1975-04-18

ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

['Mr. Speaker, I believe the Canadian National intends to repair the vessel, at least temporarily, to continue the service this year, but the CN is convinced that its operation is not profitable; doubtless it will have to be convinced to build a new vessel if ever we want the service to be maintained. I am quite willing to take up the matter with the CN to see if it might not be possible to maintain it.']
Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Finance, but perhaps I could defer it if he will be in the chamber later.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Cannot something be done about having ministers here when the question period starts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce-who is about the only minister present-about the auto pact.


An hon. Member:: There are at least five people on the front benches.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Would the minister be good enough to inform the House if he or his department have applied for or scheduled any meetings with their United States counterparts with respect to the auto pact.


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, discussions go on from time to time between officials of the two governments but no date has been set for any meeting between myself and my opposite number in the U.S.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell us if he intends to arrange for any top level meeting with his U.S. counterpart with respect to the auto pact and the problems we in this country are obviously facing in the auto industry.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, no meeting has been scheduled at present.


Mr. Broadbent:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if we could obtain either from the Prime Minister or the government House leader information as to whether
the Minister of Finance will be in the chamber for the question period.
[DOT] <mo)


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is in the Middle East so he will not be here for the question period. The Acting Minister of Finance is in Vancouver at the opening of the Lester B. Pearson College of the Pacific, I think it is. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion is second acting and we have the excellent parliamentary secretary, the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, who is also here.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
John Edward Broadbent: Being in a mood of profound optimism, I will address my question to the Prime Minister. It concerns the economic plan of the Minister of Finance that we are presumably going to be presented with one of these days concerning levels that the government considers acceptable for incomes, profits and so on. Will the Minister of Finance, in his forthcoming discussions with the leaders of the trade union movement make clear to them and to members of this House, preferably in advance of that, what position the government is going to take concerning profit levels in the economy? I ask this specifically because the rate of growth of profits, as documented in the most recent report of the Food Prices Review Board, increased by some 100 per cent between 1972 and 1974 and salaries and incomes in the same period increased only by about 50 per cent. Does the government plan to outline in its proposals a method of restricting profit growth and bringing it back to a much more acceptable level?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance, and other ministers engaged with him in this process of consultation and consensus seeking, are talking to various sectors of the economy and putting to them suggestions for restraint. Of course, such suggestions have been made to the employment side.


INFLATION-GOVERNMENT PLANS TO AID UNORGANIZED WORKERS TO GET APPROPRIATE RATE OF INCREASE
John Edward Broadbent: Considering that the vast majority of Canadian workers are not members of the trade union movement and therefore have little or no bargaining strength in the economy, and assuming that the government's program gains widespread accepta-

April 18, 1975
Oral Questions
bility, and I have my doubts about that, are there plans available so that the unorganized workers in Canada will be able to get even that rate of increase which the government may think is reasonable?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the statement the Minister of Finance made at the federal provincial conference, a copy of which was tabled in the House by his excellent parliamentary secretary, it was indicated that the government had concern for the weaker sectors of the economy and those parts of the labour movement that are not organized and that there are provisions for a certain form of catchup for those who have fallen behind. I think the hon. member will see that the government is very concerned about getting greater equity for all parts of the economy.


John Edward Broadbent: Without doubting the concern
expressed by the Prime Minister, the fact is that concern will not be translated into action for unorganized workers unless there is some specific mechanism to give them power in the economy to make that possible. Does the government have any plan to give the unorganized workers the effective strength to secure the increasing level of income to which they are entitled?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. gentleman is asking a question which has to do with the extent of union organization in the country. This government has always taken the position that unionization should be encouraged and union ranks increased. As to whether the government has any specific mechanism in mind for dealing directly with unorganized workers, obviously not, because we have no precise hold on them. The market economy has always, of course, to face this problem; the hon. member knows that when salaries and wages go up they tend to follow in the unorganized sector. Indeed, very often they precede in the unorganized sector.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Agriculture about the federal commission of inquiry on beef and veal prices.
Does the Minister of Agriculture know that the commissioners give rise to obvious conflicts of interest since Mr. Maxwell Mackenzie, who is a member of the commission, is one of the directors of International Multifoods, Mrs. Lydia Patry-Cullen comes from Steinberg Limited and there is only one cattle breeder sitting on that Commission? Can the minister assure the House that the commission will really uphold the interests of Canadian consumers and not those of producers or chain stores?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: The members of this commission, as far as I know, are honest individuals. They come from different walks of life and add their knowledge to the commission so that evidence

which is presented can properly be weighed. I have no doubt as to the integrity of those who make up this commission.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister or for the acting Acting Minister of Finance or for the excellent Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance as they may see fit. Can we get any confirmation with regard to the reported meeting of major Canadian union leaders on May 7 to make a decision with respect to the acceptance or rejection of the so-called consensus program? Can any of those three gentlemen I have mentioned give the House any details or information about this prospect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have been informed of the meeting but according to my understanding it is a meeting of labour leaders themselves to decide what response to give to the representations and suggestions made to them by the Minister of Finance, the Minister of Labour and other ministers. It is not something in which the government is directly involved.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Can the Prime Minister or either of the other two gentlemen indicate whether meetings of the other interested groups, the business element, for example, are scheduled for the same purpose, that is, to make decisions with regard to the consensus program and, if so, approximately what dates are likely?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the process outlined by the Leader of the Opposition is the one which is being followed. I saw the item this morning with regard to the meeting which is to take place on May 7. I suspect this meeting has been scheduled in anticipation of discussions which will precede it among various groups within the labour movement; that is the meeting at which, presumably, they will discuss the results of the earlier meetings. The same sort of exercise will be carried out by other groups in the economy.


INFLATION-GOVERNMENT EFFORTS TO HAVE PROGRAM DEVELOPED THROUGH CONSENSUS SEEKING ACCEPTED BY ALL GROUPS
Robert Lorne Stanfield: final question to the Prime Minister who presumably believes that he and his government are putting forward a sound and equitable program to restrain inflation, one which is important to the welfare of our country and our citizens. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he will make a personal effort to persuade the principal groups in our economy on the labour and business side, before they take decisions, to accept the program that the government has developed in co-operation with them and which the government is putting forward.
April 18, 1975


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have earlier in this process met with groups of labour leaders and groups of business leaders and I have done precisely what the hon. leader suggests I do.


INFLATION-GOVERNMENT POLICY ON RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CANADIAN AND UNITED STATES DOLLAR
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Preparatory to the hoped for consensus on an anti-inflationary program, would the Prime Minister indicate whether it is government policy that the Canadian dollar should be allowed to drift down and remain at the 96 cents to 98 cents level in terms of the United States dollar?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is Canadian policy that the dollar respond to market forces and that any intervention by the governor of the bank would be only to assure that the float does not have any-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -dirt in it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -any dirt in it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, further to the Prime Minister's answer, in view of the anti-inflationary consensus discussions and negotiations, would the Prime Minister indicate whether it is at least government policy to counter any further fall in the Canadian dollar, which would at least partly maintain relatively cheap imports in the country and which would in turn be an anti-inflationary measure itself?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat, Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government is that the Canadian dollar is left free to float and respond to market forces.


INFLATION-SUGGESTION BANK OF CANADA SHOULD RESTRAIN INCREASE IN MONEY SUPPLY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A further supplementary question for the Prime Minister, again with the background of our discussion on consensus and anti-inflationary programs. With our money supply having jumped three times as fast under the present Minister of Finance as under his predecessor Mr. Benson, would the Prime Minister take this opportunity, with the Minister of Finance out of the country, to inform the Bank of Canada that any future money increases should be more restrained, and thereby set the framework for a truly anti-inflationary program?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance had occasion to answer the hon. gentleman on a question along the same lines a couple of weeks ago, and I remember remarking on the selective statistics of the hon. member.
Oral Questions COMMUNICATIONS


VIOLENCE ON TELEVISION-EFFECT OF APPOINTMENT OF ONTARIO COMMISSION ON PROPOSED CRTC HEARINGS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Communications. Now that the government of Ontario has taken the leadership role by the appointment of a royal commission to study violence on the media and its impact on society, may I ask the minister whether he is now prepared to fulfil an undertaking that he made to the House a week or so ago with respect to announcing a date for the holding of public hearings into this matter by the CRTC, or are such hearings postponed because of the appointment of the Ontario royal commission?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, without admitting the gist of the preamble to the hon. member's question, and although I have never agreed to indicate a date to the House, this decision not being my responsibility but that of the autonomous corporation called CRTC, the reply to the question asked by the hon. member who, yesterday, was kind enough to give me advance notice of it, is as follows: I have contacted the Chairman of the CRTC who has advised me that the appointment of this royal commission by the Ontario government was too recent for him to have been able to assess its impact on the CRTC's own plan to have hearings on the subject plan which I had mentioned to the House, and that the CRTC needs to delve into this question a little deeper before deciding on a date or a postponement.


VIOLENCE ON TELEVISION-POSSIBLE REFERENCE OF SUBJECT MATTER TO COMMITTEE
James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the indecisiveness of the CRTC in this regard, would the minister be prepared to consider bringing in a reference to the House to have this matter referred to the standing committee on broadcasting, or in the absence of such a reference would he be prepared to discuss the possibility of having the subject matter of Bill C-380 referred to that committee?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I feel that no reference is really necessary; the Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts has the authority to send for CRTC officials and ask all the questions it may care to ask this corporation when it appears concerning its yearly estimates.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.

April 18, 1975
Oral Questions
Following his meeting yesterday with the Quebec Minister of Industry and Commerce (Mr. St-Pierre), can he tell us what specific, concrete and new steps, if any, his department intends to take in the near future, that is this month, to prevent other lay offs in the Quebec textile industry, or else, is he willing, very candidly, to admit to the House that he is helpless in the face of this situation?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I had a very useful discussion yesterday with the Minister of Industry and Commerce for the province of Quebec. We reviewed the state of the industry, as I have done with others including Liberal members of parliament who have made many representations to me in respect of the condition of the industry, and I have had discussions with the industry itself. I think it is quite clear that as a result of a turn down in the economy of Canada, and a turn down internationally, there is no quick and easy solution in the short term for this industry. As I said, we have taken a number of measures to ensure the security of this industry notwithstanding the difficulties of the present moment.
I have indicated to the House on previous occasions that we have accepted the recommendations of the Textile and Clothing Board. A team went to the Far East immediately following that announcement and made substantial progress in negotiating new restraints with those countries. At the same time we also placed polyester filament yarns on the import control list. They have been on for 30 days, and at the end of a further 30 days we will make our decision as to whether a surtax should be placed on imports of that product.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my first question to the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs for the purpose of clarification. He was in the House on April 10 when the Secretary of State for External Affairs answered a question in reference to aid going to the suffering, the hungry and refugees. In that reply he stated:
Mr. Speaker, I would have to cheek on the specific organization but in these circumstances it is usually better to provide assistance in the form of cash.
Yesterday the minister answered the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich by stating:
Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak specifically about the High Commissioner for Refugees, but I can say that the food aid and other aid Canada is providing to international agencies-
I should like that clarified. Is this aid going in the form of food or is it going in cash? Why in one circumstance should the aid go in cash to Viet Nam while the conflict is still going on, yet in the form of food when the conflict is over and the communists have taken over in Cambodia?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the aid is going in both

forms, food and cash. The international agencies asked Canada if it would put up part of its aid in the form of food and we complied.


FOOD GATHERED BY CANADIAN FRIENDS OF CHILDREN OF VIET NAM-GOVERNMENT AID IN DELIVERING
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I just follow up on that answer. At page 4671 of Hansard for April 10 the minister is reported as having said that he would check into the organization in Canada called the Canadian Friends of Children of Viet Nam in Toronto which has gathered together 100 tons of food, and I would ask if the minister or his department has now had a chance to do so. When I asked if that aid would be delivered the minister said it was only going in the form of cash. Has the minister looked into that organization, and is the government now prepared to see that this food gets to the people who need it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as I understand the circumstances of that particular case there was a relatively small amount of food involved. The sponsors tried to organize transportation but were having very great difficulty. When the government looked at the problem it came to the conclusion that it would be far better for this organization to provide cash rather than have the government put up the cost of moving that very small quantity of food, as the cost would far exceed the amount of aid involved.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, the minister has said that this 100 tons of food is a small amount. To follow up my question, let me bring the minister's attention to the fact that this organization in question named three commercial airlines which would fly the food to Hong Kong from which point a military charter could take the food into Viet Nam. Does the minister consider 100 tons of food a small amount, and has he or his department had any indication in reference to the planning that group carried out in respect of the transportation of that food, as this is somewhat of a contradiction to what he said a moment ago?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I did look into the circumstances as did the Department of National Defence which was asked to provide a plane for this purpose. I repeat what was said then that the cost of moving this food far exceeds the value of the food itself which is a very small amount in relation to the need or the quantities being provided by Canada under our official aid program.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport regarding the S.S. Prince George which operated
April 18, 1975

between Vancouver and Juneau, Alaska, and which recently has been partially damaged by fire. In view of the fact that the CNR has indicated it may permanently discontinue the operation of this vessel, and in view of the fact that American vessels operate in the inner passageway and undoubtedly will pick up this traffic, will the minister be prepared to make a representation to the Canadian National Railways to continue this operation either by securing another vessel or by having the present vessel repaired and put back into service?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Canadian National intends to repair the vessel, at least temporarily, to continue the service this year, but the CN is convinced that its operation is not profitable; doubtless it will have to be convinced to build a new vessel if ever we want the service to be maintained. I am quite willing to take up the matter with the CN to see if it might not be possible to maintain it.



TRANSPORT


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister what progress is being made with regard to the recommendation in the first Darling report which the minister has had now for over two years which would require that by legislation all coastal trade be carried in Canadian bottoms similar to the provision contained in the Jones Act in the United States. When I asked the minister about this about a year ago he said he was waiting for consultation with the Premiers of the coastal provinces. I want to ask the minister whether he has had consultation with the premiers, what progress has been made and when we may expect legislation to implement this particular recommendation by the Darling Commission?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, as I answered at that time I consulted with the Atlantic premiers. We discussed the impact it could have on the freight rates and we found agreement. If my memory serves me well, I think cabinet has given notice to the commonwealth countries that we were withdrawing from the commonwealth convention. If this should be done it means that by the end of the year the whole cycle will be completed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that there is very heavy traffic on the Pacific coast and a good deal of coastal trade on the west coast of Canada, did the minister have any consultation with the Premier of British Columbia? Is it the intention of the government, once the proper notice has been served on the other commonwealth countries, to proceed with legislation applying to both coasts so that the recommendation of the Darling report will be fully implemented?
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: I had discussion, not with the Premier of British Columbia but with the minister responsible for transportation. One of the problems was that British Columbia wanted to know if we would consider both coasts as one coast, in other words if they would be compelled to use a Canadian ship to go say from Vancouver through the Panama Canal to the other coast. So we agreed that the west and east coasts would be considered separately.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the outcry that has followed the announcement by Canadian Pacific Railway yesterday of major increases in commuter fares from Montreal and is he prepared to intercede immediately to stop the May 1 implementation date for this exorbitant public transportation fare structure?


Jean Marchand: Is it CP
Air or CP Rail?


Harold Thomas Herbert: CP Rail.


Jean Marchand: Well, I know that CP Air and Air Canada filed increases with the CTC this morning, too. I will make a special appeal, and will do it formally later today, to the companies to exercise certain restraint because I notice that some of the increases are really exaggerated. I do not see how it would be possible for the public to absorb that. I will surely meet with the companies and try to keep the increase as near the floor as possible.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Veteran Affairs. Could the minister indicate whether he has received a brief from the Canadian Forces Long Pensioners Association asking for accreditation as veterans in order to qualify for other benefits under the charter for which they do not qualify.


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have not received the brief but have received a copy of it. I suggest that it will be looked at by the various departments concerned and probably some attention may be given to it.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the Canadian Forces Long Pensioners Association presented a brief to

April 18, 1975
Oral Questions
the Prime Minister's office and, while possibly he may not have seen it, I am wondering whether he would exhibit his concern in the matter by asking that the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Veterans Affairs co-operate in reviewing this matter so that these people would receive the consideration they deserve.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, first may I repeat that, although I do not know whether the brief has been received, I can assure the hon. member that every brief I receive gets the attention it deserves.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development if he would be good enough to return to his chair. In view of the number of complaints the minister has received about the large increase he announced on entrance fees to our national parks, is he prepared to review his position and be more realistic in the amount of increases in these entrance fees.


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, we looked carefully at this matter on several occasions and, as I indicated in the House before, even with these increases recovery represents roughly 17 per cent or 18 per cent of the total operating costs. We feel that a subsidy by the taxpayers at large of 82 per cent is still a very substantial subsidy and that asking the users to pay 18 per cent is not unreasonable.


Donald Craig Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my supplementary to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister and his government have asked all Canadians to practice restraint, will the Prime Minister intervene and ask the minister responsible for our national parks to practice restraint and reduce the announced increases in entrance fees that run from 500 per cent to 1000 per cent.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be a representation or an argument.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the genial Minister of Agriculture in reference to a statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the effect that CIDA and the Department of Agriculture were co-operating in an effort to make better use of agricultural production for food aid needs. Can the minister advise if steps are being taken to

carry out a crash program to process this country's surplus potatoes so that in a hungry world the outrage of wasted potatoes will not follow that of rotten eggs.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, even before the announcement was made we had discussions with the CIDA officials and the processing industry, to find out just how many potatoes could be processed which could possibly be used in aid programs. There are very few countries in the world where procedures for processing potatoes into flaked or powdered form can be carried out, and as to whole potatoes, there are no areas that we could find where they can be used in their original form. We have investigated all that, and the processing industry is being asked to process as many potatoes as they possibly can. I understand they are doing it, and our next step will be to find areas where those processed potatoes can be sent through aid programs.



COMMUNICATIONS


Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Communications. Is it to be the government's policy to require as a condition of licence renewal for cable broadcasters in Ontario that commercial messages originated in the United States be deleted from their programming and, if so, why?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, that was required of some cable broadcasters. It even led to legal proceedings and there is an appeal in one case. I could check but I do not think universal regulations applied to all cable television companies in Ontario. I shall inquire and report further to the hon. member.



CRIMINAL CODE


Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Considering that the minister has expressed an intention to amend the Criminal Code by bringing in an omnibus bill, can the minister please inform the House whether or not one of the amendments he will be proposing will be a prohibition similar to the one in section 467(1), whereby newspapers and broadcast media will not be allowed to publish or otherwise disclose the name of an accused person unless and until that person has been found guilty of a criminal act?
April 18, 1975


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, we are only considering prohibiting the disclosure of the names of victims of rape.



AIRPORTS


Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Solicitor General but since I was recognized by you and the minister is absent from the House, perhaps I could direct another question to the Minister of Transport, since he was answering questions so generously today. Could he check with his officials to find out what is the reason for the apparent delay in the construction work at the Halifax airport because if the delay continues it seems to me that the pyramids of Egypt were built at a much faster pace than the one at which the construction work is being carried out.


Jean Marchand: I will certainly inquire, Mr. Speaker.



TRANSPORT


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. It results from his reply to Premier Blakeney in Saskatchewan following the resolution which was passed regarding the possible removal of the Crowsnest Pass rates in which he stated that the government will not make changes in the transportation field that cannot be shown to be of significant benefit to the people of Saskatchewan. Since the Minister of Justice has already thrown out suggestions that grain producers might be compensated directly through schemes other than through the Crowsnest Pass arrangement, would such a plan be sufficient to cause the government to consider the removal of the Crowsnest Pass agreement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the telegram speaks for itself and it answers the question put by the hon. member.


Stanley James Korchinski: Is there a study presently being conducted which might produce a plan other than the Crowsnest Pass arrangement to compensate wheat producers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not that I know of, Mr. Speaker.


Stanley James Korchinski: May I ask a final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker? Can the Prime Minister say whether the absolute approval of grain farmers will be necessary before the Crowsnest pass agreement is tampered with, even though other groups might favour such a removal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I did not hear the hon. member. The absolute approval of what group?
Oral Questions


Stanley James Korchinski: Of grain producers. Would the absolute approval of grain producers be necessary before the Crowsnest Pass agreement is tampered with, even though other groups may favour such a removal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is a completely hypothetical question.



DREDGING-GOVERNMENT PLANS TO DO WORK WHEN COMPANIES INVOLVED UNDER INDICTMENT

Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the dredging season in Canada is just about to begin and that there are a number of jobs to be carried out, both large and small, and most of the companies involved are now under indictment, has the Prime Minister or any member of his government evolved a policy to have this type of necessary dredging, in land and on the sea board, carried out? Can he say also what security will be provided and to what extent the requirements of the work can be completed, particularly in view of the unusual situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Public Works answered a similar question a few weeks ago. I will refer to it to see whether anything can be added to what he said then.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
On last March 24, a group of experts published a report on the environment concerning the James Bay power development. Could the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development say whether experts in his department studied the report and whether he intends to make recommendations to the Quebec government to protect the environment and avoid as much as possible future complications in that vast territory?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, our officials are certainly aware of this report. Its contents have been made well known to the Indian and the Innuit people involved in the negotiations concerning Jame Bay. They hope that the recommendations in the report will be taken into account in these negotiations, for instance keeping up the flow in the Eastmain river and the problem of the Cania-piscau river. These concerns are being taken into account in the negotiations preceding the final settlement.

April 18, 1975
Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE



REGIONAL WAGE POLICY-REQUEST FOR RE-EXAMINATION

Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the President of the Treasury Board. In view of the fact that in both the public and the private sectors regional wage disparities have a double discriminatory effect in terms of the best talent leaving the region and the corollary effect that my province, for example, is disadvantaged by the loss of some of its best talent, its most capable people, can the President of the Treasury Board say whether he will seriously examine present government policies with a view to setting an example for the private sector as well?


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, we are continuously studying this problem. Everybody knows that it is extremely difficult; some areas would like to have national rates, others regional rates, but perhaps I could say to the hon. member that last week the New Brunswick Minister of Finance complained that our officials in that province are so well paid that we take civil servants away from them.



FOOD PRICES REVIEW BOARD


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Although the minister was able on Wednesday to tell me that certain information is being sent directly to a commission in Manitoba, will he deal with the main point of the question that I have been putting to him, namely, the refusal of the Food Prices Review Board to co-operate with other boards and commissions which are making inquiries into food prices and related problems, and will he get in touch with the Food Prices Review Board and suggest that it co-operate with such other agencies?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: I do not doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the commission is prepared and willing to cooperate with any other agency in Canada. In my opinion, the hon. member must understand that if the commission receives confidential information and gives those who provide it the assurance that it will not be divulged, it is very natural for the commission to keep its promise and not to reveal the information so obtained.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that Mrs. Plumptre has declared in writing that no such information will be given to any other government agency, even when
[Mr. Buchanan.}
the companies concerned request that this be done? Is this co-operation?


André Ouellet: I have the impression that the hon. member is stirring up a storm in a teacup, since in any case the information he seems interested in has been passed to the association in Manitoba.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. The minister has missed the point again.



POST OFFICE


Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: A question for the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware of, and has he investigated, the statement by Mrs. L. T. Brodie of Toronto that a letter from her hospital informing her that she has cancer and should appear for more tests took some 12 days to travel the eight miles between the hospital and her home?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: No, Mr. Speaker. I read the press report and asked for a report. As you can well understand, I cannot investigate all the complaints that arise from an operation that is 99 per cent efficient and one per cent inefficient. In an operation that handles five billion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: If you want an answer I will give you an answer.


An hon. Member:: A truthful answer.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: A truthful answer. I hope the hon. gentleman is asking the question in order to obtain information. Five billion pieces of mail are handled annually with an inefficiency rate of one per cent. I am sure the hon. gentleman can figure out the potential for these types of complaints. Nevertheless, we are looking into that particular problem.


Henry Perrin Beatty: A supplementary question. In light of the fact that the Post Office system seems to be breaking down in a number of very important cases, would it be the minister's advice to Canadians that if they have important messages to transmit they should find some other way to send them, either by telephone or courier in order to ensure that they get there safely and on time as opposed to relying on the Post Office system?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: That is a very valid question. If people can find a less expensive way of mailing or delivering mail from Newfoundland to Vancouver by some other method for eight cents I would advise them to go ahead and do so.
April 18, 1975

Oral Questions INDUSTRY


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is a supplementary one. In view of the fact that a petition mailed by the mayor of Red Deer to my office on February 20 arrived there on April 14, and this problem was not created in the Post Office at Red Deer, can the minister tell this House whether there will be a time when there will be a postal service that Canadians can rely on?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice as Acting Solicitor General. In light of the fact that the RCMP will be participating with the Montreal city police in providing security against the possible presence of guerillas and other troublemakers at the 1976 Olympics, can the minister advise the House how many members of the special national crime branch, if any, will be involved, and how much federal money has been assigned to this particular scheme? As there will be so many different agencies involved, perhaps the minister could indicate who will ultimately be in charge of this giant security operation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The information ought to be sought in another way.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Has the minister received several hundred individually signed petition letters from the Native Women's Association of Manitoba and would he, perhaps, in conjunction with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, see to it that measures are taken to prevent the influx of native-like handicrafts into Manitoba? This undercuts the market of authentic native handmade goods in that province.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, from looking at the list of the mail coming in, I am not aware of any volume on this particular problem. It is a genuine problem, however. We have endeavoured to promote the stretched beaver pelt as the symbol of the Canadian Indians' handicraft and have endeavoured to sell Canadians on the idea that is the symbol they should look for when buying Canadian handicrafts. It is an ongoing problem, however, and as the hon. member is probably aware a couple of recent cases on that subject had a successful outcome in Ontario.



SYSCO STEEL-REQUEST FOR AID IN FINDING MARKETS TO AVOID FURTHER LAY-OFFS

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the fact that there has been a lay-off of 200 employees at the Sysco steel plant in Sydney and in light of the fact that the management now says there is a softening in the steel market which was not there before according to their own statements, is the minister prepared to make any assistance available through his department to find further markets for steel of that plant? Has he been contacted by any representatives of management of that plant requesting any type of assistance?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether we have received any requests from the company, but we have been very active in trying to promote its products. A member of that company was on a mission that I took to Latin America last year and I think it was a very successful mission for him. Another point I might make is that a senior member of my department has been lent to the Nova Scotia government and has been working with them and Sysco in making plans for a larger and more efficient steel industry in Nova Scotia.


Robert Muir: I thank the hon. Minister for his reply. May I ask if he would take the initiative to have his officials talk to the management of Sysco steel and offer any assistance possible to eliminate the necessity for laying off further workers at the plant?


Alastair William Gillespie: I would be pleased to do that, Mr. Speaker. I might add that we have been very active in helping Sysco to obtain the supplies of pelletized iron that were so important to its future plans.



AIR CANADA


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport which I am sure he should be able to answer. He has been in constant contact with his constitutional legal adviser, and another even more dubious source. Is the minister now able to answer the question asked by the hon. member for Central Nova yesterday? Is he able to make a statement in regard to the question involving the consultant's fees alleged to have been paid by Air Canada? In particular, could he deal with the question of why Air Canada did not advise him that this matter was coming up yesterday, in light of the fact that the hon. member for Central Nova had advised Air Canada that he would be raising it?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having asked the question.

April 1*8, 1975
Procedure
The question the hon. member for Central Nova asked me yesterday was extremely pertinent. It seems that some absolutely irregular activities were going on between Air Canada and the McGregor travel agency. I have asked the President of Air Canada to be here at two o'clock this afternoon, and we will see to it that a full inquiry be launched so that we will know all the facts. In my opinion, the question asked by the hon. member for Central Nova was well founded, and I thank him for having raised it. How come I did not know of it before? The inquiry will show why I am not informed when there is something going on.


Gerald William Baldwin: I have been trying.


Jean Marchand: You know, there are so many things going on in the department that I do not know anything about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, in both official languages-Mr. Leblanc (Laurier).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with respect to the report that has just been tabled. Yesterday the government House leader said that on Monday the House would be proceeding with Bill C-44. There was some discussion across the floor about the matter and there was discussion between us afterwards. Could the minister now tell us what bill we will be dealing with on Monday?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for asking his question. Because the weekend intervenes, we have decided to call Bill C-44 on Tuesday rather than on Monday. The business for Monday, unless there are further agreements among House leaders, will be the continuation or opening of debate on Bill C-20.


EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED UNDER PROVISIONAL ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) having indicated his intention to make a statement on motions at this time, it becomes the first such statement to be made since the provisional, or experi-

mental order was invoked by the House to be effective on the first sitting day after the Easter break.
The terms and conditions under which statements on motions are to be made are not described in detail, but there are two points of guidance for the Chair. The first, taken from the report of the committee as printed in Votes and Proceedings of March 14, is the consensus that statements by ministers and responses thereto ought to be limited. The report of the committee reads in part as follows:
On statements by ministers, as listed in section (2) of this Standing Order, a minister of the Crown may make a short factual announcement or statement of government policy. A spokesman for each of the parties in opposition to the government may comment briefly thereon and members may be permitted to address questions thereon to the minister. Mr. Speaker shall limit the time for such proceedings as he deems fit.
Today we shall hear the first of such statements. I presume that the only guideline I can follow is that the minister's statement should be brief and factual-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Hope springs eternal.


Mr. Speaker:: -and that there will be an even briefer statement by each of the opposition spokesmen. I say that it should be even briefer, because apparently the intention of the order is that there shall follow, at the discretion of the Chair also, a short question period in which members may address questions to the minister solely on the subject of his statement.
If, at the discretion of the Chair, questions may be asked following brief statements in response, it follows, surely, that statements in response must be extremely brief and concise in setting out the position of the party on whose behalf the member is speaking, because, as I say, there will be a brief period in which members in general will be at liberty to ask the minister questions.
That is the general procedure I propose to follow this morning. There will be a brief statement by the minister, a very brief comment by each opposition spokesman, followed, for a limited period, by questions.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, although we are all groping in the dark, Your Honour is doing so even more than some members, because at least some of us served on the procedure committee and know what we had in mind. I suggest that there was some feeling in the committee that it might be possible, for reasons of common sense, to allow the questions to precede the statement-


An hon. Member:: No.


Gerald William Baldwin: I do not want to debate the point. We cannot do it. I merely point out that if we are to respond to the statement, it is sometimes necessary to ask for clarification and inquire into meaning. I think that practice is followed in other jurisdictions, and I suggest that that is what we had in our minds.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With all respect to the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), I think Your
April 18, 1975

Honour's suggestion was more in line with what we had in mind. It is correct that we had in mind that responses from the first spokesman for each opposition party should be brief. I think Your Honour has made a good point, that they should be even briefer than the minister's statement so that anything left in doubt can be resolved in the brief question period which follows. It seems to me the question period must come after the statement.


Mr. Speaker:: In any event, as it fell to someone to choose how the order should be interpreted, I made the choice and I think we ought to proceed this morning in the way I outlined. It is to be hoped, this being the first such statement, we shall learn from our procedure. If there are to be modifications and suggestions regarding the format we shall use this morning, certainly those can be considered in due course and the procedure can be adapted as we go along. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


AGRICULTURE
Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I would have much preferred it if some other minister had made his statement on this first occasion. I understood my statement was to be brief. I will try to be brief.
For some time the members of the dairy industry and the government have been working to build a long-term dairy policy. Working together, we formed the Canadian Dairy Commission in 1967. That was a big step in the right direction. It saved dairy farmers from abrupt swings in the market. It also provided security against barrel-bottom prices to milk producers. Now it is time to take the next step. That is why, starting today, the returns to industrial milk and cream producers will be adjusted to changing production costs. We will use a formula to do this.
As you know, at the beginning of each April a new dairy year begins and producers wait anxiously to hear the government announce the support levels for the coming year. Rapid increases in the prices of dairy inputs have made their situation even more urgent. Dairy farmers have to tie up too much money in land, buildings, and stock to live from year to year. That is the reason behind our move to formula pricing. It will give needed security to both producers and consumers.
This formula will gear industrial milk and cream producers' incomes to input prices. What it means to the efficient, hard-working farmer is that neither inflation nor a big jump in cash costs will leave him in an income squeeze. To consumers this will mean a constant supply of nutrition-packed milk. Although it will guarantee producers a fair return, consumers should realize that this also will protect them from rip-off milk prices at the farm gate.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-
Dairy Policy


Eugene Whelan: When people call milk the perfect food, they are right on target, and this government is not going to risk having any consumer go to the supermarket for milk and being turned away.


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Two hon. members are seeking the floor on points or order. I think I can anticipate their nature. I wonder if we might allow the minister to finish, and then hear the points of order?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, no with respect. It is precisely, shall we say, the clownish way in which the minister is trying to interpret the meaning of "short statement" which makes nonsense of our interpretation system. Members here who do not want to listen to this statement in the English language are entitled to hear it as much as possible through the very excellent interpretation service of the House. But there is no interpreter on the staff who can translate the minister's delivery of this statement, with all its limitations as to accent and presentation. It is on that point I rise. We are not here to make this procedure clownish. The House will be reasonable, but let us not make a farce of this procedure, and it is now a farce.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, to express views similar to those expressed by my colleague for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I hope, since this is the first such statement, that in future the kind of thing we are witnessing will not happen again. The statement is important. The length of the statement ought to be weighed in the balance against its importance and, certainly, a statement is not made more brief merely because it is read in the way this statement was being read just now. May I suggest that you, Mr. Speaker, take under advisement the propriety of reviewing statements, in advance so that you can decide on the basis of their length whether they are proper. Otherwise this whole system will break down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Both comments are valid. This, of course, is the first occasion and the minister, perhaps remembering my admonition, has been trying to rush the statement in order, thereby, to make it brief. Perhaps it would be better to make statements factual. Let the minister take his time in delivery. Let us proceed on that basis and perhaps we can learn from this experience.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, there was so much noise in the House that I did not know what members were saying. I understood I was to make a short presentation. It was to be as short as possible and the question period afterwards would make clear matters that were not contained in the statement. I could have made a longer statement, of the sort that will be released later for public information, of the sort I presented before cameras, to milk producers and to the processing industry earlier today, for their information. This is done all the time. I was trying to be as clear and as quick as I could, and I apologize if I ran too fast. If you want, I can start over again.

April 18, 1975
Dairy Policy


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: The target price today is-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Read it intelligently.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps hon. members have had as much enjoyment about the new procedure as they propose this morning. Possibly we can now pay a little more attention and get the statement on the record.


Eugene Whelan: As a minister and a member of parliament, I think I have some rights too. We are criticized for not making statements. I had hoped to have had this here several minutes before eleven o'clock, but I understand there is no real deadline as to when it should be here. There was a mixup and it was not delivered to the leaders' offices as soon as it should have been. I think the dairy policy is very important. I am of the opinion that the opposition does not want to hear this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eugene Whelan: The target price today is $11.02 per hundred-weight for industrial milk. This will be the starting base for the formula. Future changes in support levels will reflect changes in labour and cash costs which will make up 80 per cent of the formula. Forty-five per cent of this formula is based on the cash costs of producing milk. Thirty-five per cent is based on labour earnings adjusted by the consumer price index. In addition, a number of other supply and demand factors will be taken into account.
If, midway in the dairy year, the returns adjustment formula goes up or down more than 4 per cent, this will result in a change in producer returns. This change, up or down, will come from the marketplace. The support levels will not be changed more often than once every three months. It is important to understand that the government will be reducing direct support payments to dairy producers. Our aim, over the long haul, is to have producers get every cent of their income from the marketplace.
There is another point I want to make clear. Under this policy it is more important than ever before for producers to gear production to known market needs and opportunities. In many ways the dairy industry is unique in Canadian agriculture. That is why we have special support programs and controls for this industry. I met representatives of the dairy industry this morning to explain how the long-term policy will work. We discussed details of this policy, as I had promised in the announcement I made on April 1. This, Mr. Speaker, is a big step for the dairy industry.


Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, I will bear in mind the new rules of the House in replying very briefly to the minister's statement.
Months ago, and on many occasions in this House, members on this side and the dairy farmers of Canada were assured of the introduction of a long-term dairy policy. Efforts have been made by those in the industry to meet with government officials for discussion on this subject.

Unfortunately little or no meaningful discussion has been held.
It is true that interim, but insufficient, adjustments have been made, the latest of which was announced during the Easter recess. The industrial milk subsidy at that time was established at $11.02. The dairy farmers of Canada had requested at that time a support level of $11.60.
Cost of production figures for many dairy producers indicate the cost of production of milk ranging in the area of $12 to $14 a hundred, and some in fact have even reached a higher figure.
I suggest that the general approach is in the proper direction, but if the base price to be used is too low, which I suggest is the case in this particular situation, then the end result will not be obtained.
Will the minister indicate the reaction of the dairy farmers to his statement? What was their reaction when he met with them this morning? My colleagues on this side of the House will have questions regarding the composition of the index to be used, and other related matters. I cannot over emphasize the importance of the dairy industry to this country and the contribution it makes to the entire economy and the health of the nation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it is not easy to follow Irish frustration travelling at 200 words a minute. I can understand the minister saying that he wished some other minister were making this statement, because if ever I saw a bitter pill very thinly sugar-coated, it is the statement which the minister just made.
The important paragraph of the minister's statement is as follows: "It is important to understand that the government will be reducing direct support payments to dairy producers. Our aim, over the long haul, is to have producers get every cent of their income from the marketplace."
The minister said in his statement, and I quote: "When people call milk the perfect food, they are right on target." The minister has a great capacity for stating the obvious as though it were a revelation from the supernatural. If milk were the perfect food and if it is essential, particularly for children, then almost every country in the world should have subsidized milk production, both to the producers and the consumers. The United States has a school lunch program and free milk. For years the United Kingdom has had subsidized basic foods, of which milk is one. They have done this because they recognize that the poor in any country, and particularly the children, ought to have certain basic foods at prices which they can afford to
pay-
What is the minister now announcing? Having cancelled the consumer subsidy a few months ago, the minister is now telling us they are going to reduce the direct support payments. When he says that the producers will now have to get every cent of their income from the marketplace, he is in effect saying the consumer will have to pay more for milk. People with large families who cannot afford to pay higher prices for milk will have to reduce the amount of milk which their children consume. I say this is a back-
April 18, 1975

ward step, and a policy which any minister and any government ought to be ashamed to announce.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to deplore very briefly the offhand and jesting manner in which the minister announced a policy which will have such serious effects.
It seems to me that for once, when he could have had the opportunity to take a position about a dairy policy, he could have done so seriously, particularly out of respect for Parliament which is trying a new method to update our procedure.
Mr. Speaker, the minister announced today that, from now on, dairy policy will be based on input costs, including 45 per cent production costs and 35 per cent manpower costs. The minister said that, from now on, this policy will be reviewed every three months instead of once a year, on April 1. Those are the points which have impressed and interested us and which we support. However, we find the pricing method extremely complex especially as concerns the famous 4 per cent mentioned on page 2, to modify the producer's income.
Mr. Speaker, if the government-and here I agree with the previous speaker-uses this policy to withdraw from this field by saying that we must also understand that the government will reduce the direct support payments to milk producers, this will mean automatically, because of the laws of supply and demand, an increase in consumer prices.
Mr. Speaker, I do not have confidence in the statement of the minister for a very simple reason. Last year, the minister announced a consumer subsidy. Indeed, the government invested $109 million for this purpose, but at the same time it imported 24,749,000 pounds of milk at an average rate of 54 cents a pound, which it sold at an average price of 95 cents. In other words, the government took from the consumer what it had politically announced as being a consumer subsidy. In fact, the consumer had to pay. Mr. Speaker, I do not question the good intentions of the minister, but if we look at the complexity of this formula, we have no guarantee that the consumer and the producer will be protected. However, Mr. Speaker, I hope very sincerely that the methods used for the implementation of this new policy will be simplified so that for once the dairy farmer understands how his own income is established.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, now that the government has given the consumers of this country the bad news that it intends to rescue the dairy industry on the backs of the hard-pressed consumers of this country, and in view of the fact that the price of fluid milk has risen by 37.7 per cent already in this year and represented the highest single rise in the consumer price index last month at 2.2 per cent, and in view of the findings of the Food Prices Review Board that there is a serious calcium deficiency in the diets of Canadians and that this could adversely affect the health of Canadians because of the importance of milk to young Canadians, I
Dairy Policy
ask the minister what he intends to do with respect to the retail price of fluid milk? Does he propose to provide some kind of subsidy, or is he giving consideration to the provision of a special program to get milk to the children of the country?


Eugene Whelan: The policy I have announced has nothing to do with fluid milk at all. It relates to industrial milk products, and I think this should be made clear. The distribution of fluid milk is carried out by the provincial marketing boards; each province runs its own program for the sale of fluid milk. We have not cut out the subsidies. We have actually added to the subsidies for industrial milk products. With respect to the one that is used particularly by people in outlying areas in Canada, skimmed milk powder, we have added to that subsidy; there will be no increased cost to the consumer with respect to that commodity whatsoever.
We feel that provision of social benefits is an area for the social services of the nation and for the social services of the provinces, to take care of those people who need help, rather than working through a subsidy program, through our farmers. We have said we will not cut back the subsidy unless such action is warranted. We will review the situation from time to time.


James Aloysius McGrath: How can the minister reconcile the reply he has just given with the words which appear in his statement-"our aim over the long haul is to have producers get every cent of their income from the marketplace"? Other references are made to fluid milk during the course of the statement. How can he reconcile this with the statement he has just made? Surely he has a responsibility to consumers of this country for whom fluid milk is an important part of their diet.


Eugene Whelan: We certainly realize that, and I realize it as much as anybody, perhaps more than anybody, because we are dealing with products which consumers use. And we cannot produce them unless they can afford to buy them. We say that over the long haul these programs will be arranged in such a way that those people will be in a position to buy the products in the same way as anybody else in society. People receiving lower incomes will be taken care of by the social services of the country, but those social service programs will not be run by the federal Department of Agriculture.


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: In light of the fact that according to the minister's statement the formula is based only on direct cost, although the hon. gentleman mentioned that the real producer squeeze arises from the cost of land, buildings and capital assets, and in light of the fact that all representations by the producers to the minister have emphasized the necessity of including in any formula that portion of production cost related to the cost of borrowing money, or capital assets, will the minister tell us whether any input in that formula arises from capital cost and, if not, will he explain why not?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I said that the 45 per cent and the 35 per cent made up the 80 per cent; there was 20 per cent left, and this comes from that area. This amount will be reviewed from time to time. The costs which vary a good deal from farm to farm, and which are not the same

April 18, 1975
Dairy Policy
from time to time, will have to be reviewed in the year-end review.


William Herbert Jarvis: The minister's aim in the long haul, to use his words, is to have the producers get every cent from the marketplace. What target date does the minister have in mind for the complete elimination of the subsidy on industrial milk?


Eugene Whelan: It should be quite a number of years. There is really no set time. We are thinking in terms of possibly ten years. The program we have set up now will be reviewed from time to time; it is for five years.


William Herbert Jarvis: What was the response from the dairy industry? Was it acquiescent or enthusiastic this morning?


Eugene Whelan: The meeting was still going on when I left there. The dairy industry all over Canada was well represented, both the producing side and the processing side. I would say the reception was exceptionally good.


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: I am intrigued, Mr. Speaker, that the minister should still be making statements outside the House albeit to a very receptive audience, one I could not object to, but could the minister tell us how he intends to determine the costs which will go to make up the input? Does he propose to use figures supplied by Statistics Canada? How is he going to dream up these costs?


Eugene Whelan: We use 35 per cent for wages etc. on the CPI index. The rest will come from the input costs the producers have to bear.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have three short questions to ask the minister. The first has to do with his statement, "Consumers should realize that this also will protect them from rip-off milk prices at the farm gate." What indication is there that rip-off milk prices have been charged at the farm gate? To what extent will the measure he has just proposed remove such an occurrence if it has actually taken place?


Eugene Whelan: Dairy products are sold under the Dairy Commission. The formula is based on a set price with set margins. There have been instances every now and again when skimmed milk powder sold for consumer use has not been sold taking into consideration the subsidy we pay on skimmed milk powder for human consumption. If we did not have this formula, if we did not have this commission, it would not be easy to make sure that all consumers in Canada are treated in the same way.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: When the minister talks about reducing direct support payments to dairy producers, what reduction will there be, what form will that reduction take, and over what period of time will it be made?


Eugene Whelan: That would depend upon the conditions existing in the country at that time. We do not intend to add any more money to the subsidy, but the wage index in Canada, the CPI in Canada, will all be affected by what the market can bear and by what our supplies are; if we have an abundance of supply and we are over-producing,

we can be in real difficulty if we do not have markets for those programs. That, too, will affect the price set for producers. The producers recognize this. I do not think there is any more I can say on that aspect at this time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My
final supplementary has to do with the minister's statement that producers will have to get every cent of their income from the marketplace. In answer to the hon. member for St. John's East, (Mr. McGrath) the hon. gentleman said it would now be up to the provinces, with their various social welfare departments, to make sure that adequate dairy products are available to those with low incomes. If that is the policy of the government I want to ask the minister why, only last year, the government introduced a subsidy for milk? At that time the minister felt that the government had some responsibility for seeing to it that milk prices, for low income families particularly, were kept at a level they could afford. Why has the government changed its policy and now says it has no responsibility in this matter?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I want to make one thing clear and plain. I did not isolate the government's social service responsibility to the provinces. If I did say that, I did not mean to. The federal government has a certain responsibility and we pay into provincial programs. I am sure the hon. member knows that as well as anyone. Why we put the five cent a quart consumer subsidy on milk was because the other programs had not moved. We had not moved on indexing pensions and so on, we had not changed family allowances, we had not lowered income tax. All these things we have done have benefited people much more than the $100 million. The criticism that this government gets most of all is for spending. I point out that over 50 per cent of the extra spending by the government has been on social services.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on page 2 of his statement, the minister said he would consider a number of other factors concerning supply and demand. Can the minister say if these factors include those relating to export and transportation and, if so, in what proportion?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the pageboy was handing me a note and I did not get the full context of that question. I apologize.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have another question. Does the minister mean that, under the general philosophy of this statement, the dairy policy is going to be revised every three months to ensure a minimum income to the producers?


Eugene Whelan: Only if it changes more than 4 per cent, Mr. Speaker. If it does not change any more than 4 per cent, there will be no change in the price of the commodity.
April 18, 1975


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I am coming back to my first question.
The minister said in his statement that he would consider a number of other factors related to supply and demand. In these other factors, does he consider the export and transport costs of these products and, if so, in what proportion?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the judgment factors we speak of arise from the world supply of industrial milk powder. At the present time I believe the producers subsidize export sales of that at 16 cents a hundredweight out of the returns they receive. There is a world supply position of milk powder that is greater than it was before, so this could affect the returns to the farmers if they have to contribute more to be able to compete in the world export market. By the producers contributing we do not get into any trouble with GATT or any of our international trading partners, and the dairy farmers are quite responsive to the suggestion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is in the discretion of the Chair, under the terms of the provisional order, to limit debate or the question period as the Chair sees fit. This is the first of such periods and I do not propose to limit debate severely. However, in my opinion, I must say frankly that the subject seems to have been covered pretty thoroughly in questions.
There are three other members seeking to ask questions, the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo (Mr. Beatty) and the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane). I propose to allow those members to ask their questions, but I would ask them please not to repeat any of the ground gone over already. If they have fresh ground they want to cover with the minister, would they please ask brief questions so we can conclude the matter? The hon. member for Red Deer.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister tell the House, when a price change is to be made, what will trigger the action and who will have input into establishing the cost of production? Will it be the national farm organizations, or the provincial agricultural departments, or is it wholly within the federal Department of Agriculture?


Eugene Whelan: It is mainly the Canadian Dairy Commission which has worked out the formula. It was said earlier that there had been no consultation. If there was any more consultation on any subject than there has been on this, then I do not know what it is. We will continue on with our discussions and work on the formula, but we have made a commitment that our findings will be published every quarter.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I hope you will not feel that I am abusing the guidelines you set by asking questions respecting the eventual elimination of subsidies, but I want to approach the matter from a different angle. In light of the minister's announced intention eventually to
Dairy Policy
phase out the subsidies and have all the increased costs to producers met at the consumer level, what assurances can the minister give milk producers that as the cost of milk, both fluid and industrial, rises at the consumer level and becomes less economic to buy compared with competing products on the market shelf, consumption of milk will not drop and that they will be forced to curtail production as a result?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, the total program is geared to guaranteeing that there will be constant production. As a result of the measures we took last year, Canada has had a lesser reduction in production than nearly every other nation of the world. Our dairy products also, even with the present program, are comparable with any nation of the world, and in most instances at a lower price to the consumers. Last year when we used the subsidy of five cents a quart, costs were rising faster than the general CPI. That has changed at the present time.
I repeat that we never said that we would discontinue the subsidy to producers. We said we would not enlarge it, and we hope that as a result of our programs more of it will be passed on to the consuming public. I know I am repeating myself, but these social programs will take over the extra cost to consumers on fixed and low incomes, etc., who cannot afford this commodity. They will be taken care of by that kind of program.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I have a brief supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the subsidy on skim milk powder. In light of the fact that experience in many cities has been that the introduction of the federal subsidy on skim milk powder has trapped supermarkets, so that if they are to take advantage of the subsidy they are required to take a loss on the sale of skim milk powder, and as a consequence they dropped certain brands and sizes of packages affected by the government refusal to allow them to increase prices at the consumer level, is the minister reconsidering representations made by the National Dairy Council and by the Retail Council of Canada suggesting that the retailers be allowed, if they collect the subsidy, at least to cover their costs?


Eugene Whelan: In the first place, Mr. Speaker, the retailers do not collect the subsidy; we pay it to the processors. In turn, the processors apply it to the retail outlets. The retailer is allowed a margin on this. Some do not think they are getting a big enough margin, and in some instances they are selling it as a stock loss leader. There is no real way they are bound by what they can do with it except sell it. I should not say there is no way; there is a certain margin they are allowed to have, but no higher than that.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Some of them, when the price was frozen, sold it as a loss leader.


Eugene Whelan: There is an inquiry going on at the present time by the Food Prices Review Board just on this very point, and it is quite detailed. I know there are some difficulties but I do not foresee them to be insurmountable. They are difficulties that can be overcome. We agreed today to work out a proper program with the trade so they are treated in a fair fashion.

April 18, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Gus MacFarlane (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is somewhat related but deals more with the small dairy producer. In the minister's discussions did any of the dairy producers indicate that they had a fear that because of the increase in price their market will drop off? If that is the case, is there anything within the minister's organization to give them an opportunity to indicate that it might not be feasible for them to continue production? Is there any kind of assistance they could look for if this were to occur?


Eugene Whelan: There is no doubt that the program is one that is geared to the efficient producer. It is also geared to protect the small producer. The figures used here to work out the base price of $11.02 a hundredweight were worked out on a herd size of 17 milking cows. It was not worked out on a herd size of 100 milking cows or one of lesser size, but on one that we figured was the size you should have to make it productive so that the family farm can stay in business. This program is geared to a quota program to make sure these farmers stay alive, but there will be an incentive here for them to be creative and more efficient.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand the Secretary of State has a bill to present. Would it be possible to go back to introduction of bills to allow him to make that presentation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the House agree to revert to the introduction of bills to allow the Secretary of State to introduce this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 1,273, 1,478, 1,574, 1,855 and 1,898.
Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 1,079 and 1,937 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	Since the signing of the France-Canada agreement, by month to date, how many French civilians of military age made application to come to Canada instead of doing their compulsory two-year military service?

2.	By month, how many were accepted and, by province, where are they located in Canada?
3.	How many of those accepted are in the employ of the (a) government (b) provincial governments and, in each case (i) where are they located (ii) what is their job description (iii) what salary are they receiving?
4.	How many are employed in (a) education (b) health and/or social services (c) private industry and, in each case, what is their job description, salary and location?
5.	How many applications to take advantage of the France-Canada agreement are still in the processing stage?
6.	How many applicants have been refused admission under the agreement?
7.	Is the agreement perpetual or is there an end-date after which no further applications will be received and, if so, what is that date?
8.	Who is responsible for (a) travelling expenses (b) accommodation expenses (c) medical expenses (d) unemployment expenses, for those taking advantage of the terms of the agreement?
9.	In each case, what is the marital status of those accepted and do the terms of the agreement allow for the transfer of spouses and family to Canada?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. Information not available.
2.	Statistics are not available on a monthly basis. In 1974, 37 civilians came to Canada to begin their 16 month employment in Canada. By province, the distribution is as follows: Ontario, 22; New Brunswick, 10; Alberta, 3; British Columbia, 1; Manitoba, 1. Statistics are not available for Quebec.
3.	(a) Nine of the 37 mentioned in Part 2 are employed by the government: Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, 1; Department of Supply and Services (Translation), Fredericton, 1; Department of National Defence, Kingston, 1; Secretary of State (Translation), Ottawa, 4; Canadian Transport Commission, Ottawa, 1; Canadian Economic Council, Ottawa, 1; Economic Council of Canada, Ottawa, 1; (b) (i) (ii) (iii) Five of the 37 are employed by the Department of Health and Welfare of the Province of New Brunswick in Fredericton. Each is paid a monthly allowance of $450.
4.	(a) Twenty of the 37 are employed in the field of education. By province and by institution, their distribution is as follows: Ontario, 14: Lycee Claudel (Ottawa, 5; University of Toronto, 3; Queen's University, 2; University of Ottawa, 1; Guelph University, 1; University of Western Ontario, 1; Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, (Toronto), 1. Alberta, 3: University of Alberta, 1; University of Calgary, 1; College Saint-Jean (Edmonton), 1. New Brunswick, 2: University of New Brunswick, 1; Institute of Modern Languages (St. John's), 1. British Columbia, 1: Simon Fraser University, 1. Information on job descriptions is not available. Each civilian is paid a monthly allowance of $450. (b) See 3 (b). (c) As a rule, private industry is excluded from the programme. However, in 1974 two civilians were seconded to I'Evangeline (Moncton) and one to La Liberte/Le Patriote (Saint-Boniface).
5.	Information is not available.
6.	Information is not available.
7.	There is no formal agreement covering this programme.
8.	(a) The Canadian employer, (b) The civilian, (c) The French Government and the civilian, (d) The Canadian employer and the civilian.
April 18, 1975

9.	Civilians may bring their dependants to Canada but must defray themselves all costs incurred.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Prime Minister state in a speech to the Liberal Party fund raising dinner in Montreal on or about January 31, 1975: "I will not leave Ottawa until the country and the government is irreversibly bilingual"?
2.	Is it also the Prime Minister's intention not to leave Ottawa until the country has moved irreversibly down the road to inflation?
3.	Is it also the Prime Minister's intention not to leave Ottawa until the country has moved irreversibly into business and industrial recession?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. Yes.
2 and 3. These questions are unusually silly, even for the questioner.


Mr. Herbert: For each of the past two years, how many public servants were sent on full-time courses of (a) a duration of more than six months (b) three months or more immediately after having completed such a course?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: (a) Language courses: 1973, 290; 1974, 877; British Program for Administrative Principals: 1972-73, 3; 1973-74, 3; 197475, 4. Ecole nationale d'administration (Paris): 1972-73, 2; 1973-74, 3; 1974-75, 4. Ecole nationale d'administration (Quebec): 1972-73, 4; 1973-74, 5; 1974-75, 4. Ecole internationale de Bordeaux: 1973, 3; 1974, 3; 1975, 1. (b) Nil.


Mr. Herbert: How many public servants who have taken and passed instruction courses in second language training have subsequently taken additional full-time instruction course other than for reasons connected with promotion?


James Hugh Faulkner: I am
informed by the Public Service Commission as follows: Public servants who have taken and passed instruction courses in second languages training are not, as a general rule, entitled to further full-time language training. However in cases where a public servant is appointed to a bilingual position requiring a higher level of language knowledge than that required by the previous bilingual position occupied that person may receive up to six months of additional continuous full-time language training in order to meet the higher linguistic requirements of the new position. Our records indicate that to date, no person has received additional continuous full-time language training as specified in the question.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What was the basis for the decision for funding the construction of the Jacques-Cartier terminal facilities in Montreal?
2.	Was the consulting firm of Peat, Marwick and Partners involved in the preparation of any studies used in any way whatsoever to justify this situation and, if so, what was the nature of their involvement?
3.	(a) What is the estimated total cost to the Canadian taxpayer of these facilities (b) what dollar level has been expended to February 28, 1975?
4.	Was the National Harbours Board involved in this decision and, if so, to what extent?
5.	Were these facilities constructed at the urging of the Montreal Port Authority?
6.	What are the terms, if any, of repayment for these facilities?


Jean Marchand: The
National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. The Jacques Cartier Terminal is being funded by the Port of Montreal out of National Harbours Board's own resources according to policy.
2.	No.
3.	(a) Nil, National Harbours Board's own resources are being used, (b) Not applicable.
4.	The National Harbours Board approved the Jacques Cartier Terminal project.
5.	The Montreal Port Authority concurred in the decision to construct the Jacques Cartier Terminal.
6.	Not applicable, National Harbour Board's own resources are being used.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Rodriguez: 1.	How many billboards and/or other signs have been mounted by the Department of National Defence for the purpose of recruiting individuals into the Canadian Armed Forces?
2.	By province and nationally, what is (a) the cost to date (b) the projected total cost of the billboard/sign campaign?
3.	By province and nationally, what is (a) the cost to date (b) the projected cost of recruitment ads (i) on television (ii) on radio (iii) in newspapers?
4.	By province and nationally, how many persons were recruited each month since January, 1972 to date?
5.	By province and nationally, how many persons left the Canadian Armed Forces since January, 1972 to date and what were the numbers attributed to broad classifications, such as resignations, retirements,
etc.?
6.	(a) What is the name of the public relations firm or firms handling the recruitment campaign contract or contracts for the Department (b) what fee or fees (i) have been paid to date (ii) will be paid at the end of the contract(s)?

April 18, 1975
Ways and Means
Return tabled.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES-LETTER SENT TO CHIEF OF MEDIA RELATIONS

Mr. Reynolds: Is the Minister of Supply and Services aware of a letter sent to the Chief of Media Relations, Mr. I. Rolstone on January 15, 1975 and (a) if so, on what date will the information requested be provided (b) if not, will the Minister request that the information be provided on (i) commodity procurement within the Engineering and Science Procurement Services (ii) records of efficiency and complaint of a specific nature respecting the Auditor General or the operational Audit Branch for over-expenditures on contracts (iii) instances when the Minister has over-ruled contracts recommended by his subordinates (iv) names of companies and appropriated amounts of money allocated to firms having had more than five contracts issued within the past year (v) a review of services and the cost of maintenance of the War Supply Agency?
Return tabled.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of a motion to concur in a ways and means motion with respect to the Income Tax Act.
James Hugh Faulkner: That a ways and means motion to amend the Income Tax Act, laid upon the table, Thursday, April 17, 1975, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There was some discussion earlier about the introduction of a bill by the Secretary of State for the Minister of Finance. The ways and means motion which has been taken and disposed of as an order of the day was a condition precedent. The bill can only be introduced now by leave of the House because there is a time limit involved between the filing of notice of the ways and means motion, which we have just done, and the actual introduction of the bill, which would have to be abridged if the bill were to be introduced now. In other words, this would have to be done with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could assure us that he has the approval of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) in respect of the introduction of this bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give its unanimous consent to the introduction of this bill?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


INCOME TAX ACT
James Hugh Faulkner: that Bill C-58, to amend the Income Tax Act, be now read the first time and printed.


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

Mitchell William Sharp: that Bill C-3, to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1965, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to amend the British North America Acts to provide for the appointment of one senator from each of the Northwest and Yukon Territories.
Hon. members are aware of the concern of the government that all regions of Canada should receive fair representation in both Houses of parliament. This aim has been achieved with regard to this Chamber with the enactment of the Representation Act, 1974, and the Northwest Territories Representation Act. Equitable representation in the House of Commons is by no means sufficient, however; we must achieve equitable representation in parliament as a whole. It is essential that the northern viewpoint should find expression in the other place, just as do the views of all other parts of Canada.
This is not a partisan matter, Mr. Speaker. Nor is this the first time the matter has been before parliament. In the second session of the 29th parliament the House gave second reading to Bill C-ll, which was identical in terms to the bill now before us, Bill C-3. At that time my predecessor in office pointed out that in the early days of confederation before the creation of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta, the Territories were represented in the Senate as well as in the Commons.
Moreoever, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has introduced a private member's bill to the same effect as Bill C-3. As hon. members are aware, the government was willing to support the passage of that member's bill until it became evident that there were technical problems which could not be resolved.
It is of fundamental importance to this country that the north should be justly represented in parliament, and I am sure this will be recognized by all hon. members in their consideration of this measure.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would now recognize the hon. member for the Northwest Territories, if the House has no objection.


Gerald William Baldwin: His approval is automatic.


Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks on this matter will be very brief. I think the
April 18, 1975

time taken up with the introduction of this bill in the House is a waste.
When we get the Liberals and the Conservatives together on a measure to provide for the residents of the Northwest and Yukon Territories, a measure they consider to be some kind of a plum, it arouses some suspicion in my mind. Had the two parties got together and suggested the appointment of an ombudsman, or someone of that nature, who could do something for the people of the Northwest and Yukon Territories, I can assure the House they would have received a great deal of support. I see no merit whatever in this idea on which the Liberals and the Conservatives are in agreement. This is a waste of money, and the people of the north have not asked for and do not want anything like this. I do not think any self-respecting northerner would accept such a measure.
Should this bill be approved by this House, and that seems very likely since the Liberals and Conservatives are together on it, it will discriminate to a large extent against the native population of these territories. If hon. members will look at Section 23(4) of the British North America Act they will find that, among the qualifications required to become a senator, a candidate must personally have real property over and above his debts to a value of $4,000. I should like anyone to travel throughout the Northwest and Yukon Territories and point out to me a number of native people who are in that position. I am sure they will find the number to be very small. Just yesterday-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You have it.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Do you want to be one of the representatives of the north?
Just yesterday before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development some figures were read out to us by the representatives from the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. They referred to the income of the people in the Northwest Territories. That is on the record and shows that the income level for the majority of the northern native people is under $1,000. The accepted poverty level for the country, I believe, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3,500. I suggest this discriminates to a large extent against the northern native people.
I should like to reiterate the point that I would rather see this thing scrapped and sent to the junk yard. We would prefer having an ombudsman representing both territories. This could be accomplished with one third the cost of having a senator from each territory who would not be representative. In addition this would amount to the appointment of either a Liberal or Conservative hack, who perhaps would be a campaign manager in forthcoming election campaigns. At the present time I think the Liberals are indicating some kind of desperation over the fact that they do not have representation from either territory, and therefore they intend to take some more of the taxpayer's money which will be wasted in an effort to obtain some representation from that part of the country. I made a slip-that would not be representation at all, Mr. Speaker.
Senate Representation
I hope that this bill does not pass but, if it should pass and should be referred to the committee, I hope that we will have in attendance there representatives from the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, and from their councils, because I am sure they will say what the people from that part of the country believe about this matter. I am almost certain they will echo the sentiments I have expressed at this time. I shall waste no more time on this matter.


Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, while I always respect the remarks and the feelings expressed by the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), I should say I am a little disappointed this morning to hear him accuse the Liberals and Conservatives of getting together in a sort of conspiracy to deal with this bill. Hon. members should be aware that we in this party have never gone to bed with the government. I look back on the twenty-ninth parliament and recall vividly the actions of the party to my left in dealing with the government of that day. I can assure the hon. member that there is no conspiracy at this time on our part to co-operate with the government. We do feel, however, that this bill is necessary and should be passed.
I have no intention of making a lengthy speech on the subject this morning, but I do recall that a week or ten days ago we were dealing with amendments to the Northern Canada Power Corporation Bill. While that bill was in committee we heard from various groups and representatives of the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories. They made representations and suggestions concerning how that particular bill should be dealt with, and nearly without exception the members of those various groups and organizations indicated they were looking forward to the day when both the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories would attain provincial status. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan) and the staff of that department taking part in the committee hearings indicated it was their feeling that we should work toward the day when both these territories would attain provincial status.
I feel this particular bill is one more step toward giving both territories provincial status. It moves us one step closer toward attaining that status, which I believe is what the people of the territories and all members of this House want. Over the years there has been much criticism of the other place. Much of that criticism has been deserved. Over the years appointments to the other place has become a means of paying the political debts of the party in power to those people on the hustings who worked on its behalf.
That was not the intention of the Fathers of Confederation when they set up our constitution and provided for the Senate. They felt there was a need and a place for a Senate in the government of our country, and that the Senate would serve a useful function. The Senate should be made up of a balance of representatives from the various political parties. This is not the situation at the present time.
Before I came down to the House I looked at the parliamentary guide, and noted that recent figures show that the representation in the Senate is made up of 85 per cent of appointees by the government and some 15 per cent of
5000

April 18, 1975
Senate Representation
appointees from this side of the House. This is not a balance. If we have a Senate made up of that proportion of representatives of the two political parties we really are not getting a proper representation so far as the people of the country are concerned. At this time I should like to call it one o'clock if I may, Mr. Speaker.


John Mercer Reid: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Earlier when we dealt with the notice of ways and means motion Mr. Speaker indicated that unanimous consent was required before a bill based on the notice of ways and means could be brought forward. I should like to reserve my right to argue the point, perhaps on Monday, that the 48 hours' notice is not necessary once the notice of ways and means motion is accepted by the House. In that situation there is authority to bring forward a bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not wish the remarks of the hon. member to be considered as a precedent of a 48 hours' notice to debate the point of order in respect of the 48 hours' notice.
It being one o'clock I now leave the chair until 2 p.m.
At one p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Douglas Charles Neil: Mr. Speaker, before I called it one o'clock I was referring to the imbalance in representation in the Senate and I mentioned that at present about 85 per cent of the Senators are Liberal appointees, about 15 per cent are Conservative appointees, and there is a small handful of independents. I think it is important to point it out, because this imbalance creates such a situation that I do not believe the Senate can function properly.
It seems to me that the government should quickly call together a committee made up of representatives of all parties in the House to study and examine the Senate as it stands at present, to give consideration to the reorganization of the other place, and to see what changes we can make in the Senate to enable it to make a sound and active contribution to the government of the country.
In the meantime I hope that the government will give serious consideration to the manner and method of appointment of the two Senators for the territories. I hope that the amendments that we have before us today in Bill C-3 were made for the purpose of making positions available for people of integrity, people who could contribute, and not just for the purpose of making a place for some political hack. I feel it is important in both cases that the person who is appointed should have stature in the territory and the respect of the residents of that territory. He or she should be a person who has been a leader in the area, should be a person who is apolitical, and does not have political ties.
Furthermore, I think serious consideration should be given to naming a native person as a Senator from one of the territories, preferably someone of the Inuit race. The hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) has

indicated that he feels that under the present provisions in the BNA Act it would be almost impossible for any native person in the territories to qualify as a Senator. I have had the opportunity to examine the BNA act and I find that under 23(3) there is a requirement that anyone who is appointed to the Senate own lands to the value of $4,000 over and above his debts and liabilities. I realize that many of the native people in the territories could not qualify because they do not own land in their own right.
I feel it is incumbent on the government to bring in an amendment to the BNA Act with respect to native people to permit them to qualify as Senators without having to comply with these specific requirements. I believe that if the government, in filling these key positions, follows the criteria that I have mentioned, it will show the public that the Senate does have a place in the government of our country and it can serve a useful function.
On the other hand, if the government proceeds in the same manner as it has in the past with regard to the appointment of Senators, I am sure that the public will continue to feel that the Senate is a rather useless place to which we send people who have served their political parties over the years. We on this side, as well as the public generally, are looking forward with interest to seeing who the candidates will be for appointments in the Senate from the Northwest Territories and the Yukon.


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak for only a moment on this subject. I thought that since there has been so much concentration from the other side on who might be appointed to these positions, we should rather think for a moment about the principle underlying this legislation.
I am very pleased that three years after the special joint committee on the constitution of Canada presented its report to the House and the other place, the government is now bringing forward in legislative form many of the recommendations of that committee.
I think the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), who just spoke, had a point when he mentioned the difficulties to be faced in the appointment of a person of native race to the Senate. This relates not so much to the bill before us, however, as to the requirements for a member of the Senate. If he and other hon. members look at the report of the special joint committee they will find that we had something to say on this point as well. It is high time that the present qualifications were changed, not by way of exceptions for the native people, although indeed they are worthy of exception if one were needed, but because such qualifications are now purely anachronistic.
We do not need another study or commission to consider what needs to be done with the Senate. That question was canvassed by the joint committee on the constitution, and those of us who served felt that, as at the time of confederation itself, this was the single most controversial question before the committee. After some meetings we were able to come up with a consensus on the Senate which included doubling the number of senators from western
April 18, 1975

Canada. I know that will strike a responsive chord with many hon. members opposite.
This bill is something which is overdue. I am very pleased that it is now before us, and I hope it will be followed by other pieces of legislation also emanating from the report of the committee on the constitution.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on this bill. I certainly agree with the purpose of the bill which is to give the Northwest Territories and the Yukon representation in Canada's second chamber. I think that, more than most, this bill will provide a means of fulfilling representation at a level of government which is represented by area. I shall speak on this a little later in relation to our problems on redistribution in this chamber and the relationship of the other place to this chamber in representing areas in Canada.
I believe that the Senate has a recognized role in our government. Even though it is balanced in favour of one political party I feel it does give some input to our governmental process.
I feel that more could be done by the Senate, perhaps by way of introducing bills that are not controversial but are highly technical, because I think the Senate has more time for such study. They have people who can give considerable thought to bills of a special nature such as commercial, financial or cultural, and perhaps they are not quite so restricted by party politics as we in this chamber. Unfortunately, at the present time there are not enough people to give the Conservative viewpoint, but nevertheless I feel that the other place has contributed to the work of this chamber.
On occasion I have been critical of Senate committees although I can think of such worth-while endeavours as the Senate Committee on Poverty and the good job a committee did on the white paper on taxation. I believe that work was useful to us in considering the subsequent legislation.
When considering the recent redistribution of seats, the problem of representation at Ottawa came to the fore. We in the House of Commons have endeavoured to have representation by population. By allowing up to 25 per cent tolerance between urban and rural ridings we recognize that such small provinces as Prince Edward Island have less representation than they are entitled to were they strictly represented by population. Similarly, New Brunswick has less members than is normal. There has been considerable discussion about whether some of these voids might be filled by a better balance in the Senate, and whether the other place could fulfil something that the House of Commons does not.
Whether we like it or not we have always had a great deal of regional government. One region of the country has been dominant in government for some time, and then has been replaced by a predominance from another region. There is no doubt that the province of Quebec and central Canada, with their large populations, have made the rest of the country seem like onlookers on the government scene. This imbalance might be removed to some extent by having representation in the other place that would protect the smaller provinces.
Senate Representation
It is perhaps significant that provinces like Ontario and Quebec are in the centre of the country, flanked by the relatively small four eastern provinces and the four western provinces which are not small but have nothing like the population of Quebec and Ontario. If the western provinces and the maritimes had the population, and Ontario and Quebec were divided into smaller provinces, of course it would have been a different country.
I think we could look at the possibility of the provinces having a hand in making appointments to the other place when vacancies occur. As the west matures I think there is a growing feeling there that it is not adequately represented in Ottawa, and if this feeling persists it could lead to even greater regional strains than we already have.
The tradition of appointments to the other place being made by the party in power may have seemed a good thing in the beginning, and had the political parties alternated with reasonable frequency perhaps no great harm would have been done. I think there is much to be said for keeping close to this House those people who have finished serving their time as members. Let us keep them near us so that they can offer us the benefit of their political experience. Their opinions will be valuable in giving cohesion to our political process.

The Conservative party was the governing party in the first years after confederation, but the Liberal party has governed for most of the past 60 years. Consequently representation in the other place is not balanced. That is why I think an alternative way of making appointments should be considered.
Canada is a regional country. When the pendulum swings back and allows the Conservatives to assume power, it is possible my party will stay in power for as long as the Liberals have governed. This would be in accordance with the nature of our country. It is a regional country and we must do our best to give cohesiveness to this regionalism. I suggest that we have not fully taken this into account in our appointments to the other place. Perhaps it may be desirable to establish a committee of this House, to consider how there might be a better balance in future in the appointment of members to the other place.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the valiant efforts being made to discuss this bill as if it were a serious matter. But I am afraid that like my colleague the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), I regard this as a Friday afternoon joke.
All this talk about bringing the north into the decisionmaking process is meaningless when one considers what the bill will really do. All that will happen if this bill is passed is that some time soon-I suspect it will not take long-the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) will announce the appointment of a couple of northern Liberals to the other place. Incidentally, some of us have argued that there is far more value to a decision we have already made, namely that in the next parliament there are to be two members of parliament from the Northwest Territories as well as one for the Yukon. I point out that not until
29557-41)4

April 18, 1975
Senate Representation
1978 or 1979 will we get a second member from the Northwest Territories sitting in this elected House. I suspect that the two northerners who are to sit in the Senate will take their places in the Senate chamber in a few months. For all I know they may already be in Ottawa, waiting for the invitation to take their seats in the other place.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The list is long.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I hear my hon. friend from Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) commenting that the list is long. This morning my colleague from the Northwest Territories said that no self-respecting northerner would accept the appointment, and the jest came from all parts of the House to the effect that there is a long waiting list. I suggest that such comments only show very clearly the ridiculous nature of this proposal. It has nothing to do with the good governing of Canada or the rounding out of the parliamentary system. It has nothing to do with providing a greater say for the people of the north. This is just a provision to give two more Liberal appointees a spot in that other place.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They might even offer you a spot, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend says they might even offer me a place. Well, that just proves we are having good fun on Friday afternoon.


Douglas Charles Neil: Would you turn it down?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend knows that I have repeatedly said I would not accept an appointment to that other place.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: How about an appointment to the bench, Stanley?


An hon. Member:: The gate should never be closed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It has been suggested that the gate should never be closed. That reminds me of a conversation I had some time ago-let us not put a time limit on this-with three friends of mine in the other place.


An hon. Member:: So you have friends there?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I thought that remark would produce that retort. Yes, I have friends over there. I became involved in a conversation, some time ago, with three of my friends in the other place who were trying to persuade me that I should go over there. I said it was a nice place to visit but I certainly would not want to go over there to stay. At any rate I argued with them in every way I could. I said, "You know what I think of the Senate and you know what I have said about it in the House of Commons. You know I keep introducing a bill to abolish the Senate. Why do you want me over there?" They said they had quite a few people over there who had been opposed to the Senate before being appointed to it, and that they had become good Senators. I said that would not apply in my case. At any rate, I tried all my good arguments to show why I would not consider a Senate appointment, and got nowhere.

Finally I said to those three friends, all of whom were in the Senate before there was an age limit-in other words, they were appointed for life-I said, "Look, I am now 66 years old, almost 67. If I go to the Senate I can stay only eight years or so; but in the House of Commons I can stay as long as I can get elected." They could not answer that. They liked the idea of their appointment being permanent, for life.
Let there be no question about it. I join the self-respecting northerners mentioned by my hon. friend from the Northwest Territories. I would not consider such an appointment in any circumstances.
What has the Senate done lately? What do Their Honours have to their credit, this year? They amended a bill of ours a few weeks ago. This House passed a bill which, among other things, provided that officers and directors of a corporation under certain circumstances could be held personally responsible for the wrongdoings of their companies. When the bill arrived at the other place, they-there are quite a few directors sitting over there-amended it, striking out the words "officers or directors" in all places in that bill where this House had inserted them. I was concerned when this House so supinely accepted the amendments. But that was the Senate's main contribution to the legislative program this session. It protected the position of officers and directors of corporations.
Of course the main activity over there was well documented the other day in a column in one of our daily newspapers which pointed out that the Senate is really the right arm of the Liberal party. After all, most of the people who are at the top level and run that organization must have some base from which to operate, must have some guarantee of their daily bread and butter; so they sit in the Senate and run the Liberal party from that place. All we shall do, if we pass this bill, is provide for two more persons to be part of the right arm of the Liberal party.
When my hon. friend from Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) spoke a while ago he said the Senate consisted of 85 per cent Liberal appointees and of 15 per cent Progressive Conservative appointees, and a handful of independents. Of course even those so-called independents are part of the first group. They may contend they are independents, but they are Liberal appointees. That is all we shall get from this bill-just two more Liberal appointees. And we shall get them right away.


Mr. Paproski:: They are saving a spot for you, Stanley.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Was the hon. member not here a few minutes ago, or do I have to go over all that again? Certainly those of us who are practically always here on Friday afternoons have fun. There is no reason why a place as serious as this should not get light once in a while and indulge in a bit of jest. However, I submit that the humour being expressed respecting this bill really shows that, for all of the attempts that have been made to make serious speeches, we do not have respect for the non-elected other chamber in this parliament.
April 18, 1975

It is a downright insult to the citizens of northern Canada to suggest that, by giving them these two spots in the other place, we are doing something for them. In his speech before lunch the hon. member for Northwest Territories suggested that one ombudsman for that area would be of far more value to the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories than two northern Liberals sitting in the other place. If this House is determined, as apparently it is, to go through with this proposition, I suppose it will do so, and we should not spend too much time on it. However, let us not think we are doing anything concrete for the north, or for Canada, by increasing the size of the other place.
This leads me to say that what we should be doing about the other place is to reduce its numbers, not increase them. I noted the comments made by the hon. member for Wind-sor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan) about the report of the joint committee on the constitution of Canada. I do not blame him for standing up and boasting of the fact that that committee made representations respecting the Senate. As he knows, the Senate barely survived the discussions and the vote in that committee. Instead of a recommendation to increase the number of Senators from some parts of the country, there might well have been a recommendation that it be abolished.
At this point, I should like to do, as I always do quite sincerely in this kind of a speech, that is put in my caveat about this not being criticism of individuals in the other place. There are some over there who are more hard-working than some individuals in this place. I see them around here. They are on the job. They are sincere in what they are trying to do. It is the whole idea that persons who are not elected and not responsible to anyone, not even to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who recommended them in the first place, or to the Governor General who summons them there, should have a say in the passing of the laws of this country equal with the say that is given to us who are elected by our people and are responsible to them-it is that whole idea I criticise.
There are one or two things about the bill that should be looked at in committee if it gets past second reading. As has been pointed out, it is a requirement of the British North America Act that Senators shall have a certain residence requirement. In Section 23(5) of the British North America Act there appear these words: "He shall be a resident of the province for which he is appointed." By passing this bill are we going to declare that the Yukon is a province and that the Northwest Territories will be regarded as a province? Where will these persons reside? There is nothing on that in Bill C-3.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: "Notwithstanding anything-".


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do you find anything that says "notwithstanding"?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, "notwithstanding anything contained in the British North America Act".


J. Judd Buchanan: We used to have members from the Northwest Territories.


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the Senate?
Senate Representation


J. Judd Buchanan: Yes, four of them.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are talking about the Northwest Territories when they included the part of the country that the member for Edmonton West and I now represent.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, but they have not changed. All they did was put in provincial boundaries.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I might say that at one time we had members of a second chamber in the province of Manitoba, as they did in Nova Scotia, but in those provinces we got sensible a long time ago and got rid of them. The last remaining upper House in a provincial legislature was in Quebec, and they got rid of it a short while ago.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is irrelevant.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member says it is irrelevant, but I do not see anything in those words that gets around the requirements of the British North America Act with respect to the Senate. If the hon. member is trying to say that those words in the first line wipe out the residential qualification, do they also wipe out the qualification that the Senator must have $4,000 worth of real property?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would think so.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do they also wipe out the requirement that he must be at least 30 years of age?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Presumably.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is great legal advice I am getting on the constitution.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: It says "notwithstanding", almost even the title.


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is very interesting legal advice that is coming from the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), and when it is free you look at it a second time.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes; but, Stanley, you are just thinking on your feet now.


An hon. Member:: Wait until you get the bill.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have it in front of me. I will give my interpretation of this, and I will also give it free. The phrase "notwithstanding" relates to what this bill does, which is to increase the number who sit in the other place. At the present time the British North America Act sets a limit on the number that can be in the other place, normally 102, plus a certain group that can be added for emergency reasons. All that "notwithstanding" does is set aside that number and permit the House to increase the number of persons in the other place.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That may be one
interpretation.

April 18, 1975
Senate Representation


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member for Edmonton West has one interpretation and I have another. Either interpretation produces laughter in various parts of the House. I suggest that shows how careless has been the preparation of this bill and how big a joke this whole thing is.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan).


Mr. Watson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If the minister's remarks will close the debate-


Stanley Howard Knowles: This is not his
bill.


J. Judd Buchanan: This is a bill of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It was introduced by the President of the Privy Council.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to support the bill of my colleague, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp).
Dealing with the comment raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the concept of the bill is not new. Prior to 1905 the Northwest Territories were represented by four members of the Senate, when the Territories included all of what is now the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, a large part of Manitoba, the northern part of Ontario and the northern part of Quebec. With the creation of the two new provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan, these Senate seats were allocated to them. Since then suggestions have been made from time to time, and from various quarters, to correct this situation and provide the north with a larger voice in parliament.
Members recently indicated their support for this principle when they gave approval to Bill C-51, to create a second seat in this chamber for the Northwest Territories. Today we have an opportunity to go one step further, and I sincerely hope that all members will lend their support to this measure.
The people of the north are developing an increasing interest and awareness of their affairs. They wish to participate more actively at all levels. I am sure that both the hon. member for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) and the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will attest to this.
I might add that the Northwest Territories Council is on record as supporting the provision of territorial representation in the Senate. The Council's representatives made this point clear when they appeared before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development approximately one year ago and indicated that the Council had unanimously endorsed this bill when it was before the previous parliament. I have no doubt the people of the Northwest Territories look forward to being represented in both Houses of Parliament again. Nor do I have any doubt that the people of the Yukon want their own Senator.
[Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).)
It is as important to increase the northern voice at the national level as it is at the territorial and municipal levels. The provision of Senate seats for the two territories will provide additional opportunities for the expression of the northern viewpoint in parliament, and improve communications between Ottawa and the two territories at the parliamentary level. I have no hesitation in recommending that all hon. members give favourable consideration to this bill.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have been engaging in an exchange of legal opinion here in connection with the wording of this bill.


An hon. Member:: With that other lawyer.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Neither of us charged the other.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Notwithstanding that, there is no doubt that further comment will be made in the committee when the bill is under consideration there. I have always been amused at the attempts at levity made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). He said that the efforts which he called fun and jokes-and incidentally he did not recognize that there was some rather sharp shafting being included in that levity-were a measure of the lack of concern, or contempt, that the House holds for this particular provision. All I can say is that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre unfortunately takes himself too seriously when he is sententiously expressing the opinion of one person

himself-particularly so on this point.
In so far as hon. members make strictures with regard to the other place, I would like to say that they are perhaps lucky that in the other place they do not make strictures about reducing the size of this overgrown chamber, and I may say I can say that because I am a member of this place. The proposal to bloat it out of proportion that we blithely adopted in the legislation considered earlier this session was a serious mistake, I think, for the future operation of this chamber. Be that as it may, I would hope that some hon. members feel that some of the more able of their colleagues or contemporaries in the other place would be restrained or constrained from making similar remarks about eliminating parts of the House of Commons, or perhaps one of these days we will see a proposal in the other place to do precisely what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre tries to do at a stroke of the pen, likely his own, to wipe out the other part. That is the easiest way to eliminate differences of opinion-just strike them out.
I can think of no greater danger in Canadian democracy than the tyranny of a temporary majority. We have seen temporary majorities here run away with ideas. In 1970, for instance-and I know the hon. member will gladly subscribe to this-in October, 1970 it was a temporary runaway majority, a stampede of opinion, which created terrible precedents in this country, and we will live to regret it.
I welcome the provision now before us if only, Mr. Speaker, because many times in schools that I visit in my constituency I am asked to trace through the structure of Canadian government in Canada. I am asked to trace back
April 18, 1975

to the days of Confederation and to say why the Senate was proposed, why it was established.
Some people feel the world was discovered yesterday. But many of the problems faced in Canada today are merely a translation into a present-day picture of a problem which existed in the 18th century, for example, the question of disparity of language, the disparity of people in the Atlantic provinces as compared with those of Central Canada.
It is heard quite frequently, both in the Atlantic provinces as well as out in the west, that the people in Ottawa, Toronto and Montreal think that all that is good for Canada are the things that are good for their areas. In other words, if it's good for Central Canada it has to be good for the rest of Canada. It is precisely that spirit which existed in Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island back in the 1860's. One of the ways to counteract this oppression by population, this potential injustice, was to have a Senate in which the representation was disproportionate. In other words, by giving 24 Senate seats to the Atlantic provinces, 24 to Lower Canada, 24 to Upper Canada and 24, in the end, to Western Canada, some counterbalance was created against this mass of population in favour of smaller regions with smaller populations. That was the theory. It hasn't always worked out.
I think that the constitution of the Senate, that is, the naming of members, the practices of governments and prime ministers, all have eroded the proper status of Senate representation. I think the Senate has far greater potential than has been expressed by it. After all, it lies within the hands of government first of all to appoint members, and I think the government could quite readily name individuals to the Senate from all parts of the country, whether or not they are necessarily recognized by reason of party service, or have been effective political bagmen, or wanted to become effective bagmen, or because they are needed on some kind of part-time salary ready to become national chairmen, or for any other ulterior reason.
But even among those men who are appointed for the reasons I have outlined, I must say that there have been some excellent workers in so far as the country is concerned. There have been men and women of energy, and I do not wish to pick out any particular individuals. However, let me say that I do not think that outside commentators should point at one or two individuals in the Senate and condemn the whole institution. If it were all right to do such things, then some of the reputations in this House would not be very high either. Of course, the same could be said of newspaper editors, university professors, by anybody who wished to cast stones. They need only pick the poorest representatives in their class and give them a general classification, and we would all be in the same boat, somewhere down at the bottom of the heap.
Notwithstanding what the hon. member for Northwest Territories had to say this morning, I do not see that an ombudsman named both for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories would add one cubit to the effectiveness of government for the people in that area. Is it to be an
Senate Representation
ombudsman between the people and the Northwest Territories council, the administration there, or between Yukoners and the Yukon administration, or is it to be an ombudsman vis-a-vis the whole of the federal administration?
So far we have not appointed a federal ombudsman, and I may say that I am not too sure it would be as effective as a provincial ombudsman. I do not know that a federal ombudsman is necessarily the answer but, leaving that aside, so far as representation of the people in the territories is concerned, it seems to me that we have a classic example of a territory that so far is economically lightly developed, with a very small population, in the same way as we would consider, say, Prince Edward Island was at the time of confederation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Oh, they had a much higher degree of advancement.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: With all respect to my leader-


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You must be careful!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, he tells me I have to be careful. I am not talking about their intellectual development. If my leader continues this too far he might find himself in trouble in Yellowknife! Let us look at the relative picture. I think there is some similarity between the time of confederation and today in terms of the degree of population, the density of population, of Prince Edward Island and Upper Canada, compared with the territories vis-a-vis what we call southern Canada, and so far as the relative degree of economic development is concerned.
Looking back 115 years, in some areas of Canada it was thought right to have Senators in addition to members of the House of Commons. In terms of population alone, neither of the territories really deserves representation in this House. In other words, there is an over-weighting even on the basis of their representation by one member each. After all, my own constituency has four times the population of either of the territories, yet there is still equal membership.
I have no objection to that. Even without direct contact with the area it is easily recognizable that both hon. members who represent those areas today have a great physical problem in getting around to see all their constituents. Not only is it a physical problem, it is also monetary. Surely representation in this place on behalf of that vast territory, the Northwest Territories, and the geographically less extensive Yukon territory, would be enhanced by representation in the other place, and I cannot see why not.
I must say I find it rather difficult even to take half seriously the criticisms of the hon. member for Northwest Territories to the effect that there would be difficulty in finding people from the territories, that so many people would be disenfranchised and would not be entitled to appear in the Senate. I cannot agree with him there.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You think you will be able to find two all right?

April 18, 1975
Senate Representation


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes. Let me say that if you really want to dig into it there are a lot of people, true northerners and not transplanted southerners, who are, without my trying to be in any way patronizing, wise and educated, and what we call natives of the Northwest Territories, and they would be an addition to the other place, as they are to this place. I would be the first to defend the appointment of my old friend Jim Gladstone to the Senate, at a time when a lot of people derided it. They said we were taking a prairie Indian and putting him in the Senate, and that, aw shucks, this would accomplish nothing.
However, the appointment of Senator Gladstone and the work he did among the native Indians to bring them to the position of voting, and then convincing them that they should exercise their right to vote, is an historical fact. Doubtless members recall the difference between the election of 1962-63 and other elections as to the exercise of the ballot. I was with Senator Gladstone, and I know that immediately following passage of the act in 1962 that allowed treaty Indians who hitherto had not had the right to vote to exercise their ballot, there was a great deal of suspicion and uneasiness. After all, this was something unknown. That this suspicion was dispelled was due largely to the efforts of Jim Gladstone.
I am sure there are scores and scores of people in the Northwest Territories and Yukon, whether they be Indian, Eskimo or, not strangers to the place, but white men who were born and raised there, and who have the spirit of the Northwest Territories in their blood just as much as anybody else in the provinces have the spirit of the provinces in their blood, who would be suitable for appointment.
This might offer the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) an opportunity to change his policy with regard to appointments to the Senate. He could take some independent-minded people and those of other parties and appoint them to the Senate, considering the value of the individual concerned for his or her own intrinsic worth and the contribution that they could make.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He is the fifteenth Prime Minister who has had that opportunity.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: There is always a first time. I hope these two Senators will be named and that they will take their place there. We are going to see two additional members from the territories in this House around 1978 or 1979. One might say this is going to be disproportionate representation, but bearing in mind that the over-all ceiling of this House is going to rise up like dough rising in a warming oven, this number will not be out of line with the sum total representation of the rest of the country. Again I regret the increase in the size of the membership of this House because I do not think it is going to work toward its efficiency.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They will have to be pretty thin.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: They would certainly have to be thinner than me. However, you would be surprised how those of us who are squarely built, like myself, get along well. In any event I commend the bill to the hon. members of this House. I am sure there will be

some representation, notwithstanding what was said by the hon. member for Northwest Territories, and I am sure that the majority of the people in the Northwest Territories are in favour of this particular bill.
After all, it is only since 1972 that the hon. member has represented the Northwest Territories, and there are people there of political persuasions other than his. In fact,
I am sure there are more people of non-New Democratic persuasion in the Northwest Territories: the hon. member does not speak on behalf of the real majority of the people in the Northwest Territories. He is the elected member representing that area and he has given us his opinion. I am sure that if it were put to all the people in the territories, there would be a majority in favour of the bill.
I commend the bill to hon. members with the hope that in due course the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs will see fit to pass it and recommend it to the House for ultimate inscription in the statutes of this country.


Ian Watson: Madam Speaker, though the government justifies this bill saying that the Northwest Territories and the Yukon will be better represented, I feel that it is ill-advised, and find it difficult to accept the increase in size of a group that is neither elected nor, in fact, representative of the population.

Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to accept this bill and I intend to vote against it. I do not oppose it because I quarrel with the legitimate desire of northerners to have additional voices here in Ottawa, and that is certainly one of the aspects which is on the plus side for northerners. My objection is that while we are talking about Senate reform we should not be proceeding in the direction of increasing the size of that place, at least before we have given serious consideration to such proposed reform. I think the government is out of line completely in moving on this bill now. It has made promises over the last generation, and certainly in the last few years I have been here-


Stanley Howard Knowles: And ever since I have been here.


Ian Watson: -the government has made promises to move toward Senate reform, yet we are here debating a measure to increase the size of that body which is nonrepresentative and non-elected. We should not be doing this. We are going to increase the size of the representation of the Northwest Territories in this House when the next election occurs. We have passed that bill, and it seems to me that the change we are discussing today could have waited until we had an indication of the direction we intend to take on Senate reform. In spite of the fact that northerners may feel they are getting some kind of additional representation by having two senators, the method that has been generally used in selecting senators up to now does not lend much support to the theory that they are really representing anyone.
April 18, 1975

I would argue that northerners need more visits from members of the House of Commons. We have a committee that is responsible for Indian affairs and northern development. That committee put itself on record as being in favour of annual visits to each of the territories. It is part of the function of that committee, perhaps not all of its members at one time but the members of sub-committees appointed for that purpose, to visit the north on a regular basis, listening to the people and supplying them with an additional means of influencing the decisions made here in Ottawa.
The people in the north are in a different constitutional category from other Canadians in that these areas are not provinces. Judging by size of population, it will be a long time before they become provinces. Major changes have taken place in the viewpoint of Canadians toward resources generally. We now realize that there is perhaps no more important element in our economy than the natural resources spread across the country, 40 per cent of which are located within these two territories if our geological theorists are to be believed. Those two territories represent approximately 40 per cent of the total land mass of this country.
Given this change in the Canadian attitude toward resources, I think it is reasonable to expect changes in our thinking on the constitutional development of these Territories in the coming years. This bill is a mindless sort of move to implement promises of the past. It is an unthinking-forward motion resulting from past promises and it is ill-timed. Because of the prior need for Senate reform and possible changes in our thinking and approach to the constitutional evolution of the Northwest and Yukon Territories, I intend to vote against the bill.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I should like to make one or two comments prior to the passage of this motion on Bill C-3. After listening to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I got the impression that while he is consistent in his view about rejecting acceptance of the Senate out of hand, he feels that if a person agrees with his point of view he must be serious, but if he does not he must somehow be looking at this matter in a flippant way. While I appreciate the hon. member's consistency in his point of view, I find it a little difficult to accept that idea. I do not accept that kind of condemnation.
In respect of representation of the north and Senate reform generally, I appreciate the views expressed by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson). As parliamentarians, we are liable to a lot of criticism as a result of the impression held by many Canadians about the role of the Senate. According to the terms of the British North America Act, the Senate has two very specific functions to perform. It is supposed to be the place of sober second thought on legislation passed by this House. When you consider the age of some of us, perhaps that sober second thought is needed more today than ever before. That is a matter of opinion.
In the past, the Senate has performed many useful services to the parliamentary process. It has taken a second look at legislation and has possibly seen it from another perspective. From that point of view, the existence of the Senate is of real value. This takes me directly
Senate Representation
to the subject of area representation. It is said that the Senate is based on area representation but I do not believe for one minute that anyone in this House would really try to support that argument. Senate representation is really approached or accepted on the basis of compromise. If area representation in the Senate is to be valid, a new formula of representation will have to be considered during our discussions on Senate reform.
When we have a situation where a province such as Quebec or Ontario has 24 senators while the whole of the west has 24, I do not believe we have area representation. Also, I believe senators have been appointed through the political process. Often they have received their appointments for political favours given in the past. This process has been followed by both Liberals and Conservatives. In this way senators are compromised: when they reach the Senate they will not bite the hand that feeds them.
We have heard the arguments in respect of provincial rights with relation to natural resources. In that case, do we hear the members of the other place fulfilling their role as area representatives or, rather, do we hear them voicing the official party position on this question? It is my thinking with regard to a review of the British North America Act that it is incumbent upon senators to find out what the area views are and to express them no matter to what political party they belong. If there is to be Senate reform, senators first and foremost should protect provincial or area rights rather than vote according to official party lines.
In the joint committee on the constitution a recommendation was made that representation from the west be increased by 12 senators. I do not believe that in any way addresses itself to the problem. I do not believe that by this means area representation would be improved. While I support Bill C-3 in principle because I want to see representation from the north, I do not believe for a minute it contributes to the principle to which I am referring. It is my opinion that if the Senate is to be representative of the areas of Canada, it should reflect that representation on the basis of numerical equality rather than on the misconstrued formula which we have at the present time.
One of the objections that we as public officials receive comes from people who in effect ask what the senators are doing. They ask whether they are simply being paid off for favours rendered in the past and whether they simply become the right arm of the political machine or organization of the party to which they belong. I raise this matter very sincerely, Madam Speaker. I do not believe it is in the interest of parliament or the attitude we want to develop within the Canadian public, namely, of respect for the parliamentary process, that senators should take on a leading role in the party to which they belong.
The image of the Senate and parliament which the public seems to receive is that an attempt is being made to perpetuate the political process of the various parties rather than to carry out the responsibilities under the BNA Act, which are, primarily, that the Senate be a sober second-thought legislative body and that there be area representation. I say seriously that I do not see area
5008

April 18, 1975
Senate Representation
representation being given a very prominent position. I suggest that when members of the Senate take leading roles within the party, it compromises their position as senators in respect of their first responsibility and also destroys the confidence of the Canadian public in respect of the parliamentary process.
Senators are paid from the funds of the taxpayers. If they spend the majority of their effort in the interests of their parties, surely this is not the role of senators. I should like to see reform in that regard. This might not necessarily be related to Senate reform, but I think it is incumbent on all parties today to see that the Senate performs its constitutional role rather than a role which might be politically expedient at a given time.
In respect of reform of the Senate other than the question of area representation to which I have referred, the political question and the salaries senators receive, I believe senators should be appointed for a certain period of time. I do not believe the qualification in respect of age 75 is really any great factor. I think senators should be appointed, for example, for a five-year period and that the Prime Minister should have the constitutional right to reappoint them for one further term, let us say, for a total period of ten years.
In that way I feel a senator would know he had a specific period in which to work in the Senate, and because of that might fulfil his responsibility more faithfully. If a senator had fulfilled his responsibility, he would be eligible for a second term. I think this is a concept which should be examined. The public image of the Senate might be enhanced, because the people would know that senators were appointed for a period in order to provide service to their country.
I am in favour of the Senate. I want to see these reforms take place in order that the Senate may function better. I reject out-of-hand suggestions concerning abolition of the Senate. I want to see the bicameral system continue. Having said that, however, I believe that when there are difficulties we must not hide our heads in the sand and say there is no cure. I believe that when it becomes apparent that changes will take place, a change in public opinion will be reflected. So I intend to support this bill but, again, I wish to stress that we should seriously look at Senate reform and not merely talk about it. We should bear in mind that the Fathers of Confederation saw the Senate as a necessary function of the political process.


Mr. Joe Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Madam Speaker, this will be one occasion in the House of Commons when I will support an initiative of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Buchanan).


An hon. Member:: It is not his.


Charles Joseph Clark: After looking at the signature on the bill, I find it is much more difficult for me to support an initiative of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) than it is to support one by our generally, at least, good natured colleague the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. However, I believe this matter is important enough for me to overlook its sponsorship by the President of the Privy Council.

I think we must bear in mind that this initiative has been discussed many times and has been approved by all the major spokesmen for the Yukon Territory and the Northwest Territories except, as we heard earlier today, the present member of parliament for the Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth). It is a matter of record that the Council of the Northwest Territories-both its influential, appointed members and its less influential, elected members-has expressed itself in support of this principle. The same position has been taken by the Council of the Yukon Territory and has been stated very clearly by my colleague who has represented that region so effectively for many years in this House. So I think it is clear this is a measure which receives the support of the great majority of the people of the territories.
I must say that I am rather surprised that my colleague the hon. member for Northwest Territories has chosen this occasion not to support an initiative which would add to the capacity of his region to express its views here in Ottawa and in official circles in the whole of parliament. I regret that. I th.ink that generally he might have come too much under the influence of his colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) whose views on the other place are very well known.
I want to say in passing that I had the opportunity once to serve as a chauffeur to the late Woodrow Lloyd who was a distinguished premier of Saskatchewan and a member of the party of my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, shortly after he had lost an election there. I asked him why he had lost the election, and he told me he had lost it because there was no Senate in the legislature of that province to which he could elevate some of his colleagues who had lost their effectiveness on the hustings but whom he could not dislodge.
There are some practical reasons which would recommend themselves even to the colleagues of my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is an even more unkind comment than I sometimes make. So the other place is just a dumping ground, is it?


Charles Joseph Clark: To a certain degree, in the recent debate on this question the point has been missed. We are not talking about whether or not the Senate of Canada should continue to exist. It does exist. The bill before us is not a bill to do away with the Senate; it is simply a bill to make it a more representative national institution. That is what we are discussing, not the future usefulness or function of the Senate. The precise question is whether the two great northern territories which occupy so much of our land mass and affect so much of the future of this country should be represented in an institution which calls itself national. I think the answer to that question is clear, and that it should be so representative.
It is clear to many of us who have had anything to do with northern policy that the people of the territories have too often been incidental victims of other ideas, other ideologies and other policies proposed for other purposes here. I believe that they are the incidental victims of the policy of colonialism which, unfortunately, is rampant in
April 18, 1975

the northern development section of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development because there is a determination among several well entrenched bureaucrats there to hold on to power in the northern territories. The capacity of the people of those two territories to have some degree of self-government has been delayed for far too long.
I,	for one, would most strenuously oppose any suggestion that they should be made victims of a simple dislike of the other place by some members of the House. I think they have suffered too much from being the victims of particular ideologies that happen to seize either individual members of the House or individual public servants. I think that if the Senate is to be a national body, it must represent those people and allow them this extra opportunity to have their views expressed and their opinions count here in the whole parliament of Canada.
Let me deal for a moment with the problems of the Senate-and no one would sweep them under the rug. Of course there has been patronage, and of course it has been perpetrated by prime ministers from this party-on the rare occasions we have had them-and prime ministers from the other party. Of course, as the anecdote I recounted earlier about the late, distinguished premier of Saskatchewan indicated, the same motive would have been followed by an NDP government, given the chance. But the fact that patronage has existed does not mean, and has not meant, that some effectiveness of the Senate has been totally undermined. Quite the opposite: there have been some very effective initiatives taken and effective roles played by the Senate despite the patronage.
My colleague, the hon. member for Northwest Territories, I understand raised a good point, that the present appointment requirements involving property and a certain amount of money may well militate against the appointment of native citizens in the two territories. That is a very serious fault and I hope it will be possible at least to consider some means to ensure that the native people, who in the Northwest Territories compromise the majority of the population, will have an equal opportunity to be named to the two new appointments if this House and the whole parliament agrees to create them.
I share the reservations expressed by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), and by others in this debate and elsewhere, about some of the recent practices of the Liberal Party in turning the Senate, in effect, into a political organization room for the Liberal Party and installing their chief executives, their chief fund raisers and chief propagandists in the other place so they can do their partisan work at public expense. That is a practice which, clearly, should be stopped. But the fact that that shameful practice is carried on as one of the functions of the Senate should not obscure our vision of the importance of the Senate on other fronts.
In my view-and I do not often offer congratulations to my colleagues across the way-there has been some modest progress in the appointments to the other place in the last number of years and, indeed, not simply in the last number of years. My own province is represented by at least two senators who clearly got there by merit, namely, Senator Donald Cameron from my own constituency, the founder of the Banff School of Fine Arts, and Senator
Senate Representation
Ernest Manning who served with distinction and success for so long as the premier of my province. Neither of them can be called Pavlovian Liberals who support the government every time it twitches. Indeed, I think that the recent evidence of independence in the Senate indicates that there has been a greater inclination on the part of the Liberals appointed there to question what the treasury benches do than we have found among the backbenchers of the Liberal Party in this House. There has been a much greater inclination for them to stand up for what they believe than there has been among some of my backbench colleagues on the other side.
Having regard to the recent record of my colleague, the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Watson), who spoke before me and who has left, I think that perhaps the consistent independence he has shown in this debate and others will stand him in good stead and at least offers one qualification for his elevation to the other place. Certainly, his independence would make him more at home there than it does here in the back benches of the Liberal Party.
I want to deal for moment with the suggestion that we have some sort of pure democratic system here to which the Senate is a singular affront. We have no such pure system. We have never had a system of direct democracy where one man equalled one vote. My own constituency is an example of the problems of that principle in a country as large as Canada. I represent an area of 40,000 square miles and a population smaller than that of many of my colleagues, such as the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert), the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) and others who represent more compact urban areas. We have always recognized that it is in the nature of this country to allow for some variation in the principle of pure democracy. The Senate is not the single exception to that rule; there have been several others. It is, to say the least, unfair to try to single out the Senate for attack as being undemocratic in one sense or another.
The importance of the Senate-my colleague the hon. member for Provencher and others have made this point- is that it retains the capacity in the Parliament of Canada to ensure some kind of representation for the regions of Canada. That has always been important in a country that is as diverse and as liable to splinter apart as is this country, because it ensures that whatever might happen in an election there will be a vehicle open to the government to draw upon a region where it might not have been successful politically, for advice, for counsel and for the participation in government of outstanding men and women from that particular region or province.
v
The rationale of our Senate, in part, is that we must never overlook the importance to Canada of keeping in touch with the diversity and regional variation in this country. Of course, it has sometimes fallen down in that role, but the capacity is there. I suggest this is a capacity which is particularly important now because of the secret changes that have been introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his attempt to centralize authority in a small group reporting to him and his office. This is a group which more and more reflects his own particular prejudice, even as all our views are particular and prejudiced. It reflects his own prejudiced view of the country.
5010

April 18, 1975
Senate Representation
By appointing people who share his particular perspective of Canada, whether it is the president of the CBC, the Clerk of the Privy Council, or whatever, he has moved away from the traditional idea that the people who make the decisions in this country should reflect as much as possible the diversity of the country. Instead of choosing those people, he has tried to choose people in his own image, and that only reflects a part of the country. At a time like this, when a system of government is being smuggled in which increasingly centralizes power in the image of the Prime Minister, it is doubly important that we maintain and strengthen an institution which can speak for the regions of Canada.
This is precisely what the bill would allow us to do in a small way. It would ensure that regions such as the north, which perhaps more than any other is left out of the day to day considerations of the centralized group who run things, would at least have the right of representation in the second chamber of the Parliament of Canada. I think that is an important innovation and one which we in this House should applaud.
I want to deal now with the opportunity that members from southern Canada have to become acquainted with the special problems of that unique region, the north. It is a region which is unique not only in Canada but in the world. It is a region which is little known to most of us here, although some of us have had an opportunity to visit it. The hon. member for Laprairie-the next senator from the Liberal side-had the opportunity to visit the north, as he told us, as a member of the standing committee.
It is clear that the composition of the population, the nature of development, the delicacy of the ecology, the capacity for exploitation of mineral development and the consequences of that exploitation, are different from the problems in other parts of Canada. It is, therefore, important that there be some continuing way in which both chambers of the Parliament of Canada, which are responsible as a whole for deciding the destiny of this country, should reflect that particular and peculiar part of the country. Of course, it is important, as the hon. member for Laprairie indicated, that the standing committee and other members of parliament should visit that unique region as often as possible.
It is helpful that the publicity attending the Berger inquiry and other such inquiries has increased an awareness in southern Canada of what is going on in the north. Some things have increased our understanding of that region, but certainly the government has been deficient in allowing a greater degree of self-government for those areas and not ending the colonial rule of the region. It is too mature and important to be ruled by a bunch of bureaucrats in an ivory tower in Ottawa.
The government has acted too often to limit the capacity of the north to make its own decisions. This bill is an exception to that general practice and allows an opportunity for the people of the territories and the interests and peculiar nature of the territories to be better known in the whole parliament of Canada. While I agree that this could be achieved in other ways, that fact should not negate the necessity and wisdom of pursuing this particular path. That is all we are being asked to do here. We are not being asked to pass judgment on the Senate of Canada, on

whether there should be a Senate. We are not even being asked to pass judgment on the practice of institutionalizing the Liberal Party and its political arm in the Senate. We are simply being asked to make that institution, which like this one is supposed to be a national institution, one which is national in fact. I think this is an important initiative and it is one which I intend to support. I regret having to commend the President of the Privy Council for anything, but I commend him for bringing forward this measure and I intend to support it.


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I had not proposed to participate in this debate, but having heard some of the comments I must say that I was impressed in particular with the speech of the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). I am surprised that the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth) would object to the suggestion that one person from the Northwest Territories and one from the Yukon be appointed as additional members of the Senate. Surely this would provide a voice that is needed for those two parts of the country. I am sure everyone in this House feels there is room for reform of the Senate. I must say that when I first came here, my answer to the Senate was simplistic-abolish it. But I think that as long as we have it, we should find ways to improve it.


An hon. Member:: You were right the first time.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The appointments that have been made, and the role taken by the Senate in the six or seven years that I have been here, have given me a new appreciation of the part that the Senate can play. Whether the appointments are political or, as the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark) has said, are made on the basis of individual talent and ability, I think there is a role for the Senate to play. I do not think anyone would detract from the excellence of the report on the media that was made by that staunch and persuasive Liberal, Senator Keith Davey. There was also Senator Croll's report on poverty which I commend to all hon. members for reading or rereading.
The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) said that senators would do nothing to bite the hand that feeds them. But, Madam Speaker, they are appointed until they are 75; they do not have to worry about the hand because it has already fed them. They are very independent members in that particular tribunal and are in a position to do something for Canada.
I do not think I am betraying any confidence by saying that I have recommended two individuals, both Liberal, for appointment. Neither has been appointed yet, I might add, but I am sure that if they become members of the Senate they will lose any Liberal bias and become good Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: They will be able to ignore the political patronage aspect or feeling. In my experience, Liberals are the people who do most for this country and that is why there are so many in the Senate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
April 18, 1975


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I was surprised to hear the hon. member for Northwest Territories speak about the appointment of an ombudsman. That is why I paid particular attention to the speech of the hon. member for Edmonton West. A senator is in a position to be an ombudsman. Surely one of the first obligations of a senator or of a member of parliament is to act as ombudsman. The two new senators may be known as senators from the Northwest Territories and the Yukon, but their role will be that of ombudsman.
Speaking of ombudsmen, it is interesting to note that the CBC ombudsman-who does a commendable job-has at his disposal a staff of 65 and a fairly large budget. Any member of parliament who worked with a staff of 65 could do a pretty good job as an ombudsman. In addition to his large staff, the CBC ombudsman has available the services of television camera crews and aircraft which may fly him and his staff to any part of the Northwest Territories or to any other part of the country. Sometimes the revelations of the CBC program "Ombudsman" embarrass this government and embarrass the governments of the provinces and the territories. I think the role which the CBC ombudsman assumes is a proper role, a commendable one, and I commend the CBC for this program: It is a role which all members wish to assume. Independent-thinking people from the Northwest Territories and the Yukon who will be appointed to the other place will also have a role to play as ombudsmen.
One hears much talk in this House about reforming the Senate. Right now, however, we are concerned about giving the people of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories another voice in government and another voice in caucus. Since the NDP adopts the position that it does not want NDP supporters to be appointed to the Senate, that leaves only the other two major parties. Perhaps one candidate should be a Conservative, and one from the NDP.


Charles Joseph Clark: We will see what influence you have.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It may be that the hon. member made a mistake; but if he meant what he said, that one of the appointments should be from the NDP, I reject the suggestion.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: It may be that I felt one of the appointments should be from the NDP, but the NDP do not want appointments to the Senate. I think they are mistaken in their position; they are doing a disservice to the people they represent. Surely not all the people represented by the hon. member for Northwest Territories agree with the philosophy of the hon: member. The people of the Northwest Territories and of the Yukon should be represented in the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They will get two Liberals.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: The hon. member for Rocky Mountain made a good speech this afternoon. Although I must defend him from time to time in my caucus, he is not a bad guy. I
Senate Representation
suggest he speaks much better on his feet than when he is sitting in his seat; he makes a lot of innocuous, silly comments from his seat. When he rises to speak, he makes good sense most of the time, but he is too partisan a Conservative.


Charles Joseph Clark: As you are a Liberal.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: All this talk about the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) being a centralist, about his grabbing control, and so on, comes about because the hon. member belongs to a party which does not know what leadership is all about.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is exactly what we have been looking for.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: There comes a time when the leader of a party must seek consensus. If he cannot get it, he must adopt a certain position. That is exactly what the Prime Minister has done.


Charles Joseph Clark: What is his present position on prices and wages?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: I doubt if the hon. member for Rocky Mountain would understand that, he being a member of the Conservative Party. I support this bill. I hope the appointments will be made. I hope the senators will play the role of ombudsmen, a role the hon. member for Northwest Territories favours; but I think he misses the boat when he says he will not vote for this bill.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, like many others I did not intend to speak on this bill which concerns the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is interested in this subject but is not present this afternoon because he did not know the bill was to be discussed. It is ironic that the hon. member for Northwest Territories (Mr. Firth), in the shortest speech so far, took the position, categorically and without qualification, that so far as he is concerned the Northwest Territories do not need and do not want a senator.
Members have spoken about the merits of appointing two new members to the Senate. In view of some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton (Mr. Cullen), and in view of the lighthearted attitude of the House-this being a Friday afternoon-my party's position, the cross-current of ideas in the House, and the eloquence of the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark), I feel impelled to take part in this debate. I agree with some of the things the hon. member for Rocky Mountain said, although I do not think everything he said was logically consistent. He talked about the independence of the Senate. I ask myself, how can one talk about the independence of sterility? After all, twice zero is zero; ten times zero is still zero. So why talk about the independence of the Senate?
So far as I can see, most members, apart from the hon. member for Northwest Territories and those sitting near him, support this bill. If there is to be a Senate-and on this point I am on the side of the hon. member for Win-

April 18, 1975
Senate Representation
nipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)-then I suppose this bill providing for the appointment of a senator from the Northwest Territories and one from the Yukon will help. I know the hon. member for Northwest Territories has an interest in this matter. He knows much more about the north than any member who has contributed to this debate.
As I say, I would not have spoken on the bill if I had not been aware of the interest shown in this subject by the hon. member for Yukon. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) said very kindly and generously, when introducing the bill, that the hon. member for Yukon had wanted to propose a private member's bill to expand the Senate and provide Senate representation for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, but for technical reasons that bill could not be brought forward and the bill we are now debating was introduced instead. The President of the Privy Council was most generous in his remarks. I know the hon. member for Yukon would like to see the part of the country he speaks for in this House represented in the Senate.
What I now have to say concerns my support for this bill, a support which is qualified. As a student I studied political science, and when I was elected to Ottawa I saw the practical workings of the political process. I, like the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton, had doubts about the Senate. I think that was his position, judging from what he said. However, unlike the hon. member for Sarnia-Lambton I still retain some doubts. Without question, there are some great Canadians in the Senate. Without question, the Senate in recent years has done good work in producing task force reports and in its committees. All the same, to me the Senate, fundamentally, is an historical anachronism. The legislative councils, for all their national aspirations, sincerity and good intentions, have disappeared from this land; the senate, too, will disappear, and I do not think it will take too long.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It is difficult to defend the existence of the Senate, with its present imbalance. This imbalance results from a fact of political history. For the last 30 years or so the party opposite has been in power in this country. I do not say it would have been any different in the Senate if the Conservative Party had been in power for the last 30 years.
You hear much about the work being done by the Senate and about the good work it can do. I know there are many good men there. Perhaps this is part of the difficulty of the hon. member for Northwest Territories. He has this problem and no one in the House can share it, not even the members from Prince Edward Island; but they come closest. The only purpose of the Senate is in providing a floor for representation in this chamber. There is the anomaly of Prince Edward Island, with four Senators and four members. With the population of my area it is difficult to produce much more than one member, perhaps two at the most.


Stanley Howard Knowles: One and a half.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is right. You have that balanced against the great province of British Columbia where, again because of history, with its population it has a limited number of members in the Senate. At the present time there is a fundamental purpose in the Senate of safeguarding the floor-not in the Senate, although it has to start there, but in this chamber.
Perhaps part of the difficulty of the hon. member for Northwest Territories-and it would perhaps be my difficulty if I were elected by the people to represent that area-is the property qualification. That was a very relevant objection of the hon. member. However, it does not just apply to a senator from the Northwest Territories; the property qualification applies right across the country.
I would feel somewhat differently, representing the people of the Northwest Territories-and I may be an NDP and perhaps not in the party in power, or a Conservative and not in the party in power-if as a result of this bill there was going to be another political voice in my territory, another person who would speak for the people. But first there is a property qualification that eliminates the majority of the people from the territory, the native people; second, and more important, he or she is an appointed person and does not have to go through the rigours of hopscotching around the vast area of the Northwest Territories in order to get elected.
When talking to a former member for the Northwest Territories he told me about the uniqueness of that area. He had to travel to Montreal and then fly north to cover the eastern part of the Northwest Territories. He had to go to Winnipeg and then north to get to the western part.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Edmonton.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: You have to go to Edmonton to get to the far west. If I were the member for that area and had to hopscotch around a territory that is larger than "X" number of countries, and go through the election process, I would not feel very happy if out of the blue the government of the day, without any consultation with the people or the elected councils in the Territories, appointed someone who for all practical purposes, and perhaps more so because he was appointed by the government of the day, has more voice in certain parts of the power structure than I did.
Listening to the hon. member for Northwest Territories was almost like listening to the abortion debates we have had in this House. The men of the world stand up and state strongly why they are against abortion; However, when you talk to the ladies who go through some of the pangs of both conception and abortion-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -you get a different response from them. The men make the most fundamental Baptists seem pure. I am not a fundamental Baptist but I am a good, practising Baptist. I am not trying to resurrect the abortion debates which we have in this House from time to time. However, if I were the elected member for Northwest Territories I know how I would feel about someone being appointed without any input from the people and not elected by the people. This problem will face the hon. member for Yukon
April 18, 1975

as well as the hon. member for Northwest Territories; he will also be confronted with it being a political appointment by the government of the day. I think there can be good appointments to the Senate. However, I question the need of it. Until we are emancipated like all the provincial legislatures which have abolished the Senate, I will support the bill, with the reservations I have stated.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: It being four 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, public bills and private bills.


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think there is agreement to proceed with notice of motion No. 24 standing in the name of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway).


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Dean Waldon Whiteway: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should take action to initiate a program in conjunction with the government of Manitoba to prevent further erosion of Lake Winnipeg shoreline through the construction of adequate breakwaters, pilings and rip rap.
He said: Madam Speaker, with reference to Manitoba in general, and Lake Winnipeg in particular, as far as can be determined the three levels of government, particularly the federal and provincial governments, have engaged in little or no concentrated action to lessen the effects of erosion. There was a study announced by the then environment minister, Jack Davis, on September 29, 1971, costing $2 million and to be completed by the end of 1974. Its purpose was:
-to determine the effects that regulation of Lake Winnipeg, diversion of water from the Churchill River and development of the hydroelectric power potential of the Churchill River diversion route are likely to have on water and related resource uses.
Environmental Affairs
It was also to recommend ways of increasing over-all benefits from these projects. The Canada-Manitoba agreement noted that both governments are anxious to ensure that planned water resource developments achieve the greatest possible benefits without unduly prejudicing the present or potential development of these water bodies for other uses. These include water supply, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and transportation.
The Manitoba government initiated studies of erosion and sand movement along the shoreline of Lake Winnipeg. These will be incorporated into the studies authorized under the agreement. Broad guidelines were provided for the studies, involving investigations into the effects of the power development of the water regime, including water levels and flows, erosion, sedimentation and water supply. They will also cover effects on the uses of water and related resources, including community supply, fisheries, wildlife, recreation and tourism, navigation, forestry, land use, mining and historic sites. Social implications were also to be investigated by the board, which I expect will propose means of avoiding undesirable effects on people in the area and suggest how they can gain the greatest social and economic advantage from the development and activities arising out of it.
I commend the governments involved for their efforts. However, the report has not been made public to date and the people of Manitoba are as much in the dark as ever. I understand that the Canadian Centre for Inland Water has proposed a study of Lake Winnipeg which would include environmental aspects, particularly soil erosion. The government of Manitoba has given no indication to the federal government whether or not it intends to proceed at this stage with a joint study. We are awaiting an answer from Manitoba.
I would say this: simply identifying the problem is not enough. At the present time we are awaiting a report on the situation on the Nelson and Churchill rivers. Simply to understand what is taking place in relation to shoreline erosion is not good enough. It is incumbent upon federal and provincial governments that some kind of protective action be considered. I am certain that such measures will be found necessary. What should be the twofold purpose of these studies? The first should be to identify the problem, and the second should take whatever measures are necessary in terms of the prevention of erosion.
I expect the response of the government to this motion will be to the effect that the subject does not specifically fall within federal jurisdiction. Madam Speaker, I wish to bring to your attention examples of federal participation in the conservation of shoreline properties. I cite in particular what has been done in connection with the St. Lawrence, the St. Clair and the Detroit rivers. The federal government sought to ascertain the amount of damage resulting from what I might call unnatural causes, specifically, in these cases, the movement of ships up and down the rivers. The river bank was zoned in accordance with the percentage of damage by erosion attributed to waves caused by the movement of ships. The property owner concerned would then get an estimate of the cost of preventing erosion. He submitted this estimate to the Department of Public Works and in turn the department would

Environmental Affairs
authorize the payment of that percentage of the cost of protection payable under the formula-the percentage of erosion caused by, shall I say, the human factor, in this case shipping. I put it to the minister that the erosion of the shoreline of Lake Winnipeg is also due to human causes, and I suggest that the federal government should participate in the cost of remedial measures to the same degree as it has in the case of the three rivers I have mentioned.
In the last few years in Manitoba, Manitoba Hydro has embarked upon a number of extensive development projects. One of these is known as Genpeg. It is no secret in Manitoba and elsewhere that the potentialities of Genpeg can only be realized if Lake Winnipeg can be used as a reservoir. The corporation intends to raise the average level of the lake from 713 feet to 715 feet by a system of locks, and so on, thereby assuring a reservoir which would provide a constant current for the project. Because of the unnaturally high levels which are constantly maintained, excessive erosion is now a fact. As we saw earlier, where there is a factor in erosion other than natural conditions, the federal government has chosen to take an active interest. Today we see, on Lake Winnipeg, similar conditions, conditions not caused by natural phenomena but by human intervention, by human construction. Erosion of the shoreline has been caused by those factors. I submit that excessive shoreline erosion is taking place as a result of human interference in raising the level of the lake from 713 feet to 715 feet. I do not propose that the federal government should accept full responsibility for the prevention of this erosion of the shoreline. Nevertheless, I believe it would be equitable if the federal government were to participate on the basis of the same formula as applied to the cases I have mentioned.
It would be remiss of me if I were not to say that there is, in fact, the possibility of preventing shoreline erosion. In case the minister may wish to allocate the necessary funds immediately, I propose to outline a scheme upon which the minister can spend this money, if he wishes to do so, starting at the beginning of next week. A number of schemes have been aired by leading engineers in Manitoba, and the one which particularly strikes my fancy, since it is within the easiest economic reach of the federal government, involves a system of groins to be constructed along the shoreline of the lake. Take the stretch of the lake where erosion is most prevalent-around the Sandy Hook area; take a stretch of five miles and build groins, 62 of them, 100 feet in length, running 30 degrees with the coast and extending one mile into the lake, and set them 500 or 600 feet apart. The phenomenon caused by a system of groins is well known. As a result of the currents created by these groins existing along the shoreline, back of the groins there is a field of sand, so that you get natural beaches and the only erosion that takes place is just before the groins at the far end. So that over this stretch of five miles along which these groins are actually constructed there would be virtually no shoreline erosion.
I was quite prepared to do some homework for the minister so that he would not have to run around getting figures for himself, and I inquired in terms of cubic yards of material what the cost would be, whether the material

was really available, and so on. I do not want to suggest a solution if in fact we have to lug the rocks from Nova Scotia. Consider the fact that this five-mile stretch attracts thousands of Manitobans. It would take only
50,000	yards of material to cover this stretch, and this could be acquired as at the end of this month. If the government does not get inflation under control in the month of May, the costs might be somewhat higher; but assuming that the cost remains the same for May, it would be $10.95 a yard delivered and in place.
If you multiply this figure by the 50,000 yards required, it will cost $549,500. Then there is roughly $90,000 additional labour cost. So for total protection forever and ever, or at least for the next 100 years or so, for some $639,500 we can beat shoreline erosion on this stretch of shoreline of which I am speaking of some five miles. We are not talking about billions of dollars of expenditure; we are talking probably of only 40 to 50 miles at the maximum along which this system of groins and rip-rapping, piledriving and possibly breakwaters would have to be constructed. When I make an estimate, Madam Speaker, I like to be accurate and conservative. Perhaps the minister is not familiar with the process of accuracy in estimates, but the total amount required for the protection of the shoreline for all of Lake Winnipeg, with which we are vitally concerned, is within $1 million of $20 million.
I am watching the clock and I notice that my time is almost up, so in summary let me say this: I do not believe that the federal government is justified in continuing an attitude toward shoreline erosion that is indistinguishable from that exemplified by the flat earth society. Shoreline erosion on Lake Winnipeg is, and will continue to be, caused in great part by the human element.
I want to stress again that in the cases I have cited where the human element has caused erosion, the federal government has been willing to participate. I am calling for a very similar and equitable attitude on the part of this government with reference to Lake Winnipeg in particular, and generally for all those areas of western Canada where shoreline erosion is attributed to these factors. Using a similar formula, the federal government is now obliged, because of the sheer magnitude of the issue and the reasonableness of my arguments, to make funds available immediately for this project.


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I should like to commend the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) for bringing this problem to the attention of the government. I should like to speak on behalf of the Department of Public Works. The Department of Public Works is not responsible for shoreline erosion due to natural causes. It does, however, accept responsibility for shoreline damage or erosion which has been caused by wave action from commercial shipping or through the presence of a federal structure such as a breakwater, wharf or other harbour works. Where erosion is caused by natural forces and remedial measures are considered necessary, it is the responsibility of the riparian owner to initiate a remedial program. Where erosion arises from high water levels and flooding and a disaster situation exists, a number of federal government agencies could provide assistance to the
April 18, 1975

province concerned consistent with pertinent federal policy.
I should like to bring that policy to the attention of the House. The British North America Act delegates responsibility for the control of navigation to the federal government. A cabinet directive on remedial works recorded on November 6, 1966, provided for federal government participation in remedial works where erosion is caused by commercial navigation or the presence of a federal government structure. On behalf of the government, the Department of Public Works has been discharging the responsibility of constructing protective works along shores of the St. Lawrence River and other navigable waters where waves from commercial navigation cause erosion. The department also considers erosion to be its responsibility when a government structure is deemed the cause of erosion and when a government property is threatened by erosion from natural causes such as waves, currents, seepage, rain, frost, ice, etc.
It is realized that there should be some reasonable relationship between the cost of the protection work to be built and the value of the property to be protected, otherwise the government could be blamed for having built costly works for the protection of properties of very little value. To ensure that a fair and reasonable relationship criteria is applied, the 1966 cabinet directive was amended and approved by cabinet on May 2, 1974. All memoranda on this subject written prior to the introduction of the revised policy, excluding reference to criteria and guidelines developed by the Department of Public Works, are superseded.
The revised policy is summarized as follows. The Department of Public Works is authorized to construct remedial works and assume the total cost of such works in the event that more than 50 per cent of the erosion can be attributed to navigation or a federal government structure and the value of the land or property to be protected is equal to, or greater than, the cost of such remedial works. Where erosion results mainly from natural causes but where navigation or the presence of a federal government structure is a contributing factor, the Department of Public Works may contribute to the cost of such remedial works in proportion to the effect these causes have on erosion. Contributions will be based on a cost that DPW considers sufficient to provide adequate protection. The Department of Public Works continue to carry out minimum maintenance of such works in accordance with the terms of the policy.
Headquarters and regions will ensure that all remedial works are evaluated in accordance with the terms of the amended policy, and where investigations indicate federal government responsibility, that the degree of government contribution is clearly established through the application of supporting criteria developed by the department. Where supporting criteria is considered inadequate in complex cases clearly to define the degree of government responsibility, it will be the responsibility of regions to identify the need for special studies or measurements and to report their recommendations to headquarters.
Erosion of the shorelines of lakes and rivers is a continuing natural process. The boundary between land and water is subject to constant changes and shifts due to
Environmental Affairs
natural causes, and occasionally man's activities. Erosion and its resulting problems for shoreline property owners occur throughout Canada. Unfortunately, historical development of shorelines has proceeded without a proper awareness of the process of erosion or of the constantly changing nature of the shorelines. All too often this has resulted in serious problems.
The rate of erosion depends on composition of the shoreline and the exposure of the shore to the natural weathering agents, especially currents and waves. In some cases, surface water run-off, ground water seepage, frost and ice action also contribute to erosion. Human activities sometimes intensify these natural erosion processes and cause additional damage. From the environmental point of view it is often a wise rule not to interfere with nature's shoreline processes. The eroded materials usually contribute to building of beaches in other locations and the formation and maintenance of offshore sand bars and islands. However, erosion of shorelines has often led to financial hardship and personal losses. In some cases government action is necessary, but in the case of Lake Winnipeg the federal government is limited in its choice of action.
In most cases erosion affects private property directly. Under the British North America Act, matters concerning property rights normally fall under provincial and municipal jurisdiction. Thus, the federal government has not usually contributed to the construction of erosion protection works. The federal government does have responsibilities related to navigation, fisheries, and in connection with the management of international and interprovincial waters. In special cases, then, it assumes, through the Department of Public Works, some responsibility for protecting shores from erosion caused by commercial navigation or due to the presence of federal structures. Under these circumstances, the federal government has spent about $30 million on the construction and maintenance of shore protective works since 1947.
Where shore erosion can be traced to waves generated by commercial navigation, the Department of Public Works will construct dikes and bank stabilization works to protect the shoreline. If more than 50 per cent of the erosion at a location is caused by marine transport, and if the land to be protected is worth at least twice the cost of remedial works, the Department of Public Works will assume all project costs. If transport or federal structures contribute to less than one-half of the erosion at a site, the department may assume up to 50 per cent of project costs.
In the case of Lake Winnipeg, the government does not consider that the appropriate conditions exist for federal participation in erosion protection projects. Neither commercial navigation nor federal structures contribute in any significant way to the natural erosion forces. Windgenerated waves on this large, open body of water are the main causes of weathering of the shoreline. Furthermore, Lake Winnipeg is neither an international nor an interprovincial body of water and the jurisdiction over property rights lies with provincial authorities.
If, in the judgment of provincial authorities, the erosion problem is serious enough to be considered of national

April 18, 1975
Environmental Affairs
concern, the federal government is willing to discuss the situation. Appropriate mechanisms have been established under the Canada Water Act for joint federal-provincial studies and action in matters of significant national interest. However, in general the federal government is very reluctant to impinge on the provinces' prerogatives in this matter. There is, therefore, no readily apparent justification for federal involvement either directly or in co-operation with the provincial government. Indeed, to federally fund protection bank stabilization works in this instance might create a precedent that could have multibillion dollar ramifications throughout the country.
Nineteenth century thinking demanded that man conquer and tame nature, but human existence is not necessarily a battle against nature. Today we are realizing that perhaps the best course of action is to live in harmony with our environment and the forces of nature. It has been said that flood damages are not cuased by an act of God but by acts of men. The same can be said of erosion damages. It is this government's view that in many cases the most desirable solution to the problem is not the provision of structural works but the introduction of land management practices designed to discourage development on erosion prone shorelines.


Mr. Ross Milne (Peel-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam
Speaker, I should like to take part in this debate for a few minutes, not so much because I have an in-depth knowledge of these problems on Lake Winnipeg but, rather, because I have some general concern along the same line in relation to Lake Ontario, particularly the Scarborough bluffs, and perhaps because I have some background in working in this area as a result of professional training.
We should take a look at the matter of erosion control as introduced by the motion of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway). The previous speaker pretty well outlined the official position of the Department of Public Works and the federal responsibility. Federal responsibility is in the area of navigable waters and damage relating directly to the use of such waters, taking into account the cost of the work in relation to the amount of damage.
I was rather impressed by the approach of the Canadian government to erosion problems. The hon. member for Selkirk raised a question about the time-frame involved and I think his concern is justified. In terms of the government's approach to this problem, I am not sure how widely distributed is the report resulting from the study of shoreline erosion on the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes system. This is a good document in terms of its inventory of those areas that have been damaged, or could be damaged, and the extent. This is much like carrying out a school board inventory of the school repairs necessary and deciding which school needs the repairs most. I do not think you can go ahead with projects in many of these areas until you have made an inventory of the existing problems. The consultative process that flows from this very necessarily involves the provinces.
I hope the report resulting from the study in Manitoba of erosion damage on Lake Winnipeg will soon be forthcoming. I differ with the hon. member in that I believe it will be up to the province of Manitoba to invite federal participation and assistance in this area. I understand the causes of erosion in the area are two, namely, falling water

levels and substantial wave action due to unprecedented winds.
One of the results of hydroelectric power projects is the alteration to a substantial degree of water levels. This is something the governments involved, whether federal or provincial, will have to take into account in dealing with these changing levels. Whenever there is a change in the water level, nature takes its course and re-establishes the shoreline. Those shorelines along our lakes and rivers which are not subject to erosion are shorelines that have experienced a fair amount of erosion in days past, with the soil and material that can be eroded having gone, leaving a granular base that is pretty well erosion free.
I have looked at a number of hydroelectric projects in which I have been interested over the years and have found that much of the damage to the environment has resulted in nature re-establishing shorelines that are essentially erosion-proof. I think it is absolutely necessary, in terms of hydroelectric projects, that this type of analysis and assessment be done ahead of time. I think the remedy proposed by the hon. member for Selkirk is good, but it should have been established before any change in the water level so that nature might have worked to establish the new level.
I have some knowledge of the structure of municipalities, and so on, surrounding lakes and I assume that if Lake Winnipeg is like most lakes of this size it has several municipalities perhaps of differing financial straits and ability to deal with such a program. I was associated with the conservation authority in Ontario some years ago. I was very impressed with the role played by that authority. At one time it was really responsible for the watershed policies in respect of navigation and drainage of the lakes and larger rivers into the conservation and water conserving projects there.
It is of interest, perhaps, to the hon. member that at the present time, in the city of Toronto, all of the shoreline associated with the greater metropolitan area has been turned over to the metropolitan and district conservation authorities in terms of the water shoreline development as well as erosion and shoreline maintenance. This has been done because the province of Ontario has taken the view that perhaps of all the bodies which might be involved in this, this group of people with the overview it has, not only in respect of the shoreline but because of having jurisdiction over the entire watershed, is perhaps the best qualified body to deal with the shoreline itself.
In terms of some of the remedial action the hon. member is suggesting, I think the establishment of a conservation authority, founded essentially by the province but contributed to by each of the municipalities through which the watershed flows, and in some instances by the federal government, is a very good approach to take. I believe it was back in 1954 that we had hurricane Hazel. At that time my riding and particularly the adjacent riding were very drastically affected by the flash flood. There was tremendous erosion not only of the watershed area draining the Humber River system and the metropolitan area, but also on the lakefront, involving loss of life and property. That was really the impetus for the establishment of
April 18, 1975

the conservation authorities which have been able to turn much of the land subject to flooding and bad erosion more or less over to public ownership, on the basis that the land would be used for recreational purposes. With the tremendous growth that we have in urban areas, I think it is almost impossible to satisfy the need for recreational facilities. Much of the remedial work and programs of the authority have been compatible with using the land, when restored, for recreational purposes. I think really this is the only way to accomplish this.
I think quite often when we speak about erosion problems in respect of shorelines, we are specifically interested in a particular shoreline and how it might be repaired at a reasonable cost and in a proper engineering manner. I believe we quite often forget that a good deal of the problem may originate inland, and that we must take a very close look at the entire watershed in terms of agriculture, conservation practices and what the over-all land use practices are.
I have some knowledge of the Great Lakes. From year to year when water levels vary as they do, particularly when the level is high, there is a tremendous amount of erosion and much of that problem results from some very questionable municipal zoning which allows structures to be built in areas which, to the practical eye, are very prone to damage. I think zoning is another area of municipal responsibility in this regard.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Kent-Essex):: Madam Speaker, it is with some trepidation that I rise to join in this discussion this afternoon since I, like the previous speaker, have little knowledge of the actual physical conditions of which the hon. member opposite speaks when he describes the problems that caused him to present this motion. He made reference to the problems around Lake Winnipeg. My riding borders on Lake Erie, one of the Great Lakes which has experienced substantial difficulty from erosion. Considerable assistance has been granted by the federal government in the form of studies along the lakeshore to determine what are the sources of difficulty and what might be a potential cure for these problems.
Along Lake Erie and Lake St. Clair, and indeed-to bring it into context with what the hon. member has said-along the Detroit River and the St. Clair River there has been substantial damage caused by high water. Much damage is experienced from year to year as a result of wind conditions and shipping in this area. I suggest that the federal government, by its proposals and policies described by the parliamentary secretary, has recognized that in certain cases, in fact, the damage has been caused or has resulted from the construction of some type of federal work or work it has permitted to be done in the navigation area. In many cases the erosion has been caused by wave action.
There is no question that when in the area of $30 million was spent by the federal government on the St. Lawrence River system, Lake Erie, Lake St. Clair, the Detroit River and the St. Clair River, it was spent by reason of the fact that much of the destruction of land and property owned
Environmental Affairs
by private individuals was caused by the heavy wave action resulting from navigation. I have sat beside the river and seen what the wave action of a freighter can do: it is unbelievable.
I think the policy of the federal government, that there must be some reparation in respect of this type of damage, is sound. However, when I find in fact that there is no heavy shipping on Lake Winnipeg, I find it difficult to believe that the hon. member opposite can make the same point that is applicable to the St. Clair and the Detroit River system in respect of Lake Winnipeg and its shoreline. I was interested when the hon. member suggested that many engineering studies had taken place and that some of the conclusions of those studies seemed to be that the groins system might be the answer. He seemed to think this might be the answer for time immemorial, and then he cut down to perhaps 100 years.
I suggest to him that the same type of protection that he described has been tried with respect to Lake Erie. I would advise him that I would be happy at any time to take him into areas on the south border of my riding to show him what happens to the groins. The experience in the area of Lake Erie has been that a groin lasts perhaps 30 years, if you are lucky. They have tried all kinds of groins. They have tried them with timber and the gabion type, being wire mesh, stone filled. The latest method seems to be very large, armoured stone. The force of water is something to behold. It tears these great, man-made gabions out as if they were nothing.
I think of gabions that were put in in my riding less than 20 years ago. Now there is nothing left to bear witness to them except a few pieces of water-torn and ice-torn wood. It is true that there was a certain build-up of sand behind these gabions and then, for a certain period of time, they worked. But with the high water over the past two years, this sand is rapidly disappearing. I, along with the hon. member opposite, would like to be able to call on the federal government to give us some assistance in protecting the land that is rapidly being worn away. However, the fact that my constituents, as well as the constituents of the hon. member, are experiencing the same difficulties does not make it a federal problem. Surely we should look beyond this and consider the total cost as well as the precedent we would be setting in providing the kind of support which the hon. member seeks.
If there are difficulties such as I have described in my riding, and such as those described by the hon. member opposite along Lake Winnipeg, surely the same type of problems exist along all our coasts, inland or otherwise. If the federal government goes beyond the bounds described in its policies, it will enter into what is essentially provincial jurisdiction in protecting these shorelines, and I suggest that the cost would be too high for this fair land of ours to support. Even when expressed by the figure $20 million, which I think the hon. member opposite suggested for one project, if one multiplies that figure by the number of projects which would ultimately come before the federal government, one would be faced with a gargantuan sum.

April 18, 1975
Environmental Affairs
I think that the policy described by the parliamentary secretary is reasonable. It affords the opportunity to the federal government to take its share of the burden and, indeed, to accept the blame if in fact it has been responsible or should have some responsibility. It recognizes that there are certain instances when it is not just nature that is tearing away at the shorelines and that perhaps we should give some assistance; but I think it also does service to the separation of power between the provincial and federal jurisdictions, recognizing that the province has some obligation to do something within its borders as well.
I think recognition of that shared responsibility is accepted by other jurisdictions, and I point specifically to the jurisdiction of Ontario which I know best. The province recognizes, through its special emergency assistance programs, its disaster and relief assistance programs and its shoreline property assistance program-the list is long and I have looked at these various problems because I have experienced this type of difficulty in my constituency-that it has a substantial responsibility.
I suggest to the hon. member opposite that surely the province of Manitoba, in this instance, must also recognize that it has a responsibility, if indeed not the total responsibility, for dealing with the problem which he described. I might have a certain sympathy for the problem of the hon. member opposite by reason of shared experience, but I would have some difficulty in requesting the federal jurisdiction to change its policy position. I think the policy is sound and I think the federal government recognize their responsibilities. They recognize that there are difficulties with respect to shared responsibility with the provinces and that those responsibilities should not be breached.
Before concluding I should like to point out that in addition to the problem in the areas I have described in my riding, and indeed in the Lake Winnipeg area where erosion is taking place, there is the problem of land use and subsoil erosion. In my area there are high bluffs around Lake Erie which have been dropping into the lake. Notwithstanding the fact that for a number of years this process has been going on as a result of natural erosion, this has increased. There is some suggestion in the independent studies that have been made that the cause of this type of fall may be subsoil water that has been created by putting up new subdivisions which have created tremendous subsoil water loads from septic systems which flow toward the lake trying to seek their natural levels, thus creating potential slides which cause great chunks of land to fall in.
I think this example points out the necessity for the investigative program and study that the federal government has undertaken in the Lake Winnipeg area. Taking all these things together, I cannot support the motion of the hon. member although I sympathize with his reasons for bringing it forward. I suggest that perhaps he should seek further assistance from his constituents and from the provincial jurisdiction. For the reasons I have given, I am forced to speak against the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, like the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Daudlin), I am in sympathy with the position stated by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway), but I

have to part company with the hon. member for Kent-Essex with respect to his statement that he would oppose the motion. Indeed, I give it my support. Admittedly, this problem of erosion of the shores of Lake Winnipeg must be shared provincially and federally; no one denies that, least of all the hon. member for Selkirk. It is also my understanding that the government of Manitoba has sought financial assistance from the federal government, and I hope that despite the possibility that this motion may not pass this afternoon, continued consideration and study will be given to this matter.
I can confirm the seriousness of the problem. This erosion is taking place on the west shore of Lake Winnipeg in the constituency of the hon. member for Selkirk, in the area to which he referred from Sandy Hook to Gimli. It also takes place on the east shore of Lake Winnipeg in the constituency of the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), north and south of Victoria Beach.
My interest in this subject of course is not only because of the fact that, like these two hon. members, I am a Manitoban, but also because quite a few people from the city of Winnipeg, part of which I have the honour to represent, have summer homes and cottages on both sides of Lake Winnipeg. When the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Turner) started to make his speech, I thought for a moment that perhaps the battle had been won. As he outlined the new criteria on the basis of which the federal government will make money available, I thought my hon. friend from Selkirk was going to win, but there seem to be different forms of logic around the place. I regret that at the end the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works, speaking on behalf of the government, came down with the negative reply that he gave today.
There certainly are many causes for the situation so far as Lake Winnipeg is concerned. Part of the trouble is because of navigation, but no one of us would claim that is the only reason. Part of it is weather and winds. Last summer, in particular, unusual winds resulted in very severe erosion on both sides of the lake. Some people thought that the trouble might be because of the provincial government's hydro work in the north, but it was pretty clear to the persons who were there that it was when the wind was blowing a certain way that most of the erosion took place.
From what has been said on behalf of the federal government, it strikes me that it recognizes it has to consider causes that are natural and part of the whole development of the surface of the earth, but that it also has to consider man-made causes. On all counts, it seems to me there is a case for the federal government to be interested in and to share the responsiblility of dealing with the problem that faces people on both sides of Lake Winnipeg.
I should like to express once again my support for the resolution presented this afternoon by the hon. member for Selkirk.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine):: Madam Speaker, though I have no direct
April 18, 1975

interest in the erosion around Lake Winnipeg other than that of sharing the concerns of those who live along its shores, and the concern so well expressed by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway), I want to assure that hon. member that I share fully the views he expressed in this House, this afternoon and previously, for, although I do not come from Manitoba, I do represent a riding that suffers extreme erosion damages from the sea.
If I am not mistaken, until 1954 the government had a policy whereby it granted a certain amount annually to remedy, at least in part, this situation which has become most alarming. But since Canada, unlike Africa, has many streams, damages by erosion are therefore very extensive. In 1954 the government, faced with the enormous claims and costs involved-I was told that they could then even exceed the federal budget-decided in its wisdom, if we can call it that, to set guidelines that were described, I think, by the parliamentary secretary, stating the federal government would recognize its responsibility in cases of erosion due to shipping or the presence of structures erected by the federal government.
Those are the same guidelines that have been dinned into our ears for many years, since 1954, and which were reiterated recently by the Minister of Public Works in reply to a question asked by a member of the Social Credit Party. I believe it was the hon. member for Bellechasse.
At Chaleur Bay, in some places, there are 25 or 30 miles between the two shores, that of New Brunswick and that of the province of Quebec. One easily realizes that when a ship goes up Chaleur Bay to reach the ports of Dalhousie or Carleton for example, what impact the wake can have on the bayshore.
This can happen on the St. Lawrence River, relatively narrow at Quebec City and maybe somewhat more a little upstream, but among our criteria was the presence of federal structures. For eight years at least I, for one, have been pleading in favour of the numerous constituents
Environmental Affairs
located between two wharves built by the Department of Public Works and who unfortunately were unable to have protection walls erected to protect their buildings, first the barn and then the house, from falling down into Chaleur Bay.
So my argument is based on the presence of federal structures in the area. There are two such structures: one west and the other east. But that is not enough. The property is valued, and then it is found that such and such a percentage shall be paid by the municipality, another percentage by the owner and the balance by the federal government.
This can no longer be tolerated. As suggested in the motion by the hon. member for Selkirk, the federal government should do something since this is an area of mixed jurisdiction. I would even say it is almost exclusively provincial jurisdiction. Even considering what the federal government did in the past, the province submits this is under federal jurisdiction.
My constituents ask whether the waters are federal. Nowhere have I read that the waters in Chaleur Bay or elsewhere were federal waters. The problem should be settled once and for all, because the province cannot afford it alone. The owner with repairs to be done cannot pay the cost, neither can the municipality. There should be agreements of necessity, as soon as possible, between various levels of government so that the situation may be corrected, which has become very urgent in some instances. If our areas are to be developed, they should first be saved and protected.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: The time allowed for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being five o'clock this House stands adjourned until Monday at two p.m.
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question being put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, April 21, 1975