rimouski	8Camp Plein Air	11,700	Rimouski	8Index Thematique de l'fecho du bas St-Lau-rent	10,386	Rimouski	6Camuq	11,190	Rimouski	6Regroupement animation loisirs	15,885	Pointe-au-Pere (and surrounding municipalities)	16La Maison	14,280	Mont-Joli	11Amenagement de riviere	14,270	St-Donat	11Animation en folklore	5,324	St-Gabriel (and area)	4Culture-soleil	8,950	Ste-Angele (and surrounding municipalities)	8Stage de formation en danse	4,505	Rimouski	4Projetourix	14,835	Rimouski	10Animation loisirs jeunesse	7,361	Price	7Logement etudiant'75	11,502	Rimouski	11La revolte des marion-nettes	5,460	Mont-Joli	7Soleil	7,970	Val Brillant	6Animation Jeunesse II	9,680	Bic (and surrounding municipalities)	8Jardinets agro-ecole	8,294	Rimouski	6Ete theatre'75	15,004	Rimouski	11Video Communautaire	17,185	Mont-Joli and Rimouski	12
November 27, 1975


Mr. Fortin: 1.	Among the 120 persons earning $17,000 or more at Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, do some have French as their mother tongue and, if not, does the Corporation intend to correct this situation and, if so, in what way?
2.	What is the policy of the Corporation respecting (a) bilingualism (b) the recruiting of French Canadians?
3.	What are the total assets of the Corporation in (a) Ontario (b) Quebec?
4.	How many employees are working in (a) Ontario (b) Quebec?
5.	Does the Corporation intend to establish research laboratories in Quebec and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows: 1. Yes.
2.	(a) AECL applies in its internal administrative procedures the federal government's official languages policy as set out in the resolution adopted by parliament in June, 1973. (b) AECL has no specific policy for recruiting French Canadians. Vacancies are filled with the best-qualified Canadians available. Advertisements are carried in Quebec newspapers and visits to major Quebec universities are part of AECL's annual recruiting campaign for new graduates. AECL has not in the past attracted as many French Canadians as it would have liked, due largely it is believed to the reluctance of many to work at AECL locations in Ontario and Manitoba. However, more are now joining AECL with the establishment of a large Montreal office and the La Prade heavy water plant.
3.	(a) $88,947,234; (b) $120,548,748.
4.	(a) 4,312; (b) 77.
5.	AECL has no plans at present to establish additional research laboratories in Quebec or in any other province. There has been no expansion of the AECL research and development staff for several years and existing sites are considered adequate for present programs.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 3,524?


Mr. Stanbury: What response, if any, has the Prime Minister received to his invitation to the leaders of opposition parties to discuss the desirability of legislation to deal with national emergencies without the necessity of recourse to the War Measures Act?


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: No response has been received from the leaders of opposition parties.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, no response has been received to what invitation from the Prime Minister?


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I was replying to question No. 3,524 which reads as follows:
What response, if any, has the Prime Minister received to his invitation to the leaders of opposition parties to discuss the desirability of legislation to deal with national emergencies without the necessity of recourse to the War Measures Act?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I have received no invitation from the Prime Minister to have any discussion since the days when the War Measures Act was invoked, at which time I had many discussions with the then minister of justice regarding a temporary bill which was introduced and proceeded a certain distance. I insist, as a matter of privilege, that I received no invitation from the Prime Minister to have any discussions with him or with any member of his cabinet about the desirability of the measure referred to in this question.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. Since the question referred to opposition parties, in the plural, I should like to make it clear, also, that I have not received any such invitation.


An hon. Member:: Give us the right answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This matter has been raised as a question of privilege by the hon. Leader of the Opposition, with some supporting comment by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby who is, of course, also an opposition House leader in that sense. Both hon. members have raised objections about the content of the answer, for the reason given, in that since the answer indicates that no response has been received to an invitation, an invitation in fact is implied. Both hon. members indicated that no such invitation had been forthcoming. In any case, both hon. members have made comments that would indicate some criticism of the content of the answer given, and a criticism in that form may be extremely valid.


An hon. Member:: Yes, it certainly is.


Mr. Speaker:: However, as is well known, this does not constitute a question of privilege.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I had a number of questions on the order paper last session regarding CIDA. As a result of conversations with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I deleted the approximately 80 questions in order that I might have answered some ten of my own choosing. It was agreed that if I put those questions back on the order paper, they would be answered in due course. With regard to "due course", this was on October 20 and I am sure we can expect better treatment than this in the way of answers from the Secretary of State for External Affairs. If he has any problems, he can bring the files over to my office and I will be able to dig out the material.
9510

November 27, 1975
Anti-Inflation Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, November 25, consideration of Bill C-73, to provide for the restraint of profit margins, prices, dividends and compensation in Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; and motion No. 6 (Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale)).
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it will be recalled that the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) raised a question about the recommendation which preceded this bill, in that he found some difference between the bill and the recommendation upon which it was founded. As I recall, sir, you indicated that to some extent at least you shared his views. I have now obtained a revised recommendation from His Excellency the Governor General for Bill C-73.
There has been discussion among representatives of the parties and I understand there would be agreement to the procedure that this revised recommendation should be substituted for the original recommendation and printed in today's Votes and Proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The proposal put by the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) has been heard. There is an indication that there may be agreement to it. Is that the case?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Generally there is agreement, Mr. Speaker, although I still have some very grave complaints as to the form as a whole. Without wanting to begin taking it apart, and I am not going to insist upon any change at this time which might block our progress and require a ruling, there is one last point that does concern me. With all due respect to the government House leader, I do not think the final phrase "or as provided in the said measure" covers the difficulty I raised in respect of section 26(2).
Mr. Speaker was to look at this matter to determine whether the change proposed by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) had met my original objection, in respect of which His Honour had indicated some agreement. On a contingency basis there could be grave difficulty. However, in order to set aside, or to put at rest this unhappy interlude regarding these recommendations, I am quite prepared to say, on behalf of this party, that this is all right for now, but we surely must have some discussions and arrive at a much better formula for the resolution stage of a bill.
I might also say that I, personally, have some hesitation about the present practice of obtaining revised recommendations. It has become a purely clerical function, and it seems to me these recommendations should have a little more authenticity than that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think an accommodation has been reached in so far as this piece of legislation is concerned, but I should also like to

support the suggestion of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), that there might be further discussions about the form of Governor General's recommendations. At this point the hori. member for Edmonton West and I may part. I gather he would like to have the recommendation couched in language that is full of all the details in the bill. I would like to see it go the other way. Maybe that is because I remember the days decades ago when cabinet ministers would stand over there and say, "His Excellency the Governor General, having been made aware of the subject matter of this bill, is pleased to approve the same and recommends it to the consideration of the House."
I wonder what value there is to an exercise of having some clerical operation produce a long Governor General's recommendation which is changed every time we change the bill. I think a little reading of the history of this device going back 300 or 400 years to how money bills came from the Crown, and so on, would produce the solution I suggest, namely, a much shorter and more generalized recommendation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The discussions, of course, about the relationship between the recommendation and the bill and subsequent powers or restrictions to amending powers is a most interesting one. Indeed, frankly it is not altogether clear in the relationship between the recommendation and the bill. There is, of course, the countervailing difficulty that the more general the recommendation becomes, the more it is possible to argue that it then becomes applicable to every provision of the bill and not just to the financial provisions of the bill, and therefore every amendment would have to carry in it the direct recommendation. In any case, it is an interesting discussion which could carry us away, I am sure, all afternoon, and this is not the desire of hon. members.
It appears at the moment that an accommodation has been reached. The amended recommendation, if I understand it correctly without reading it in every detail, is the same as it was except for the addition of the wording at the end, "or as provided in the said measure", which relates to the expiry date of the bill. That would seem to me, at first reading in any case, to cover the specific instances that have already been argued and discussed and to which the House has already directed its attention. Is there unanimous consent to receive the recommendation?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It would appear, that having been done, that the bill can proceed. We were in the process of resuming debate on motion No. 6. However, before doing so may I simply clear up two areas of discussion. The first is that as a package it was agreed that motions Nos. 3, 4 and 5 would be discussed. When the discussion on those three motions had finished, evidently the vote on motion No. 5 was put without there first having been put an amendment which was moved by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).
In order to clarify the situation, before going on to a recorded vote in that circumstance, obviously the amendment of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre, never
November 27, 1975

really having been put to the House, will have to be put. Perhaps the preferable arrangement would be to put that question forthwith.
There is another problem, which is the grouping of those three amendments for the vote. It may be recalled that it was suggested initially by the Chairman that a vote on motion No. 4 ought to be taken first. In respect of motion No. 5, it now appears, after discussion, that a vote on No. 4 ought to be taken and, depending on the outcome, it may have an effect on the necessity for a vote on motions No. 3 and No. 5. Hon. members having considered that matter, are we now able to agree that we should first call the deferred vote on motion No. 2, then follow with a vote on motion No. 4 and, depending on the outcome of that, see whether a vote is necessary on either No. 3 or No. 5? In any case, may I have the agreement of the House at this time that after the vote on motion No. 2 we can take a vote on motion No. 4 and see where that leaves us? Is that agreed?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker. I think it is quite clear that there is to be a vote on motion No. 2, that there will be a vote on motion No. 4 and, depending on the result, it might eliminate a vote on No. 3. If No. 4 does not pass, obviously No. 3 falls to the ground. In any event, No.
5,	which is a proposal of the government, must be voted on separately as it does not depend on the result of the vote on No. 3 or No. 4 in any way.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the only part of this discussion which concerns me is the suggestion that a vote had not been ordered on the amendment to motion No. 5. My understanding is that that question was put, and in fact was put twice, that five or six members stood one time and that eight or nine members stood the other time, and that a deferred vote on the amendment to motion No. 5 has been ordered. What, of course, has not been ordered is a deferred vote on motion No. 5 itself, nor could there be until the amendment had been disposed of.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed and understood?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Debate is resumed on motion No. 6.


Mr. Nystrom:: Mr. Speaker, it may come as a great shock to the minister, but we have decided to support motion No.
6.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: What have I done wrong?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We are not back in bed again, as an hon. member suggests-far from it. We support it for one reason. If, after the expiry of the act, any investigation or prosecution is under way, it would naturally continue and the administrator, chairmen, and so on, would continue in their various positions until the particular investigation came to an end. Because we feel there might be one chance out of a hundred that they will prosecute one of the corporations, we will agree to this motion. We do not feel
Anti-Inflation Act
very enthusiastic about it, because we do not feel they are really very serious about tackling anything when it comes to price controls or dividends. We feel that the people in charge of the board, Jean-Luc Pepin, Mrs. Plumptre and others, are as unlikely to take a tough line on corporate profits, and so on, as it would be for the Happy Hooker to be in charge of the vice squad.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, all the backbenchers in the Liberal party have awakened, including a Conservative who has defected to that side. As soon as I mention the name of a famous person, they wake up. I want to make sure that we are on record as being in support of this motion. If any investigation should be under way against any "poor little" corporation such as the CPR, Safeways, and so on, then that investigation could continue until completed. For that reason, we support this motion and will be fighting to make sure that any investigation under way is carried out to its final fulfilment and prosecution, so that if there is any possibility that such people could be found guilty then the penalties will be applied with the full force of the law.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Is the
House ready for the question?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) rather jumped the gun, because the other night when we adjourned the debate I had the floor and moved to adjourn the debate. At that time there was a procedural defect in respect of the recommendation. Motion No. 6 depended on clause 46(2) which was then deficient. That now having been cleared up, there is no difficulty and we, too, support in principle motion No. 6.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: The
question is on motion No. 6. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale)) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. Pursuant to an order of the House made on Tuesday, November 25, 1975, the House will now proceed to the taking of deferred divisions in respect of several motions to amend Bill C-73. Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: 
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost. The question, therefore, is on motion No. 5 in the name of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried. Motion No. 5 (Mr. Macdonald (Rosedale)) agreed to.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: that the bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? The bill can only be read the third time, of course, with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There not being unanimous consent, the bill cannot be read the third time at this sitting.

Grain Stabilization



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
November 27, 1975

Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation-Suggestion corporation not select lawyers for mortgagors-Government position; the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Air Canada-Lack of support for five employees charged with criminal offence-Bonding of employees; the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie)-Government organization-Suggested study of structure and expenditures to promote efficiency and reduce expenditures.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-41, respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There being two motions, No. 1 and No. 2, at this point of the report stage of Bill C-41, both standing in the name of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), is it agreed that they be grouped for the purpose of debate?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-41, an act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 33 to 35 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"comes a full participant may, by".
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-41, an act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 14 and 15 at page 5 thereof and renumbering the following subsections accordingly.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased there is so much interest in the grain stabilization bill. I hope the House will remain full and that I will have everyone's undivided attention.


An hon. Member:: You just lost it.


Walter David Baker: You are lucky to have a quorum.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: This is ridiculous.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: The purpose of amendments Nos. 1 and 2-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. Perhaps hon. members would have their conversations behind the curtains.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, now that you can hear me, I hope, I should like to say that I and my colleagues have taken the position that this legislation is still totally inadequate for the protection of farm income in respect of the production of grain. We feel the legislation is inadequate and its effect is uncertain, particularly the provision which automatically includes all grain producers and the one which allows them to opt out once and come back in, but then to remain in. The purpose of these two amendments is to allow grain producers to opt out of the program at any time and for any number of times. It will allow them to opt out and to opt back in again at their choosing.
This is an unusual amendment to be coming from a member of a socialist party which stands for universal programs in order to maximize the benefits of those programs. They might be called free enterprise amendments, but that is not why I am proud of them. I am convinced this program would prove to be inadequate. Even if it turns out that I am wrong, because of the many uncertainties it would seem to me that for at least the first few years of the program grain producers should have maximum flexibility, being able to opt in and opt out any number of times.
I suspect that the minister will say that this would create a great many administrative difficulties. However, if this grain stabilization measure is as good as the minister thinks and says it is, then I imagine he would have very little fear of any significant number of farmers frequently opting in and out of the program. If the program is going to be as good as he claims, then I do not understand why he should worry about accepting these amendments.
I hope my friends in the official opposition will take the position that because of the uncertainties and inadequacies of the bill, this kind of freedom and flexibility should be available to every grain producer. The minister claims this program is good. I disagree with him. But if he is right, he should have no qualms about accepting these amendments.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). We discussed this matter at great length in committee and I agree with the hon. member when he suggests this legislation is inadequate and is not what the farmers want. We spent a week travelling throughout the prairie provinces, receiving briefs from farm organizations, wheat pools, farmers' unions, the Pal-liser Grain Growers and others. All the indications were
November 27, 1975

that they were not happy with the bill and, because of its complexities, could not understand it.
As a matter of fact, because of the complexities of the legislation a number of those who presented briefs did not have the opportunity of discussing the measure in detail. Almost without exception, these organizations and individuals indicated that if the legislation worked on an individual pay-out basis, rather than on the basis of a five-year average with a pay-out to the whole Wheat Board area, it might be satisfactory. I hope to have an opportunity of discussing that matter in greater detail at third reading.
In considering the amendments of the hon. member, it would seem at first blush that the individual producers should have the opportunity of opting in and out of the plan as and when they wish. If we consider this opting in and out on the basis suggested by the hon. member we can visualize a difficult situation. When there is a substantial deficit in the fund, the government is required to lend money in order to make a pay-out. If we adopted such a flexible provision, we could have a situation in which farmers, in the initial years of the plan's operation, could obtain substantial pay-outs and then opt out of the plan in good crop years.
We must remember that the fund provides for a $2 to $1 ratio. It would be fairly simple for a producer to remain in the plan for two years, for example, and receive a substantial payment. During this time the fund might get into a deficit position and would have to be replenished by the government. The interest on that money would continue to build up. A producer might be able to obtain four, five or six times the amount he had paid in and then opt out of the plan for a considerable time during good crop years. He might do this knowing that he would have to put money into the plan to help pay off the indebtedness incurred by loans from the federal government, and the interest. Under the circumstances if he were a smart businessman-and I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the farmers of the prairie provinces are vey smart and shrewd businessmen-I am certain he would opt out and say, "That is it, fellows".
Under the conditions of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre he could opt out of the plan for a long enough period that the indebtedness to the government would be paid off, and then he would simply opt into the plan and take advantage of it. So under these circumstances, personally I cannot support the amendment of the hon. member.


Mr. Towers:: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that the government always has difficulty administering the business of the House especially in respect of agriculture. Yesterday afternoon we had the Department of Agriculture estimates before the committee, and then the government brought on the feed bill, Bill S-10. The committee proceedings had to be cut short in order that the minister could return to the House, and some of us from this side of the House had to be leave the committee prior to its adjournment in order to participate in the debate that was taking place in the House. The same thing has occurred this afternoon.
Grain Stabilization
I do not think we should continue to forgive the government for not being able to administer the business of the House in a better manner. This afternoon we were asked to participate in the discussion on Bill C-41. This evening the agricultural committee will be meeting. In the estimates that are to be studied by the committee we find there are estimates pertaining to the bill we are discussing at the present time. It would seem to me that this is grossly unfair. It is not fair to those participating in this debate, or to those who are involved in the committee proceedings.
Either the discussion on this bill should be adjourned at 5.30 or the committee meeting that is scheduled to take place should be adjourned. We cannot deal with these matters adequately when we are separated. Those of us who remain in this House to debate this bill will not know what is taking place in the committee, and vice-versa those members who will be attending the committee to study the estimates will not know what is taking place in the House. I would hope the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board would have enough influence on the House leader to differentiate between these two so that the two proceedings could be separated.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I, too, rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to protest to the minister, the government whip, and anybody else who might be listening. We are dealing with supply estimates in the agricultural committee. All the members of the committee are involved in that. We are in midst of asking the minister questions on a number of items in respect of the supplementary estimates, while at the same time many of us are also involved with Bill C-41. I agree completely with the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) and would hope that some arrangement could be made either to adjourn the meeting this evening of the agricultural committee or to adjourn the debate on this bill in the House.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. I agree that there is some inconvenience, but the fact is that a number of agricultural bills have been pending during this session and we are proceeding with these bills as expeditiously as we can. The question of dealing with Bill C-41 this evening rose from the fact that there had to be an amendment to the royal recommendation in respect of Bill C-73, and therefore the members of the New Democratic Party did not give consent to deal with third reading at this particular stage, as is their right.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: If you are looking for co-operation you should be careful.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The government House leader through the usual channels made arrangements with the other House leaders for the House to deal with Bill C-41 at this time. I realize that this creates an inconvenience because of the conflict between the agricultural committee and Bill C-41, but I merely call to the attention of the hon. gentlemen that all committees are sitting at this time dealing with estimates and other legislation referred to them by the House. Unfortunately most of the matters we might be dealing with in the House would conflict with the business being carried on in the committees. I thought the hon. member who is interested in agriculture would be interested as well in disposing of the legislation before the House.

November 27, 1975
Air Canada


Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, those of us who have been around here for a little while think it is almost mandatory first that we do not allow committee meetings to continue at the same time the House is in session, and second, that a bill should never be brought in dealing with a subject on which the committee is sitting so that two meetings would be held simultaneously.
I am simply saying to the House leader and the representatives of the government that if it was considered that high priority had to be given to Bill C-41 in the House, then it would only be courtesy to go to the chairman of the agricultural committee and say that under the circumstances, being caught in this type of situation, the agricultural committee meetings should be postponed.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the agricultural committee, as well as the steering committee, are completely free to do what they wish. It is their prerogative to have sittings as they wish or not. I suggest that the recommendation of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) should be made to the chairman and the members of that committee.


James Aloysius McGrath: You are in charge of the business of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Five thirty.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the parliamentary secretary realizes that the estimates that are before the agricultural committee contain a specific sum of, I believe, $300,000 of $350,000 pertaining to this particular bill. It is important that we be here in the House in order to speak on the bill at the same time when the estimates are before the committee. It is a little different situation than if the estimates were not before the committee. I would ask the parliamentary secretary to make some arrangements with the chairman of the agricultural committee to cancel tonight's meeting.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner (London East)):: Order, please. Pursuant to order made on Wednesday, November 5, it being five o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, November 13, consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of correspondence and agreements between Sunset Crest Ltd., now a subsidiary of the Barbados Shipping and Trading Co., and any employee of Air Canada or its subsidiaries.
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, on November 13,1 was speaking on the motion for the production of papers presented by the hon. member for Vegreville, and in particular the correspondence and agreements between Sunset Crest Ltd. and any employee of Air Canada or its subsidiaries. I had not quite finished my remarks and would like to continue.
I had pointed out, among other things, that Air Canada is a large corporation which, over the years, has been a credit to Canada, and for over 20 years has required no subsidies from the public purse. The company is not asking the government for a penny of financial assistance, quite unlike larger national airlines of some other countries. Its deficit last year was very much smaller than many of its competitors, and the government has not been asked to pay this loss. In 1975, a year of falling traffic due to general economic depression and rising costs due to fuel prices, et cetera, the employees of the company are, I believe, trying to achieve a break even position for the company, against great odds. I do not know whether their objective will be achieved, but I am satisfied that they are cutting costs and developing sales with a view to improving the financial position of the company.
There are staff problems in all companies, private and public, in Canada and other parts of the world. These are solved by the companies' management as they arise, and Air Canada cannot be expected to act differently. There are resignations, dismissals and disciplinary actions in all companies, including Air Canada, and to single out Air Canada for ridicule when these things happen at any level-blue collar, management or executive-is unfair to all those dedicated and hardworking employees who have built their airline to a level of prosperity and service to the nation of which all Canadians can well be proud.
Whatever may come out of the Air Canada inquiry on financial controls and other areas of concern, I want to make one point crystal clear, and that is that the great majority of the employees of Air Canada at all levels- management, executive and other classes-are operating an airline with efficiency, integrity and loyalty and have thereby developed Air Canada to a point where it can earn its place as one of the great airlines of the world, with an operating efficiency which has proved to be comparable with the better run airlines of any nation.
The government has come to realize that the characteristics of the airline business have changed significantly since 1937 when the present Air Canada Act was first brought before this House, and that Air Canada has grown to a level which requires some changes in the present Air Canada Act. I think the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) will be presenting to this House for consideration his proposals to permit Air Canada more flexibility to deal with new business trends, and allow the company to compete more effectively, especially in the international airline market.

November 27, 1975

Hon. members should be provided with ample opportunity to discuss in some detail the matters involving Air Canada, including ventures such as the Sunset Crest Limited transaction, both when the Minister of Transport puts forward his proposal for amendment to the Air Canada Act and when the Air Canada inquiry report is presented to the House.
I should again like to stress a point I made when taking part in a similar debate on a motion for production of papers earlier in the session. That point is that all hon. members would like to see as much information made available as could be made available. In this regard we on this side of the House are faced with the same limitation as those across the way, and as our duties and obligations to those we represent are similar, we share the same frustration when unable to obtain a certain document or piece of information which we may deem pertinent in carrying out these duties.
During this session I have had the opportunity of serving on the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. This experience has left me with an appreciation of both the importance and the complexity of the issue of accessibility to government information.
While I am sympathetic to the objective of greater accessibility to information and less secrecy in government, at the same time I recognize that free and unlimited access to all information and documents is impossible, or certainly unwise. Similarly, I find the guidelines which indicate several categories of restrictions for the production of government papers and documents too general and far reaching, but at the same time I concede that their introduction was a very considerable step forward in that they underline the acceptance of the principle that the government has to justify its withholding of facts, and they also provide a focus for constructive criticism and suggestions for a greater flow of information.
I thank the hon. member for presenting his motion, which provided an opportunity to discuss the subject of availability of government information in general, and in particular information pertaining to Air Canada transactions. However, I am unable to agree with his motion.


Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege for me to take part in this debate on production of papers and to follow the hon. member for Toronto-Lake-shore (Mr. Robinson). I can assure the hon. member that my view is quite polarized from his, and I hope that my contribution in this debate will change his mind. Unlike his, it is my belief that Air Canada can be expected to act differently. It has to act differently as a national airline if we are to set conditions, a pace, and a standard of behaviour for other corporate activities in Canada.
I remind this House that this Crown corporation, Air Canada, and its subsidiaries have advantages which are a businessman's dream. Air Canada has the highest occupancy rate in the airline business, which is literally a licence to print money in that industry. It has a monopoly position with its choice of routes, and it has access to all government boards and agencies. It has unlimited money available at the government's cost of money, and the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore in his address in this
Air Canada
debate last November 13 proudly pointed out that it has not been necessary for over two decades for public money to subsidize Air Canada. However, that money is available and has been available pretty well on an unlimited basis at a cost of money available to no other organization in Canada.
Air Canada has an insider track on other government agencies' activities which allows it to eliminate or control its Canadian and offshore competition.
However, to be completely fair, one must acknowledge that Air Canada also faces certain disadvantages. It has inherited the disease of its present owner in that for each $100 of revenue the CNR has to spend between $100 and $101 to earn it, whereas its major competitor, which has an incentive factor built in and which has to answer to taxpaying shareholders, spends $90 to earn $100 of revenue.
This apathy for want of an incentive and a need to be accountable to taxpaying shareholders has obviously spilled over into Air Canada attitudes and management. Air Canada does not pay its taxes; it only accrues them. It currently owes an amount in excess of $29 million, which is down from the $34 million it owed, according to last year's estimate, as a result of last year's loss.
Air Canada does not pay the interest due on the moneys which have been lent to it by the government. It accrues this interest, and has accrued some $55 million in interest. It does not return or retire its borrowings, as normal corporations have to do in a free enterprise economy. Along with these unfortunate business practices, it is overstaffed with 25 per cent too many people.
The situation in Air Canada is now an acknowledged disgrace, and if the government will allow the opposition to assist in cleaning out the rot and questionable practices which exist within its corporate structure, perhaps we can then get our national airline flying with the measure of pride its employees and the people of Canada once held for it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: This now leads me to the secrecy and cover up attitude which exists in all things around Air Canada, new airport construction, and the management involved. In a review of this debate I note that the hon. member for Fort William (Mr. McRae) stated the following: "There is always danger of secrecy overcoming governments when there is very little to be secret about". He goes on to suggest that we should wait for the Estey report to be tabled in this House.
If there is very little to be secret about on a matter surrounding this request for papers, all I can say is that either the hon. member for Fort William has been sleeping through the events disclosed in this House and by the press over the last few months, or he sits in an environment which separates his view of right and wrong from hon. members on this side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: In regard to the comments of the hon. member about the Estey report, I remind him that the French version of the report could have been turned in with the English version if the government had given the

November 27, 1975
Air Canada
nod to Mr. Justice Estey. I can only conclude that the weeks we have been waiting for the French version of the Estey report are nothing more than stonewalling tactics and desperate attempts to delay the truth. I noted in the Globe and Mail of July 25, 1975, that Mr. Gordon Henderson, the lawyer representing Air Canada before the Estey inquiry, stated that not one iota of evidence was brought forward as to personal dishonesty of airline officials. If that is the case, Mr. Speaker, by producing the papers requested by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazan-kowski) a lot of House time can be saved, and we in the opposition can get on with other matters needing examination, like events surrounding the design and building of Mirabel.
My problem is the series of continuing disclosures that have been made since that lofty and proud statement of defence at the Estey inquiry. For example, consider the interference of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) in the selection of the L-1011, and the surrounding suspicions of pay-offs.
Second, there is the matter of an option of $100 million worth of sugar, apparently acquired by Air Canada employees and associates when technical aviation negotiations were going on with Haiti, Martinique, Guadeloupe and Jamaica, all, by coincidence, sugar-producing countries.


Walter David Baker: Who has the sweet tooth?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: We now have information from an informed source to suspect that the profits on this sugar option are sizable, approximating this year's Air Canada loss, and that this money is now being moved into Canada for a seven way split. If this information is accurate, then this matter should be investigated carefully and thoroughly. If the minister has information on this transaction and money, he ought to bring it forward.
I hope hon. members opposite will pardon our continued interest if the company set up for this sugar deal just happens to have the same address as that of the lawyer for Sunset Crest Ltd., the subject company of this motion to produce papers.


Walter David Baker: He must have a sweet tooth.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Is it just an accident, or coincidence, that the Air Canada vice-president who resigned over the $100,000 McGregor travel agency matter that triggered the Estey inquiry just happened to find a job with J. W. Lawson Travel Ltd., which is a subsidiary of Thomcor, a related company of Warnock Hersey Ltd., the chairman of which is Peter N. Thomson, a well known Liberal fund raiser and friend of the government?
As if this is not enough, this organization purchased Sky Shops Ltd. from its former owners, making available sizable capital gains to other friends, particularly a Liberal senator who also is a well known Liberal contact and fund raiser.


An hon. Member:: Prove it.


An hon. Member:: This is beginning to smell.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Then we should consider another subsidiary of Air Canada known as Venturex. The company is involved in a $1 million deal with Sunset Crest properties in Barbados from which the company rented accommodation for tourists using Air Canada. Apparently Venturex had more power to spend money than did the airline itself. The airline issued its authority for expenditure on the Sunset Crest deal only after several $80,000 payments had been made.
This company affiliated with Air Canada, Venturex, about which the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson) suggested we should not ask questions as the secrecy is justified, has been accused of Mickey Mouse accounting practices in order to cover up a $1,134,000 Air Canada loss on charters. Apparently those on the government side think the opposition is not supposed to question such matters.
These few examples in my opinion clearly illustrate the need for the production of the Sunset Crest papers but, more than that, lead us to the whole question of ministerial behaviour and performance in the management and care of taxpayers' money in all matters pertaining to the operation of our national airline and the construction and operation of our nation's airports. One can only conclude that the secrecy surrounding matters pertaining to the Ministry of Transport and its air transportation responsibilities are a cover-up. As long as this stonewalling operation continues the government will be suspect, and can rest assured that the opposition, with the help of concerned Canadians, will work tirelessly to expose abuses within the ministry and higher echelons of Air Canada.
If we are to have a new Air Canada chairman, I urge the minister to get all this crud out into the open so that the new Air Canada board can get on with a new and proud future for the airline of which we were once so proud.
May I also request consideration for a complete overhaul of the format of Air Canada's annual report which, when compared with the annual reports of other airlines, is in itself a sort of secret document, the secrecy arising by way of omission. I urge hon. members to examine the Air Canada report. It is full of coloured pictures, a few graphs, looks big because it is in two languages, but contains few facts. Actually it contains little or nothing of interest to hon. members of the House or to members of the public who wish to study the airline's performance.
One cannot help thinking that the airline's performance will not stand scrutiny, that the airline cannot stand competition, that it needs the government's protection for survival and cannot compete in a normal way in the hard hitting market place. As I read this, I weep. Look at the reports of other airlines, private or nationally owned, and you will find page after page of solid, analytical matter which anyone in the world, any competitor, can study and compare as a key to performance. But it is not so with Air Canada.


An hon. Member:: To which airline are you referring?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Take almost any other airline in the world, Lufthansa, or KLM, the Royal Dutch national airline. You will find their reports contain page after page of
November 27, 1975

solid, analytical documentation. If you really want to see how a state-owned airline is run, look at the annual report of British Airways. It contains 134 pages of analytical data, which any other airline or competitor in the world can study, compare, analyse. The report shows where the airline is performing well, and where it is not performing so well. There is an addendum of 34 pages which gives you all the meat you want. But you will not learn anything about Air Canada's performance if you read its glossy annual report, this secret document which omits so much.
I plead with the minister to be concerned and to show some interest in Air Canada's annual statement. I urge all members of the House on both sides to support this important motion asking for the production of papers and so remove the stigma arising from secrecy surrounding the department's air transport responsibilities.


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I represent the constituency of Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe and represent, I suggest, more Air Canada pilots and operating personnel than any other member of this House. While it is good to debate the affairs of Crown corporations, make hard hitting statements, and to analyse carefully the operations of organizations like Air Canada, I do not want it to be thought, and I put this on record, that criticism should be directed toward either Air Canada pilots or operational crews.


Walter David Baker: It is not.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Except when they take off with fires in the cabin.


William Ross Milne: I associate with people who travel a great deal and use a number of airlines. I challenge any member of the House to say that any other airline is as competent or has the confidence of the people who travel with it more than Air Canada has. This is hard earned respect; they have worked for it. It has come to them through good training facilities and good personnel discipline. I am proud of those of my constituents who work for Air Canada, and I am proud of Air Canada.
I want to take issue with a previous speaker who, when talking about the airline business in Canada, made comparisons between Air Canada and some private carriers. Perhaps he forgets that when Air Canada was formed in the thirties, the original purpose of the company was to establish a basic air service across Canada even where there was not a substantial amount of profit. It was not just designed to serve the lucrative routes. I suggest that those private airlines that are doing so well would have to spread their services thinly if they were asked to compete on all the routes that Air Canada serves. This is not to say that there are not perhaps problems within Air Canada, or no deep seated concerns expressed by some of their own employees. The report that will be tabled in the House in the near future will bring some of those problems to light. I hope the government will move quickly to deal with them, and I am confident that it will.
I have toured many of Air Canada's facilities for training pilots, and maintenance facilities across Canada. I
Air Canada
doubt that any airline in the country has a better operating record.
The financial aspect has been mentioned. I understand that Mr. Estey's report will deal with that. That inquiry was set up primarily to look into that area.
From my reading of Canada's airline industry I would say that Air Canada has gone through the generation change of aircraft perhaps better than many other airlines. Some United States airlines are mothballing planes, or selling planes at fire sale prices just to get them off their books. Even though Air Canada has incurred a loss during the last year the company still compares well with the United States airlines.
Many of the airlines that hon. members claimed were managed efficiently went over to wide-bodied planes, and then found that they had completely misjudged the market. As a result they had a tremendous over-capacity in their fleets and some nearly went bankrupt. Furthermore, there was a severe cutback in service-a cutback that we would not want Air Canada to introduce in our remote areas-or through mergers where some companies were simply put out of business.
I would ask some members who are critical of Air Canada to remember that many of the routes are not profitable. However, Air Canada provides a service to all parts of the country, and this is not the case with the private carriers. If the performance of Air Canada is compared to many United States airlines, I think Air Canada shows up rather well in terms of competent management.
A few years ago when Air Canada was hiring employees, it was regarded as a privileged occupation. Stewardesses, for instance, had to be graduate nurses and there was great restriction on who could compete for the job vacancies. Today, many more people are flying; perhaps the mystique has decreased and that has not helped the morale problems to which reference has been made.
I do not intend to go on and extol the virtues of Air Canada. I just want to say I have some very close friends and good constituents who work for Air Canada. Those people are proud of Air Canada and do their best to give Canada good air service.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should inform the House that if I recognize the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski) at this time he will be closing the debate. The hon. member is aware that, according to the Standing Order, he is allowed five minutes to close the debate.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes available to me to wrap up this debate I should like to thank hon. members for participating. The contributions from the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) and the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) were particularly distinguished, and provided food for thought for hon. members across the way. I am disappointed in a general way by the response from the government side. I would have thought that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Goo-dale) would have offered a better explanation for the refusal to provide this information than simply to re-echo the words "a proprietary nature", or "this is a subject which may be dealt with in the Estey inquiry".

November 27, 1975
Air Canada
This motion was placed on the order paper long before the Estey inquiry was called into being. There is sufficient reason to believe that its subject matter was not dealt with to any great extent in that inquiry, but how would one know? The government seems very satisfied, and is studying the report which has been in the hands of the minister for a month or so. It must either be a long report or there is a shortage of French translators. It seems to me this is a weak excuse.
We were told by the former minister of transport that there would be an internal inquiry into the subject matter of this motion. We are not sure, however, if that was carried out, or whether we will see the results if it was carried out. If it was an internal inquiry co-ordinated by the chief executive officer, who has resigned, perhaps we will never learn the background of this important matter.
The answers given in response to the request for this information are unsatisfactory and only cloud the issue. We are now told that the Estey inquiry produced two reports, one of which will be made public and one of which will remain private. I find that unusual and irregular, Mr. Speaker. It would be interesting to know at whose instigation the report was made confidential. Is it at the minister's request or Judge Estey's request? We do not have that information. What is the point of a public inquiry if the pertinent matters are not going to be made public? If the recommendations are not made public it really means that this has been nothing but a cover-up.
The events that have taken place in the last 24 hours demand that more information be provided. In the final analysis these events may have led to the resignation of the chief executive officer, and perhaps of some other people.
In this whole business of Air Canada, as with other Crown corporations, we have found the government party to the veil of secrecy. There has been far too much secrecy in the analysis of the operations of this Crown corporation, Mr. Speaker. In my view parliamentary committees have become an ineffective mechanism to review the operations of a corporation such as Air Canada. We should be reminded that the last annual report of Air Canada considered by a parliamentary committee was the 1970 annual report. That certainly is not satisfactory.
The last time officials of Air Canada appeared before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications was in November, 1973. We have seen all these shady deals and questionable actions taking place, but to this point in time we have not had the Air Canada people before a parliamentary committee to justify their actions or answer the allegations that have been levelled against them.
One has to be shocked at the government's continuing efforts to cover up information which parliament deserves, and which the public rightly deserves. In this final minute I again urge that the government heed one of the recommendations of its task force on government information, entitled "To Know and Be Known", where it is stated on page 49 that the cornerstone of a new information policy should be, and I quote:

-the government has an obligation to provide full, objective and timely information; and that the citizens have a right to such information.
This would be a perfect opportunity to show that the government is inclined to abide by that spirit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Pursuant to Section 48(2), the question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more-than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion lost. It being 6.30 p.m., pursuant to special order of the House I do now leave the chair till eight o'clock.
At 6.30 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-41, respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.
Grain Stabilization


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The question is on motion No. 1 in the name of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the nays have it. The motion is negatived on division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Benjamin) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Motion No. 2 in the
name of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the nays have it. The motion is negatived on division.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Benjamin) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Would the House agree to group together motions Nos. 3, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17, in the name of the minister, for debate and vote?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Madam Speaker, I should like to have an explanation on the record of the reason for these amendments.


An hon. Member:: Where is the minister?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, the particular motions which you have just mentioned all relate very specifically and very simply to the changing of one particular date in the legislation. When the bill was first presented to the House on December 4, 1974, it had been our hope and intention that the legislation could have been dealt with in an expeditious fashion so that we might see the bill in place and operative beginning in this particular calendar year, that is, 1975.
However, the discussion in the House and at committee stage did take longer than anticipated, and the amendments which are presented at this particular moment all relate to a rather technical change in the statute in that we substitute a date in 1976 in the places in the statute where the date referred to was 1975. It is simply a correction in

November 27, 1975
Grain Stabilization
that sense so that the bill will be realistic and rational in terms of the time in which we adopt it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam
Speaker, the explanation by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Goodale) is correct to a point. But he made the mistake of using the word expeditious, and he also made the mistake of saying that it took longer than anticipated when it was up for debate in the House on second reading and in the committee.
We are not going to oppose these amendments because they have to be included. The bill cannot be effective for 1975, and would have to be effective for 1976 if it does pass.
These amendments have to go with the bill, but I should like to remind the House that this legislation was an urgent matter in 1971, and even more urgent in 1974 because the minister had seen the light and made some changes. The government House leader and the minister in December of 1974 said that this was a bill which had priority. I would like to add a further explanation to that of the parliamentary secretary so that the House has a full explanation of these amendments.
This urgent bill was introduced on December 4, 1974, but would you believe it was not called for second reading until April 28, 1975? That was four months after it was introduced for first reading. At the committee stage the committee spent some eight or nine days on a trip out west to hold hearings in five locations in western Canada. Even if we allow three or four weeks for the Easter recess, that eliminates one month.


Ralph Goodale: You didn't even read the bill, Les, when we gave you three months to read it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It was not on the priority list, so we did not get to the bill for second reading until April 28. That was through on May 6 after a total of 28 speeches-five Liberal, six NDP, and 19 Progressive Conservatives. That could not be called a prolonged and protracted debate, because the 19 Conservatives did not have very much to say anyway.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Would you believe the committee finally got the bill to consider on June 5? According to the minister and the parliamentary secretary, this was the greatest piece of legislation since sliced bread. The committee had the bill until July 15, and that included the tour by the agricultural committee in five centres in western Canada holding hearings, which we never really did completely finish. The committee reported to the House on July 17. The House sat until July 30, as we were wrestling with the gasoline tax. We returned on October 14, and the minister has not called the bill again until today. There is September, October, and November. What is it today, the 24th?


An hon. Member:: The 27th.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. Is the hon. member speaking on a point of order, or is he speaking on motion No. 3? Just now we are on a point of order with regard to whether we accept for purposes of debate

the grouping together of motions Nos. 3, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17.


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, yes. He has been speaking on that.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We all agreed to that before I got up.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it agreed that we group together those motions for debate and vote?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Start over again, Les.


Ralph Goodale: Don't start over again, Les.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, by unanimous consent hon. members opposite want me to start all over again.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please.


Hon. Jack Cullen (for the Minister of Transport) moved:: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-41, an act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 33 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"December 31, 1976, the participant shall".
Motion No. 10.
That Bill C-41, an act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 16 by striking out line 37 at page 20 and substituting the following therefor;
"year after 1976,"
Motion No. 13.
That Bill C-41, an act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 49 by striking out line 30 at page 43 and substituting the following therefor:
"1976 after January 1 of that year and the".
Motion No. 14.
That Bill C-41, an act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 49 by striking out lines 3 to 6 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"1976 if this Act were in effect on January 1, 1976, on application to the Minister by the participant before the 15th day of January, 1977 and the payment to the".
Motion No. 15.
That Bill C-41, an act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 49 by striking out line 15 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"which the levy has been deducted for 1976."
Motion No. 16.
That Bill C-41, an act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 49 by striking out line 17 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"before August 1, 1976 by the Canadian".
Motion No. 17
That Bill C-41, an act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 49 by striking out line 24 at page 44 and substituting the following therefor:
"levy has been deducted for 1976 and no".
November 27, 1975


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: When we all shouted "Agreed" to the grouping of these motions, I presumed that was the end of the matter of grouping, but it is not the end of what I have to say.
The purport of my remarks is to the effect that the purpose of the amendments, motion No. 3 and those subsequent, is that in spite of the high priority the government has placed on this bill since December 4 of last year, and because of a lack of sympathy and co-operation from the rest of the cabinet and the House leader, the greater portion of that time since last December 4 has been taken up by the failure of the government to call the bill. I just want to make sure we have everything on the record.
What the parliamentary secretary had to say was perfectly accurate, but not quite complete or up to date, so I wanted to be helpful to him and to complete the record to show why we have these amendments which are grouped, which is in order that the bill can be effective if not useful in 1976 as it could not be in 1975.


Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, I should like to make a few remarks with respect to the comments made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Goodale). I want to make it perfectly clear that there was no attempt on the part of members on this side of the House to delay passage of the bill.
This is a very complicated piece of legislation. It required considerable study, and considerable questioning of the minister and his officials to determine the nature of the bill and the nature of the clauses. We travelled around western Canada for one week and heard presentations of briefs by a great many organizations. They said they did not understand it. I think it was important to spend a fair amount of time on the bill and we did so, trying to understand its complexities and getting the information out to our constituents.
In response to the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) who said that the 19 Progressive Conservatives did not have too much to say, I should like to stress to him that what we did say made a lot of sense.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: It did not take very long, either.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The question is on motions Nos. 3, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt these said motions. All those in favour of the motions please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.
Grain Stabilization


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion the
yeas have it.
Carried on division.
Motions Nos. 3, 10, and 13 to 17 inclusive (Mr. Lang) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The House will now consider motion No. 4.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Motion No. 4.
That Bill C-41, an act respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in clause 6 by adding immediately after line 2 at page 7, the following subclause:
"(2.1) Subsection (2) ceases to apply to a participant who, pursuant to that subsection, is deemed to continue to be a participant, when that participant again elects to participate under this act by filing a notice in writing under subsection 5(2)."


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, I just want to ask a question of the parliamentary secretary. From my reading of the bill and the motion this appears to be strictly a technical motion. I should like to know if I read it correctly.


Ralph Goodale: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's interpretation is correct. This particular addition to clause 6 of the bill is a technical measure.
Subclause 2 of clause 6 provides for the eventuality where a producer, in one of his three optional years, has decided to opt out of the legislation, and what in consequence of that happens to his levies in the stabilization fund. The clause, of course, provides that the levies paid in during the year he opted out are returned to him, and that he retains an interest in the fund for levies paid in previous years. If there is a payout from the stabilization fund in a relevant year then he may qualify to the extent that he still has an interest in the stabilization fund.
There was a bit of an anomalous situation where the producer at some later stage exercises his option to reenter the program. Despite the fact that he made the election to come in as a full time participant again in the plan, on this particular subclause technically still applied to him. It was really redundant to have that kind of provision in the bill.
All the amendment does is say that where the producer has exercised the option to re-enter the plan, then subclause 2 of clause 6 no longer applies to him in those circumstances.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: It is my understanding that a producer cannot be treated as both a deemed participant and a conditional participant at the same time-you have three classifications of participants-depending on whether or not he just opted in or opted out, or whether or not he had been in all along. Am I correct in saying he cannot be a deemed participant at the same time as being a conditional participant?

November 27, 1975
Grain Stabilization


Ralph Goodale: That was the intention of this particular amendment, Madam Speaker, so that a producer would not be in a confused situation at one particular moment. The bill provides in an orderly way for him to work his way back into the plan once he has decided to make that election. This particular clause prevents him from being in two rather inconsistent roles at the same time.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The question is on motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
Carried on division.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Lang) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: With respect to motion No. 5 there seems to be some difficulty as to the acceptability of this motion. Would the House agree to defer motion No. 5 until all the others have been dealt with? Is it agreed?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, your suggestion creates a slight difficulty. We had an unofficial huddle at 6.30 as to what we would do tonight. We hoped to finish debate tonight on motions Nos. 5, 6, and 9, even to the point of taking votes on them before the evening was over. You are asking us now to defer No. 5. This upsets the plan that had been made. Perhaps your Honour could tell the House what the problem is with motion No. 5.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It appears that motion No. 5 seems to extend the scope of deduction admissible under the bill. The Chair would like to hear arguments pro and con on this motion.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I am not an expert on the rules-I leave that to my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). This motion only intends to enshrine in the bill what is already there, namely, the criteria for cost of production. All the motion intends to do is make sure that items in the criteria for the cost of production are included in this legislation as they are in other federal and provincial legislation. That is all it does. I submit, Madam Speaker, that neither you nor I may

construe that to mean a charge on the public purse, which an opposition member-not of the cabinet-cannot move.
You will notice that the motion calls for including in the cost of production criteria, depreciation on farm machinery, equipment and buildings, and interest charges on those items, and payments made by farmers for their stabilization levies. That may not make the slightest bit of difference in the total net grain income for the entire region over which the bill has jurisdiction, in which case there would be no payout. For the years in which there is to be a payout which is contributed to by farmers as well as the treasury, however, the cost of production criteria will be the same as under the Farm Products Marketing Agencies Act and as under several provincial marketing acts, and as under some marketing boards. That is all the amendment requests. If there is any way in which one can connect this with a direct charge on the public purse I have yet to hear it explained.
The amendment was moved in committee, accepted by the chairman, debated, voted on, and never was it suggested that it was out of order. It has been on the order paper since July 23, and no one has suggested it is out of order. I conclude that since this item was not ruled out of order in committee, either by the chairman or others, and was not challenged, it is in order. I choose to believe that all committee members, including the chairman, felt the motion to be perfectly in order. I submit that it still is in order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, I looked at the bill and I understand that you object to the amendment on grounds that it increases the charge on the public purse. The point is important. Yet subclause (3) of clause 8 says:
For the purpose of paragraph (1)(a), the area gross expenses attributable to the commercial production and sale of grain by all producers for a year under review shall comprise such costs for the year as may be prescribed for the designated area in respect of . ..
The areas to be covered are then delineated. Therefore I do not see how the hon. member's proposal would tend to increase the charge on the public purse. Perhaps my hon. friend's point is well taken.


Douglas Charles Neil: Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). Although I am not expert on rules of parliamentary procedure I know that a private member cannot bring a motion which will place a charge on the public purse. The bill provides for fixed contributions to be made by the producer and the government. The government may, from time to time, pay additional amounts of money by way of loan, on which interest is to be charged. Ultimately additional funds loaned are to be repaid to the government, as well as interest levied against the producer. Consequently nothing in the amendment would impose a charge on the public purse. Therefore I submit the amendment is in order.


George Baker: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member introducing this amendment does not think his proposal will increase the charge on the public purse, or the amount of money which can be received in a pay-out year, why has he introduced it?
November 27, 1975


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Madam Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). I submit that his proposed amendment to clause 8 defines the formula which will trigger a payment. Consequently it has nothing to do with cost to the public purse. It is, after all, only a formula. That being so, I submit the amendment ought to be allowed.


Mr. Mclsaac:: Madam Speaker, it is difficult to debate this point of order without considering the point raised by the hon. member from Newfoundland.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What! You wouldn't know a bushel of wheat if one hit you in the face.


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: It is suggested that the motion has to do with a formula for triggering payments, of which $2,000 would come from the treasury and $1,000 from the producer. The proposal would therefore affect the formula governing payouts and amounts forthcoming from the treasury. I submit it would tend to increase the amount paid, or change the pattern or formula under which the payout is made.
I do not quarrel with attempts to debate the motion, but I do admit that it would entail extra charges on the public purse.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, may I speak to this point of order? It is most unfortunate that people who do not understand the bill should raise questions about it.


An hon. Member:: Were you on the committee?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Yes, he was there.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, if hon. members opposite were as experienced at growing grain as I am, and had grown as much as I have, I would be prepared to listen to them and take notice of what they say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Gordon Towers: I agree, in this instance, with the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). Sometimes I don't; this time I do. His motion, which I hope you will allow, would merely define the manner in which payouts are to be made. I agree with the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) who says this will not be a drain on the public purse. The contributor, in this case the producer, can put up to $500 per year into the fund, and the government in turn will be obligated under this bill to put in $1,000. Payments will be made out of the fund. Therefore the proposal does not involve a drain on the public purse. It merely establishes the formula on which the payment will be made, and nothing else.
It will mean that the minister and the department must include certain costs as costs of production. The minister has already agreed to this. Therefore this merely involves certain guidelines. Any person suggesting this would involve an extra drain on the public purse does not know what he is talking about. I hope you will allow this motion which deals with an important aspect of this bill.
We already feel that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) shortchanged the farming community when he brought in another farm stabilization bill. We do not want
Grain Stabilization
that to happen again. That is why we want to see certain safeguards included in governing payouts. It should be done under an established formula. I hope you will allow the motion to be put.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, an hon. member opposite asked me a question. I think the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) put his finger on the matter much better than I did. He mentioned a formula relating to cost of production. If the farmer is to put in $500, and the government's contribution to the fund is to be $1,000, the payout, in this context, will be $1,500. I do not see how that changes anything. Whatever changes parliament may decide to make, I submit that any decision regarding cost of production criteria will have no bearing on the total amount of money the treasury is to put into the grain stabilization fund. Even if you were to include the cost of keeping the wife and kids in your cost of production, that would not affect the total amount the treasury is to put into the grain stabilization fund. It will put in 4 per cent of the grain sales proceeds, and the farmers 2 per cent. I do not see how the amendment can impose a charge on the public purse.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I offer a word? I recognize that part of what I will say is not a good procedural argument; I offer it in any case.


John Edward Broadbent: That sounds like Mitchell Sharp.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: This is an historic day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: As I said earlier, certain discussions were held this evening about what would take place and without it being iron clad, there was general agreement among representatives of the parties that we try to get past motion No. 9 tonight, and have votes on Nos. 5, 6 and 9.
It does throw things out a bit if No. 5 is not even accepted. I couple that with the fact, as has been reported to Your Honour, that motion No. 5 was presented to the committee, debated, and voted on. There was no challenge there to its procedural admissibility. I therefore suggest that, if Your Honour finds it is a borderline case, you might consider the fact that it had been planned to have this motion brought to a conclusion tonight, along with a couple of others.


Mr. Hamilton (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Madam Speaker, the arguments you have heard on motion No. 5 point out one of the basic faults with the bill in that it is complicated beyond the understanding of most farmers and most members of parliament. Motion No. 5 tends to change the very complicated formula in a very realistic way. That formula is only used in the act to trigger a payment. It in no way affects the size of the payment.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Madam Speaker, I know the difficulties you are under, but I think the point made by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) was correct. This amendment in no way affects what is in the statute as the maximum contributions for

November 27, 1975
Grain Stabilization
the farmers are set out, and the maximums for the government are set out. This is simply a device to trigger off the payment on a different set of criteria. In no way can it be said that this affects the balance of ways and means of the Queen's money in this instance.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: I thank hon. members for their contribution. Maybe the best solution would be to let the House decide. I will put the motion to the House.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Motion No. 5.
That Bill C-41, respecting the stabilization of net proceeds from the production and sale of western grain and to amend certain statutes in consequence thereof, be amended in Clause 8 by
(a)	striking out the word "and" at the end of line 19 at page 11;
(b)	replacing the period at line 22 at page 11 with a semi-colon; and
(c)	adding immediately after line 22 at page 11 the following;
"(i) depreciation on farm machinery and equipment used for grain
production or used in the farm business in respect of grain production
and transportation;
(j)	interest charges incurred in respect of the production or sale of
grain; and
(k)	producer levies in respect of this Act."


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I would hope to kiss a bow-legged bumblebee if we are ready to adopt this motion.


An hon. Member:: We are ready to vote on it.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We are, as soon as I and several others get through persuading the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) of the justice of this amendment. The amendment covers items that I have heard the minister himself say are legitimate costs of production for farm producers. If the minister reads the motion I know he will get to his feet and agree that it coincides exactly with his views on proper costs of production for agricultural producers.
The motion adds to the criteria in the bill. The new subparagraphs read:
(i)	depreciation on farm machinery and equipment used for grain production or used in the farm business in respect of grain production and transportation.
(j)	interest charges incurred in respect of the production or sale of grain; and
(k)	producer levies in respect of this Act.
I agree with the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, and it is very rare that happens, but interest payments on land is not a cost of production because land has appreciated in all years except the dirty thirties. As a rule, land appreciates in value. Interest payments on land are really part of a capital investment which will be recovered, and then some, when the land is sold. However, surely the Minister of Agriculture will agree that interest payments on farm buildings and equipment required for the production of grain is a legitimate cost of production. Those items all depreciate, and depreciate rapidly.
The Government of Canada, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald), the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen), and their predecessors, for many years have

allowed interest charges on machinery, buildings and equipment as a legitimate expense. If such an expense is not a cost of production, I have never seen one. This is already allowed in the taxation laws of Canada. Interest on machinery, equipment and buildings is allowed as an expense by several marketing boards. I am sure the Minister of Agriculture will agree that it is a legitimate cost of production. That is why I asked the Minister of Agriculture a couple of questions the other day about marketing boards and the anti-inflation bill.
If the criteria for cost of production that are enclosed in Bill C-41 are applied by the Anti-Inflation Board, farmers in the minister's area and mine will get it in the neck when it comes to restraint. There are farmers in my constituency and in that of the minister's whose payments annually for interest charges on loans for farm machinery, equipment and buildings go anywhere from several hundred dollars to $2,000 to $3,000.
The Professional Association of Accountants, federal income tax laws, several marketing boards, universities, farm management groups, and farm organizations all recognize that this is a legitimate cost of production. Why then does the minister in charge of the wheat board exclude it from this bill?
As I said earlier, I agree that interest payments on land can be excluded, but how can you exclude interest payments on machinery, equipment and buildings? The interest on a frame granary and machine shed is only about 5 per cent a year. That is not a big deal to the government. It is not a big deal to the grain stabilization board; However, it is big to the farmer making the payments.
There is a further point, the matter of depreciation. Again the income tax laws permit depreciation on machinery, equipment and buildings as a legitimate expense of production, a legitimate part of the cost of producing a bushel of grain for the six grains under this bill. That has been the law of the land since World War I. However, the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board says it cannot be allowed under this bill.
I am sure that depreciation is computed as a legitimate part of the cost of production by CEMA. Egg producers who make loans to buy equipment and put up buildings can include depreciation as a part of their production. That is legitimate, regardless of what Mrs. Plumptre might say.
Costs of production computed by the Saskatchewan Hog Marketing Commission include the cost of loans made by farmers to erect small barns and the ancillary equipment needed for them. Depreciation on buildings and equipment is a legitimate expense and legitimate part of the cost of production. However, for grain producers the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board says it is not part of the cost of production formula. Surely the Minister of Agriculture cannot agree with that. I cannot. I know that a number of farmers sitting on the opposite side of the House cannot agree with it. Why cannot we have a cost of production formula which is relatively uniform across the country? Why is there the exception for producers under this so-called grain income stabilization plan?
I wish to say a word now about the stabilization fee, the 2 per cent premium to be paid under the plan. That is the
November 27, 1975

same as a crop insurance premium, the same as other insurance premiums, sickness and accident insurance premiums, car insurance and truck insurance premiums, all of which farmers are allowed to deduct as an expense under the income tax laws, all of which are included as a legitimate cost of production under CEMA and 20 or 30 other marketing boards across Canada. It is deductible. But in the bill before us it suddenly ceases to be a cost of production.
A farmer who delivers, say, $25,000 worth of grain pays 2 per cent into the fund, that is, $500. That is his premium. If he comes under a marketing board, that is considered part of his cost of production. I have yet to hear any argument from the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, from the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), or the hon. member for Battleford-Kindersley (Mr. Mclsaac) as to why this should not be a legitimate deduction, as it is under the Income Tax Act or under marketing boards for other commodities.


Ralph Goodale: It is deductible.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It does not say so in the bill, unless I have misread it. Well, if I am wrong, and the hon. member for Assiniboia is right, all I am trying to do is make doubly sure.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: In any case it is in my amendment, so passing it will not make any difference. If it is already in the bill, we shall only have added some syrup to the pie. If I am wrong, I do not mind admitting it. I just want to be extra cautious and make sure the bill is the best possible one for grain producers.
As to the other matters, it is incomprehensible to me that interest payments on machinery and buildings should suddenly cease to be an accepted cost of production under the terms of the bill before us. In particular I cannot understand why depreciation of machinery should not be a cost of production for the purpose of this bill, as it is everywhere else.
I put these questions to the hon. member for Assiniboia who is trying to pinch hit, although I understand he is not a good batter. As an old country pitcher I like to put these questions to him. I hope he will rise on behalf of the government and tell us this amendment is eminently fair, that it is not out of place, and that it will mean no extra cost to the treasury. I hope he will recognize that the amendment makes the bill conform to the accepted practice in business circles, financial circles generally, and the income tax laws, and agree to accept it without troubling the House by calling for a vote.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in favour of this amendment. I will speak in support of it because of the way the payment is triggered. The formula to which the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) referred has been prepared by bureaucrats in the Department of Agriculture and I can only describe it as a statistical wonder. It will keep Statistics Canada hiring people to go around the country and gather all the information required by the formula, one
Grain Stabilization
which comprises sections from (a) to (o). At the moment we are discussing section (b) relating to gross expenses.
As I look at the situation I see interest rates incurred by agriculture increasing dramatically in the years to come. I play with statistics a little myself from time to time, and I have examined the amount of credit outstanding in the agricultural sector today. It was difficult to come up with these figures because Statistics Canada does not collect them. However, various credit agencies gave me figures; I do not claim they are totally accurate but they are the best I could come up with.
The figures show that between 1968-72 long term credit in Canada amounted to some $2,132,000,000, intermediate credit to some $1,808,000,000, and short-term credit to around $1,933,000,000. That is a lot of money. Let us put it in terms we can understand, that is, the average debt per farmer. In 1971 it came to $12,911. It has increased substantially since that time. In 1972 it was $14,433, in 1973 it was $17,295, and in 1974 it was $18,021. That amounts to some $6,000 increase per farmer in the debt carried.
Interest charges have grown heavier not because of the increase of the debt but because interest rates have risen. Interest payments on indebtedness in Canadian agriculture in 1971 amounted to $918 per year per farmer. In a matter of three years this has risen to $1,500. It seems to me that as the cost of land and machinery increases, the loan and interest charges carried by the farmer will rise substantially.
To my mind, in order to make this formula realistic-and if anyone can understand it, statisticians should be able to-it is absolutely necessary that in future years interest charges and depreciation on farm machinery be included in the cost of production formula that will be put into the calculation of the aggregate stabilization payment to determine whether a payment to western farmers is triggered or not triggered. These are the reasons why I feel that this amendment should be supported.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, I should like to deal with the many points raised by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) and the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin).
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre suggested that three items should be included in the cost of production formula. To take the last point first, the producer levies, his argument can be disposed of rather quickly by my confirming to him formally that just as producer levies are tax deductible they are also one of the costs included in the calculation of the cost of production in this plan. Clearly under clause 8(3)(f), insurance premiums, such things as producer contributions to a crop insurance plan are included. That is clearly the intention of the legislation, so that particular concern of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre can be laid to rest rather quickly.
The second point that he mentioned, and which was alluded to by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin in more detail, was the matter of interest. As both hon. members pointed out, long-term interest, which is really investment of money in land or other things, is something that should

November 27, 1975
Grain Stabilization
not be included as a cash cost for operating expenses under the plan because it is something of quite a different nature and would not properly be included in the definition of "cost of production" in this bill.
I think the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre conceded that point; his more basic question had to do with short and medium term interest. Again I suggest to him that that particular matter is covered in the legislation in that the cost of production formula includes the cash costs associated with the production of the grains that are covered by the plan. Any of the items enumerated from paragraph (a) to (h) which involve an expenditure of money at medium or short term interest are therefore included.
If the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre wants to argue the point it may be by implication, but it is very definitely a factor that is included in the survey material that Statistics Canada will be gathering later next spring and the following year. Again medium and long-term interest, where they relate to expenditures for grain production as enumerated in paragraphs (a) to (h), are clearly covered by the bill.
The third point that the hon. member raised in speaking to the amendment is a more complicated one, and I should like to take a few moments to deal with this question of depreciation. As hon. members know, or at least as those who were on our committee in western Canada know, a great many producers raised questions concerning depreciation. There can be no doubt that if you were to ask a producer a very blunt and straightforward question about what he views to be one of this most important cost items, he will probably reply that it is depreciation. It was not very long ago that western Canadian grain producers were literally living off their depreciation. It is an item that is first and foremost on their minds. When one looks at the particular provision in the context of the grain stabilization bill, one can see that the inclusion of depreciation is not something that would enhance the protection that this bill offers western Canadian grain producers.
The first argument that I would offer in support of that is one that may be regarded as economic theory but which is valid in the sense that an expenditure made on machinery or major equipment is not so much a cash expenditure, such as an expenditure on seed, fertilizer, gas or oil- an expenditure that a farmer makes every year in the course of production-but is really a longer term investment. Granted, it is not an investment in a sense of investing in land, which is more or less permanent, but is an investment expenditure.
As I have said, and as other hon. members have indicated, the costs enumerated in this bill are cash costs associated with production in each year. So there is a theoretical difficulty in including an expenditure which, granted, farmers make, but make over the longer term; they do not make it year by year.
The question is: how do you arrive at a fair, reasonable and actuarially sound basis for taking that factor into consideration? A great deal of work has been done in investigating two questions. The first is whether it may legitimately be included in the plan; the second is that, if it is not, what are the methods whereby you can accommodate the suggestion that it should?

The first approach, I suppose, is simply to calculate a standard average figure for depreciation across the board for the prairie region and to plug that figure into the legislation at the appropriate point. The problem there is that it does not change the calculation one bit, because you would add that standard average figure year by year to the moving five year average as well as to the sixth year's specific figure. When you subtract the one figure from the other you end up with exactly the same figure as if you had not added the same factor to both sides. Put simply, five minus three is two, just as four minus two is two. The net result is the same if you add the same figure to both sides and then subtract them one from the other. You have not changed the dollar value at all. Doing this with an across the board average figure would not change the result, and thus you have not improved the protection available to producers under the bill.
The second approach, I suppose, would be to try to come up with the actual figure. Instead of finding an average that you plug in arbitrarily, you come up with the actual figure representing the expenditures made by farmers on major equipment. The difficulty there leads me back to the original theoretical point that I was making about depreciation, and that is that it is an investment expenditure, not so much a cash expenditure year by year.
When you look at the expenditures made by producers over time, they make major expenditures of this kind in their good years. For the purposes of this plan, this would be in the years when the net cash flow is the broadest. They refrain from making major investment expenditures in years when the net cash flow is narrowest. If you were to include the actual figures, you would add the additional or broader expense in the year when the net cash flow is broadest, and therefore the year when you do not need the expense; you would not add it in the year when the net cash flow is narrowest, in the year when the greater expense would justify a payment from the fund.
The real dilemma with this concept is that you add this expense in the wrong years, and you do not add it in the right years, with the net result that the flow of the plan over time is distorted, and the net protection that is available to producers may very well be reduced, not improved, by including depreciation.
For these reasons, both theoretical and practical, I would be opposed to this particular amendment which includes depreciation, which I think takes away from the actuarial soundness of the plan and makes mention of other things such as interest and producer levies which I suggest are already in the bill with the other points enumerated.
I should also like to deal with the argument raised by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin about the alleged great bureaucracy that will be involved in the grain stabilization plan, an army of bureaucrats who will be tramping across the prairies to make the plan effective. I think that is a common allegation, but it is a misconception. The fact of the matter is that it simply is not so.
There will not be a great siege by government employees descending upon the prairies to make this plan work. The Western Grain Stabilization Administration will be located in a rather small office in the city of Winnipeg. I am
November 27, 1975

told the number of permanent employees will be perhaps 12 or 15. During the start-up stages there may be some additional expense involved, but in the longer term I believe the cost of the plan will be something in the order of $300,000.
It is interesting also to look at the cost of the plan in terms of administration compared to the cost of administering provincial crop insurance plans, which some members suggest would be a better plan than this. If you take the cost of the crop insurance plans in the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba or Alberta you will find that this particular plan costs at the very most one-fifth as much as the least expensive of those plans. This plan will not be a burden upon the public treasury. It will not be a burden on the producer in terms of the administrative cost because this cost will not be borne from the fund but entirely by the federal treasury and the Government of Canada. So, in no way can it in fairness be alleged that this plan will create a bureaucratic jungle. Those suggestions simply are not true. I think the proof of the pudding will be in the eating when we see the plan in place, it is to be hoped by January 1, 1976.
I would invite hon. members to think very seriously about the arguments I have put forward particularly in respect of depreciation. I suggest the other points are also included, and I would urge that the amendment be defeated.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, I sat in on much of the discussion in the committee. I think one of the great weaknesses in this type of a plan has become apparent tonight.
I have listened over a long period to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board indicate that we were talking about stabilization of income, that it was the income that was to be stabilized, and that this would be accomplished through this levy over a period of time. In other words the money would be collected in the good years and the payout would come in the bad years.
The parliamentary secretary tonight changes all that and says that we are operating on an income insurance program rather than income stabilization, that we are using the net cash flow as against net income. He indicates that while it is always made very clear by the minister responsible for the Wheat Board that we are talking about levies and are not talking about insurance, in no way is any percentage of the level of income insured. In other words you do not get poor too fast nor do you get rich too fast.
There is nothing to say you would be insured against becoming poor in a bad year, or that you would be insured against being rich in a good year. If the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale) is confused, so am I. Either he is right or the minister responsible for the bill is right.


Ralph Goodale: We are both right.


William Arnold Peters: I would agree with him if he really had responsibility for this bill. I think we have come a long way forward from that period of three or four years ago when it was totally a stabilization bill and where there was no cost of production included in it. If he is now saying that we are to put in the levies, that this will be part of the cost of production, and that some of the other things like
Grain Stabilization
the interest charges on short-term investment for farm machinery and other short-term investments will be part of the cost of production under this legislation, then I think we have come a long way forward. But I do not think that is in the bill.
I have never seen the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), who is responsible for the wheat board, at any time change his mind. In fact once he makes up his mind, whether he is right or wrong, he never changes it. There is absolutely no flexibility in his mind. I have seen him on occasion lose a bill in this House rather than make any kind of amendment to that bill, no matter how small. He does not change his mind. However, the hon. member for Assiniboia in changing the interpretation of what we are doing really in effect has gone a long way, in my opinion, in making this a much more acceptable bill.
The problem we are having in all sectors of agriculture today is in finding out and spelling out the factors which go into making up the cost of production. We had this difficulty in respect of CEMA. There are the arguments which take place concerning the actual rise in the cost of production which goes into the product. There has been a considerable difference of opinion concerning what constitutes those particular items. In this bill a number of those cost of production items have been delineated.
In addition to that it has been suggested we include such things as the stabilization levy under this bill. If this is called an insurance premium I assume it is covered, but I am not sure what we are talking about in respect of insurance premiums. There are the premiums payable under the provincial insurance programs which also may affect parts of the grain industry that are being covered by this bill. Those are insurance premiums and will be allowed as a cost expense.
The depreciation, in my opinion, was handled very loosely by the hon. member for Assiniboia. He indicated that if income should be high the farmer would spend money on new machinery, and then following a great number of bad years, the farmer would find in another couple of good years that it would be absolutely necessary to replace all the machinery. The farmer would be replacing machinery that had run out of depreciation from an income tax point of view a number of years previously.
* (2120)
Farmers could not buy new machinery because they did not have any money. It was a very simple process. And when they did have some money one of the things they had to do was make an expenditure for modernizing the equipment necessary in their operations.
Hon. members should know that when a farmer runs out of depreciation, it usually indicates there were a number of bad years when he was not able to replace his machinery, no matter how bad it was. He could not replace it, and he could not take advantage of any deduction he might have had with regard to income tax for the simple reason that he had no income. Therefore, he had no depreciation, he could not use any depreciation, and there was also no income tax. There were many years when many farmers found themselves in that position. There are many of us who have been concerned for some time about this problem, and we would like to have the formula established in a way in

November 27, 1975
Grain Stabilization
which it could be applied not only to this piece of legislation but also to the income tax legislation, and to all the other legislation which uses these same criteria or similar criteria in establishing cost of production for a given commodity.
Our legislation has always been pretty sloppy in many ways. I can think of at least five or six different acts where a person is considered to be disabled, and the criteria for establishing disability under the Canada Pension Plan, veterans allowance, workmen's compensation in Ontario, and family benefits legislation are different in each case.
It seems to me that in setting up our cost of production and the items which go into making up cost of production we should be working very hard at getting uniform cost of production criteria which will apply to all legislation farmers may use so that they will not have great difficulty in deciding what is allowed and in which piece of legislation it may be.
The parliamentary secretary continued to talk about net cash flow versus net income, and it seems to me that in this legislation there is no relationship to net cash flow; that that was not the criterion. It also is a fact that this did not start out as a net income insurance program. This was supposed to be a stabilization of farm incomes to take out the highs and lows of fluctuation in farm income. Originally it was not at all concerned with cost of production. Now that it is changed so that the parliamentary secretary can indicate that we are interested in net cash flow, and we must also be interested in what the cost of that production might be.
The amendment before us adds one or two things which the parliamentary secretary is not sure are necessary. He indicates that others are already in the legislation. It seems to me that we are clarifying for the farmer the method of calculating net costs, and if we are able to do that I think we will be providing a service.
Much of this is already embodied in the thinking of the government, and will eventually end up as regulations, so that there should certainly be no objection to passing this amendment proposed by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) because it only amounts to clarification.
If the parliamentary secretary is right, and we are now deciding what the net cash flow will be to provide a net cash income, and that this is an insurance toward that end, then there will not be any difficulty with this amendment as regards the regulations.


Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a few comments on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). We in our party support this amendment. Anyone in the farming business will certainly agree that depreciation and interest charges are major expenses when it comes to carrying on the business of farming. The question of depreciation was raised in committee on one or two occasions, and the minister went into a rather detailed and complicated explanation, almost as complicated as the bill itself. Now I find that the parliamentary secretary has given an explanation which is more complicated than that given by the minister.


Thomas Gordon Towers: He does not even understand it.


Douglas Charles Neil: It almost makes me think that perhaps the parliamentary secretary had a hand in drafting the legislation, although perhaps if he had he would have done a better job because when it comes to interpreting some of these clauses one needs a computer mind.
I was interested in the comment made by the parliamentary secretary that this operation could be carried on by a very small number of people and would not require a large build up of bureaucrats. But if we look at the supplementary estimates which were tabled in the House as recently as November 12 we find that there is an item of some $300,000, and this does not make any provision for the levy the government would be matching. I assume this is to pay for the setting up of offices and to cover the salaries of the staff from now until March 31.
An interesting aspect arose in the committee hearings, and that was that Statistics Canada would be the body which would determine the various expenses listed under clause 8, which we are considering amending at the present time. As I recall, we were told by officials of the department that some 1,300 to 1,500 typical farmers would be visited in a very short period of time after the end of the year, and these people from Statistics Canada would take a form and gain certain information from the farmers themselves. They would be asking these farmers for details about their expenses at a time when they had not had an opportunity of preparing their income tax returns, and I suspect that they would be rather reluctant to supply these figures.
In addition, it is my understanding from the committee, and from reading the bill, that there has to be a year end inventory taken of grain on farms. I assume it would be a sampling, but if these people from Statistic Canada are going to be the people trying to determine the amount of grain in storage on the farms, I am afraid they will have a difficult time.
In committee we suggested that if the government wanted to save money, the figures it is attempting to get from the farmers with respect to expenses are already included in the farmers' annual income tax return. It would be a very simple matter to pick out the 1300 or 1500 farmers who are typical and have their income tax returns colour coded, or perhaps ask them to file earlier in the year. The figures could be extracted from the returns, plugged into a computer and then the government would have a very accurate answer, one based on the actual expenses of the farmer rather than on estimates obtained from people in Statistics Canada travelling to those 13,000 or 15,000 farmers in mid-winter.
We in this party support the amendment of the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre. We agree that the items he has included are real expenses as far as the farmer is concerned.
The parliamentary secretary has said that subparagraph (k) of the motion which reads "producer levies in respect of this act" comes within paragraph 8.(3) (f) "insurance premiums." The hon. parliamentary secretary is a lawyer like myself, and I think he would agree that we would have a difficult time explaining to a judge that these levies under a grain stabilization bill are considered insurance
November 27, 1975

premiums. There seems some doubt about it to me. I would suggest there should be an amendment to include these levies in the expense section if this is the intention. The parliamentary secretary has put it on the record, and I would assume that perhaps without an amendment the officials in the department will include this particular item as an expense.
Reference has been made to interest charges being included in the bill but I have not been able to find this. As I mentioned, the bill is very complicated. You would need a computer mind to understand it. It is possible that interest charges are included somewhere, but up to this time I have not been able to find them.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put one or two questions to the parliamentary secretary.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the hon. member does not expect that the parliamentary secretary will be allowed to answer the questions now. We are not in committee of the whole. The hon. parliamentary secretary having spoken, cannot reply to questions.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Then I will put questions to someone on the other side who could respond, whether it is the government House leader or the parliamentary secretary. If I remember correctly, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) said several times during committee hearings, and has said elsewhere publicly, that he does not consider this western farm stabilization plan to be an insurance scheme.
The hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) in his amendment has proposed premiums or levies or fees being deducted as a legitimate expense. When the parliamentary secretary was responding he said that was already covered in the bill at page 11 under clause 8. (3) (f) "insurance premiums." After listening to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board it would be my interpretation that insurance premiums would refer to fire insurance, crop insurance, insurance on buildings, and any insurance premiums of that sort.
Now we have the parliamentary secretary saying that these levies or premiums from the stabilization bill are covered by that clause. I think that is a discrepancy and I should like someone from the other side, be it a cabinet minister or the parliamentary secretary, to respond before we move from this clause.


Frank Fletcher Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words in support of this motion. Representing as I do a riding in Saskatchewan, the largest grain growing province in the country, I would hope that we would receive the co-operation of the government of Saskatchewan.
It has been said that the motion would include depreciation on farm machinery, interest charges, producer levies, etc. as a legitimate expense. Speaking for the government of Saskatchewan the minister of agriculture for that province said:
The present bill does not give adequate recognition to the need tor all inflationary factors to be taken into account. It is stated that it encompasses a principle which would be difficult to defend with other sectors of the economy. This statement is patently absurd. Every other sector of
Grain Stabilization
the Canadian economy which has any bargaining power has developed some form of defence against rising cost.
He recommended:
The costs incorporated in the calculation of net cash flow do not include depreciation and interest costs. If a stabilization program is to be meaningful, the method of costing should reflect the true cost situation of producers. In order to reflect actual costs of production an allowance should be made for depreciation, interest, and labour costs.
These are the feelings of the minister of agriculture for Saskatchewan. I think they support motion No. 5


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I was quite interested in the dissertation of the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale). He said that some years ago agricultural producers or grain farmers were literally living on depreciation. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, this Liberal government certainly looked after that with its capital gains tax. This is not happening at the present time because of the taxation policy.
He asked how we would arrive at an actuarially sound and equitable base for the figure on cost of production. I do not think you need to be a mathematician to figure that one out, with our present income tax system. It is easy to calculate the actual cost of production on the average grain farm today. All the government would have to do is consider all those parts of the expense that are deductible for tax purposes. That would be equitable and fair, but perhaps it is too simple.
The hon. member for Assiniboia said that depreciation was included in the cost of operations, but I do not see that mentioned anywhere in the bill. In that part of the legislation which refers to the cost of production, everything that is mentioned is something that is purchased. For instance, subclause (3) (b) on page 11 reads:
items purchased by producers to operate and maintain farm machinery used for grain production or used in the farm business in respect of grain production and transportation;
Subparagraph (d) of subclause (3) reads: items purchased by producers to maintain farm buildings used for grain production, but not including items purchased to maintain a home;
Depreciation is not taken into account. It is grossly unfair not to include depreciation as a cost of production, especially as under our tag system we take into account capital gains. Clearly the drafters of this legislation are guilty of omission and gross error. It's a correction that should be given consideration.
We should also consider interest rates. The hon. member for Assiniboia suggested that capital costs for farm machinery are incurred in good years. I agree to some extent, although when the equipment breaks down through no fault of the operator, he must buy new equipment, no matter when it happens. At one time a new tractor would cost several hundred dollars more than the old one, but now, in this day and age of inflation, costs rise by thousands, not hundreds of dollars.
At one time you could buy a fair-sized tractor for $15,000; now it will cost you anywhere from $35,000 to $40,000 or $45,000. Few operators have that kind of cash floating around. This means they must borrow. Goodness only knows, anyone producing anything considers the cost of

November 27, 1975
Grain Stabilization
money as sizable input cost. Inevitably the minister will need to consider the question of interest costs.
In addition, we must look at labour costs which rise each consecutive year. Anyone who wants to keep his operation efficient must consider labour costs. As time goes on, more and more producers must hire labour. Agricultural producers must compete with other segments of industry for labour. Therefore costs of labour must be taken into consideration in computing costs of production. I think the minister has overlooked this. Labour costs are increasing rapidly; therefore provision should be included in the bill, along lines suggested by us for protecting the producer.
If I may digress, let me refer hon. members to a discussion which took place in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs the other day. We were discussing commodity groups and farm marketing boards, a subject of concern to many hon. members as is evident from questions they ask in the House. Hon. members want to know how the Anti-Inflation Board, to be established under Bill C-73, will affect farm marketing boards.
Members of the committee asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) how Bill C-73 would affect the operation of the Canadian Wheat Board. He answered by saying that the minister in charge of the Wheat Board had been involved in the establishment of policy but that, otherwise, he could not answer our questions. Unfortunately the minister in charge of the Wheat Board is not present. Hopefully on third reading he will answer certain questions concerning this bill. It is important legislation, as the Canadian Wheat Board is the largest marketing board in Canada, administering more money than any other board. It is important for us to know how Bill C-73 will affect marketing boards. That question must be answered.
We must also consider payments. What bearing will Bill C-73 have on the $500.00 to be paid in as a premium, deposit,-call it what you will-to the fund? How will payouts be affected by Bill C-73? These questions must be answered before we pass this legislation. I raise this matter because in committee, when we asked the minister if premiums and payments connected with crop insurance would have any effect on the stabilization bill, he said no; then, after being corrected by a member of the department, he made an about face and said yes. Therefore before the bill passes we must hear the answers on certain aspects of the bill which concern Canadian producers.
Many producers are indifferent to this legislation as they plan to retire in five or six years and will not become involved. Nevertheless, our concerns are legitimate and should be answered. On third reading I hope the minister will deal with these matters and, hopefully, answer questions which are of utmost concern to grain producers of western Canada.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to participate in the debate on the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Regi-na-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), but was prompted to speak by the arguments put forward by the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), and the peculiar position taken by the Chair with regard to the point of order.

Basically, the situation is that for several decades farmers engaged in the volatile grain growing business in the west wanted stability of price and income. This particular bill was supposed to be the Liberal government's answer in stabilizing their income, yet we hear this type of argument that there is no difference between five minus three equals two, and four minus two equals two.
My question to the government is very simple. We are going to support this amendment because we would like to see as many farmers as possible come into this type of legislation to try to stabilize incomes. We do not think this type of legislation will bring in many farmers, but because we know the need for the stabilization of income we would like to see as many farmers as possible come in, no matter how poor the legislation.
I would like to ask the government why it is trying to stop farmers from wanting to join this program? A farmer certainly considers the costs listed in motion No. 5, the question of interest, depreciation, and the other things listed, in addition to what is in clause 8, as legitimate costs. It is easy to get these costs because we have the most efficient collector of costs in the world in the income tax branch of the Department of National Revenue.
Therefore when I hear government members stand up and say we should not accept this amendment on the ground that it is only the difference between five minus three equals two and four minus two equals two, and what you add on here you take off there, and the type of argument made by one member of our party who said it was making it more complicated than the original bill, I cannot see what the government is trying to do. Is it trying to keep farmers out of this?
I do not know who is responsible for the point of order on acceptability raised by the Chair, but if any person read the legislation, even without understanding all the complicated computerized formulas you have to understand thoroughly, it would be obvious and clear that the government's contribution was set by statute in this bill and that the farmers' contribution was set by statute in this bill. There could not be any extra charge on the government, yet we have this point of order that was raised being supported by members of the government.
Here I am, as one member of this parliament, trying to get some form of legislation on the books that gives some chance for continuous stability of income for the farmer, yet I see the actions of the government and of the members of the government party in every way that they know, trying to discourage farmers from getting into this particular type of program.
If the minister had listened to the representations we made on second reading, namely, that the bill should not be put into the standing committee but taken to the farmers to get their view before we voted on the principle, we would not be in the mess we are in today. When the minister insisted with his usual rigidity and inflexibility that we first vote on the principle and then ask the farmers, we knew that he would not change.
As I shall be pointing out, as will others on third reading, farmers do not like this type of legislation and have said so. However, we are being forced to go through this routine
November 27, 1975

we are in now of trying to amend that legislation. We are supporting this motion by the NDP on the grounds that it will add to the weight of the arguments of the government when presenting this poor bill so that more farmers will join in the program. I cannot understand why the government is opposing it at this particular time.
In conclusion I wish to suggest to the House leader that, as far as the official opposition is concerned, we would be glad to have a vote on this right away so that we can get on with it. I do not know what is coming up for tomorrow. Does the House leader have any answer? What is the business for tomorrow?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there had been some hope and I think reasonable expectation that we would be able to advance this particular piece of legislation and to have votes tonight on three of these motions. That would have given an opportunity for the House to declare itself on some of the points that have been raised here today. However, that does not seem possible unless it is agreed that we have the votes right now. I am not quite sure whether the hon. member is inviting us to have the votes now.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, I asked for clarification of the plans for tomorrow so that we would know what to do tonight.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this puts me in a rather awkward position. I had been given to understand that before we rose at ten o'clock tonight we would have been abldMo dispose of three of the motions upon which a vote is likely. That not having happened, it is not quite clear to me whether it would be reasonable for me to have those votes tomorrow. I doubt it very much. However, as far as the government side is concerned, we would be very happy to continue with this debate if we could dispose of this matter tomorrow. I have had some discussions with the other House leaders. So far I have not got agreement on that proposition. However, if the House leader of the ProgresT sive Conservative party will say that we can tomorrow finish the report stage and third reading, we will be very happy to have this bill tomorrow.


Walter David Baker: Just to be completely clear, Mr. Speaker, there is no way that I can undertake with the government House leader that we can have third reading tomorrow with respect to this bill. He has asked for an undertaking or feeling with respect to it. I think I am bound to say that to him. The question has been put by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain (Mr. Hamilton) asking for the business of the House tomorrow. I would like to know as well.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to call this particular business again tomorrow if we can get unanimous consent to continue with third reading tomorrow. That would be one thing. If we do not, we will call Bill C-20. Therefore we will first call a continuation of the debate on the report stage of Bill C-41, followed by Bill C-20.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?
Adjournment Debate


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Ten
o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my point in rising at this hour is to make the best attempt that I can to divorce an ancient and honourable provision of the law from a disgusting form of the political pork barrel.
I raised the question the other day with the Minister of State, that urbane gentleman for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson), and his reply was indistinguishable from the replies given by ministers holding his position or reporting to the House for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation ever since CMHC was formed.
The point is simple, Mr. Speaker. If you wish, or anybody else wishes to go to CMHC to use its mortgage facilities to help buy a house, you will find that the lawyer is selected for you by CMHC or that your choice is limited to a list of lawyers presented to you by the corporation. I am not enveighing against all political patronage in the political field. I think lawyers are a large and necessary part of the forces by which any one of us is elected, and most of us realize that there is a political reality-that other things being equal you go to your friends, not to your foes. So if, for example, the Department of Fisheries needs a lawyer to prosecute a case, the present stripe of the government being Liberal I would expect that the stripe of the lawyer prosecuting for the department would be Liberal. I have no quarrel with that, because government is the client and the lawyer is the choice of that client. But I would object, and I think Canadians, if they knew the practice, should object to the government choosing our lawyers when we go to get a CMHC mortgage.
I called it a disgusting form of political patronage when I asked the minister that question and received a ho-hum answer from him, though reading his heart rather than the words he put on paper I got the impression he agrees 100 per cent with me that it is a most unenviable job he has, trying to defend the practice of government appointments, Liberal government appointments in this case, though a few years ago it was Conservative appointments; I know how these things work so I can tell Your Honour exactly what happens. I say it is morally wrong, that it should not be defended by anybody and that it should be changed.
29956-SI

November 27, 1975
Adjournment Debate	[DOT]
I say again that if government appoints lawyers for its own purposes, that is one thing. But if it appoints CMHC-approved lawyers-and they will be Liberal lawyers throughout the length and breadth of Canada-and somebody goes in and says, "I have my own lawyer who does all my work for me," then CMHC will say, "No, you have to use one of these lawyers." This, to my mind, may hurt the lawyer the client proposes, because the client might perhaps say to himself, "My lawyer is not recognized somehow by the government." That is bad. It is demeaning to the profession and I do not know why the bar associations have not hollered more about it.
I do not know why more lawyers who are members of parliament are not screaming about this dirty, filthy practice. In any event I am bringing it out, and I intend to continue doing so. I will say this, in case we get some facetious, half-baked reply to the effect that the government has to be sure of the quality of the lawyers concerned-I know the lawyers chosen by the government are good ones. The people who draw up a political patronage list of lawyers make sure of that, as far as possible, because they do not wish to approve lawyers who are likely to get them into difficulties. I know they may be good lawyers, but they are not the lawyers of my choice when I go to CMHC. The private lending institutions now generally allow you to use your own lawyer.
In closing, I point out that there is a policy of insurance in most, if not all, provinces for members of the bar. If you are stuck with a bad lemon, as once in a while you will be, some protection is given either by the bar itself or its insurance. So there is no reason whatever why this ancient, very unhappy and dirty practice that has been carried on for many decades should exist any longer in this decade. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Gauthier) will have the guts and gumption to stand up, acknowledge it is wrong, and to say that "we are putting an end to it now, go to CMHC and take along your own lawyer to do your business with that Crown corporation".


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have been going over material dating as far back as June 18, 1959, to try to find some solution to the problem raised by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave). I should like to quote from a letter signed by the executive secretary to the then minister of justice, Mr. Fulton:
The policy of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and indeed, of all government departments, is that no lawyer may act both for his client and the C.M.H.C. or the department at the same time. I am sure you will readily understand the reason for this rule when you consider the conflicts of interest that could arise.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), in accordance with the responsibilities imposed upon him by his position, recommends from time to time names of legal agents across Canada who are best able to perform legal work for the Government of Canada or certain of its agencies as may be required from time to time. The present practice with respect to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation is that, with the approval of the Minister of Justice, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) from time to time provides Central Mortgage and Housing Cor-

poration with the names of legal agents who might be employed by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in various municipalities throughout Canada.
I appreciate the hon. member's point of view regarding choice of lawyer for both client and CMHC and I will bring it to the attention of my minister, who I am sure will be able to reply in much better terms than I.


AIR CANADA-LACK OF SUPPORT FOR FIVE EMPLOYEES CHARGED WITH CRIMINAL OFFENCE-BONDING OF EMPLOYEES
A. Daniel McKenzie: make matters worse their chances of finding part-time jobs to try to make ends meet were minimal. As one employee said in an interview in the Toronto Sun, "I couldn't even get a job to work part-time at a service station because I was facing charges-I had to borrow to live". Another contributing factor to the employee's dilemma is that the judicial system is a slow moving machine. If any appeals are to be made the process can drag on for months, with legal fees soaring and the employee not receiving any kind of moral or financial support from his employer, Air Canada.
I am not recounting a few isolated incidents. During question period I have repeatedly brought up the problems of morale in the finance department of Air Canada in Winnipeg. Last April, Air Canada employees went on strike at the Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris. What we have here is a breakdown of employer-employee communication.
I think it is time that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) should recognize the seriousness of this problem and try to rectify the matter. I would suggest that the minister sit down with Air Canada and union officials and discuss the immediate improvement of security at all Air Canada terminals in the world. Such a move would take away some of the onus placed on Air Canada's employees when dealing with the shipment and storage of valuables. I would suggest that some sort of insurance or bonding be made available to those employees who may find themselves in the same situation as those charged with gold theft in New York. It would be to the benefit of Air Canada management to make it possible for its employees to air their views and subsequently make Air Canada a more receptive employer.
There have also been a number of robberies. On January 27, 1975, it is reported that gold and silver bars worth more than $88,000 were stolen from mailbags at Toronto International Airport. The report also stated that police said post office investigators told them on the previous Friday that $15,877 worth of gold and silver bars were stolen from the mail January 14. The report further stated that police said investigations also revealed that some time since November 14, 1974, a $72,130 gold bar weighing 399 ounces was stolen from the mail. So, Mr. Speaker, you can see that these gold thefts at Air Canada terminals represent a very serious problem. I suggest the minister should launch an immediate investigation into the whole procedure in respect of security of such valuables at airports.
Mr. fcalph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker, following the questions put to the minister in the House by the hon. member on November 24 the Ministry of Transport has made an inquiry of Air Canada to determine the circumstances surrounding the particular situation to which the hon. member has referred at Kennedy International Airport in New York. We have received the assurance from Air Canada that the security arrangement at the Kennedy International Airport, and indeed at all other airports, continues to be entirely satisfactory and that Air Canada has no apparent reason to make alterations to a system which is and has been working effectively.
I must say that the comment raised by my hon. friend in respect of a theft at the Ottawa airport a year or so ago, or
Adjournment Debate
at least in 1974, is a particular situation I should like to check into further. However, the item of concern this evening especially relates to the situation at Kennedy International Airport.
With respect to the employees who were recently acquitted of a charge of theft on the ramp at Kennedy International airport, they were all reinstated to their former positions and paid in full for the time during which they were under suspension while awaiting a hearing of their case. As the hon. member will understand, these employees were charged under normal legal procedures by the New York port authority police. They obtained legal council, and in due course were acquitted. In no way can Air Canada be held responsible for payment of their legal fees. This was, and is, in all ordinary practice a private concern of each individual employee.
On the final point raised by the hon. member in his supplementary question to the minister on the same day, November 24, with respect to the matter of bonding, Air Canada is satisfied that all its employees are properly bonded under a blanket fidelity bond which insures Air Canada against the dishonest or fraudulent act of any employee acting alone or in collusion with others.


GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION-SUGGESTED STUDY OF STRUCTURE AND EXPENDITURES TO PROMOTE EFFICIENCY AND REDUCE EXPENDITURES
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, on October 31 I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) to consider a Glassco Commission type study of government organization, and he responded that he thought it was a constructive suggestion which he would take up with his colleagues, so tonight I have a few suggestions in support of my proposition for the consideration of the minister.
Any administrative organization needs to be examined periodically to see how it is working compared with how it is intended to work; to test the suitability of the organization adapted to changed circumstances because any organization, instead of adapting in time, tends to lag behind changing needs; and to force those involved to examine their role and test their suitability, and be self-conscious about how it really works.	[DOT]
In the case of the federal government it is now 15 years since the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefen-baker) set up the Royal Commission on Government Organization, which was called the Glassco Commission, and 13 years since that commission made its first major report. That means, I think it is safe to say, that we are probably three to five years overdue in having another look at the whole system and how it is working. Also in that time the size and the complexity of the federal public service have both multiplied, and a tremendous amount of delegated authority has been given to public servants and extended in variety and scope.
We know that at this time there is much evidence that the government proceeds like a whole series of separate empires. These empires often compete with each other. Sometimes they even conflict with each other.
These are all reasons why it is timely to consider a new look through a new appropriately guided royal commis-
299S6-5PA

November 27, 1975
Adjournment Debate
sion. What are some of the things at which we could look? I suggest the following: first, we could look at the cost of particular operations in relation to the cost of similar functions in the private sector.
Second, we could look at new approaches to accountability. The Glassco Commission tried to establish some in both the financial and personnel management fields, but the ways in which these have been adopted certainly are not working perfectly, and the demands are greater today.
Third, we should look at some important aspects of personnel function. There is a good deal of evidence that labour relations in the public service are bad.
Fourth, we need to identify obsolete and outdated functions. Unless we look at something like the government every so often, things go on for ever even if the need for them disappears.
Fifth, we need to identify functions which could be done as well or better in the private sector. The Glassco Commission tried to identify some of these, but not very much action resulted. It is worth another try.
Sixth, we need to look at the whole organization from the standpoint of the function it is supposed to perform and its performance in fact.
With so much change in growth in the public service, and so much change in the role of government and the character of the world around the government-the external environment-there are bound to be inadequacies and things which deserve another look so that we can feel our taxes are well spent.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke did make his suggestion on October 31 of this year to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald). The minister at that time indicated that the
suggestion was a constructive one which he would investigate and discuss with his colleagues.
At the present time extensive reviews are being undertaken by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) of all aspects of government operations with the objective of eliminating expenses which can be eliminated or reduced. The utmost economy is being exercised, and no doubt hon. members in this House will hear a good deal more of the consequences of that review.
The Auditor General, Mr. J. J. Macdonnell, with the full co-operation of the government, has undertaken several studies, including the report of the Independent Review Committee on the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, which was tabled in the House on April 14 of this year. In addition, the Auditor General has undertaken an extensive study in the general area of financial management and control. The government will take this opportunity to make these necessary changes in its over-all structure so as to rectify any weakness in the system which these studies may reveal.
The nature and scope of the study undertaken by the so-called Glassco commission was much broader and more extensive, and covered a substantial period of time. The government is continuing to take these matters under investigation and will undertake measures to lead to short term economies. It is reviewing the entire operation of the Auditor General, and at the end of this the government will take stock and note what further measures are required.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until 11 a.m. tomorrow.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Friday, November 28, 1975